Court Opinion

ID: 9463118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:58:28.855517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:56.413312
License: Public Domain

SWYGERT, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
In this court’s earlier opinion, Swain v. Brinegar, 517 F.2d 766 (7th Cir. 1975), the majority indicated its disagreement with the district court’s holding that inquiries directed at chemical pollution, alternative modes of transportation, and the effect of removal of farmland from production were questions that have a general significance that extends far beyond the limited project envisioned here. Noting that one of the fundamental purposes of NEPA is to require consideration of such questions of general or broad significance, the court stated that NEPA expressly requires recognition of “the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems,” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E), “the relationship between the local short-term uses of man’s environment and maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity,” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), the fact that each “limited” federal project is part of a large mosaic of thousands of similar projects, and the need to consider cumulative effects in an environmental impact statement (EIS). The court also pointed out that the EIS prepared by the state defendants did not cover a logical length of highway, which in this case would have been the entire Lincoln-Peoria freeway.
Today this court, sitting en banc, has determined that the EIS prepared for the suit project is insufficient insofar as it considers less than the entire forty-two mile segment of FAP 406 which constitutes the proposed federal action being taken in this case. In reaching this holding the court has set forth standards which not only provide a basis for determining the scope of a proposed federal action and its accompanying EIS, but which also strike a balance between the express requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq. (NEPA), and the practical implementation of those requirements. Because I am convinced that much of the insufficiency of the EIS noted in this court’s earlier opinion will be cured by our holding today requiring defendants to prepare an EIS for the entire forty-two mile segment of FAP 406, I concur in the result reached in this case and fully endorse the standards set forth in the majority opinion.
I am skeptical, however, of the procedures which the majority opinion authorizes defendants to follow in preparing a new EIS. In considering the effect of the enactment of Public Law 94-83, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(D), on this court’s earlier opinion, the majority opinion holds that the decision of the original panel can no longer stand in the light of the NEPA amendment. Supporting this holding the majority opinion contains conclusory statements concerning the contents of the record and cites the Second Circuit’s recent opinion in Conservation Society of Southern Vermont, Inc. v. Secretary of Transportation, 531 F.2d 637 (2d Cir. 1976).1 Because a review of the record convinces me that this holding sanctions conduct by the federal defendants which on the basis of the present record, fails to comply with the express requirements of NEPA, I am, unfortunately, unable to agree with this portion of the court’s opinion and suggest that the federal defendants’ failure to comply with the statutory requirements in Public Law 94-83 be *372an additional ground for invalidating the EIS before us.2
The passage of Public Law 94-83 in and of itself does not require a finding of proper delegation of responsibility by the appropriate federal official to a state agency for the preparation of an EIS.3 As noted by the majority opinion, Congress conditioned federal delegation of responsibility for the preparation of an EIS on criteria which would require not only the federal official’s guidance and participation in the preparation of an EIS but also his independent evaluation of such statement prior to its approval and adoption. Thus, by the passage of Public Law 94-83, Congress did not intend to relieve the federal official “of his responsibilities for the scope, objectivity, and content of the entire statement or of any other responsibility” under NEPA. Public Law 94-83, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(D).
The legislative history of Public Law 94-83 serves only to reinforce the statute’s plain language:
[The bill] does not sanction a “rubber stamp” approach to Federal responsibilities, nor does it allow Federal functionaries to sidestep the other responsibilities placed upon them by law including, but not limited to, NEPA. What it does is to encourage adequate inputs of information, and to ensure that a continuing federal presence is mandated to fit that information into a rational and realistic planning and decision-making process. If enacted, H.R. 3130 would have this, and only this effect. (H.R.Rep.No.144) 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975). (Emphasis in original.) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 1975, p. 867.
Keeping in mind the statutory requirements of significant guidance and participation in the preparation of an EIS and independent evaluation by the responsible federal official, a review of the record in this case demonstrates that the federal defendants failed to fulfill their responsibilities under NEPA. In particular, both the administrative record and the district court’s decision and order reveal a complete lack of federal agency input in the preparation of the draft EIS and little more than a “rubber stamp” on the final draft.

Preparation of the Draft EIS

Although the majority opinion states that the record reveals that FHWA “furnished sufficient guidance to the state,” the evidence is meager at best to support a holding *373that the federal defendants complied with Public Law 94-83 by providing the state with significant guidance and participation in the preparation of the EIS. It is not surprising, then, that the district court’s decision contains no findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding this aspect of the federal defendants’ conduct.
Congress made clear that “[t]he involvement of the Federal official should come early and at every critical stage in the preparation of the EIS, and should be substantial and continuous.” S.Rep.No.152, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1975, p. 868. Thus, the fact that the federal official may ultimately evaluate a state-prepared EIS in no way abrogates the official’s statutory duty to offer significant guidance and participation in the preparation of the statement at its early stages of development. The responsibilities imposed on the federal official by Public Law 94-83 are mandatory and inclusive. Anything less than full compliance with the procedural requirements of the NEPA amendment renders the federal official’s delegation of responsibility improper and requires the preparation of a new EIS. There being no evidence in the present record indicating that FHWA or any of its employees assumed a meaningful role in the preparation of the EIS, one which could result in a significant contribution of ideas, the EIS before us is insufficient for its failure to comply with NEPA requirements.

Evaluations of the EIS

There is an abundance of evidence in the record to demonstrate that the federal defendants did little more than “rubber stamp” the state-prepared EIS. The district court’s conclusions regarding the federal defendants’ review of the EIS fall short of satisfying NEPA’s requirement of independent evaluation of the EIS by the responsible federal official. In response to plaintiffs’ claims that the FHWA failed to thoroughly review the EIS after its preparation by the state defendants, the district court noted:
Correspondence between state and federal officials following preparation of the draft EIS, reveals that representatives of the FHWA made thoughtful comments on aspects of the highway project which indicate that they seriously studied the statement. Among other things, they remarked on the loss of 750 acres of farmland and suggested that the EIS discuss the corridor alternates which were considered. The fact that the final EIS was approved without change is not surprising, in that the FHWA presumably voiced all of its criticisms prior to the preparation of the final EIS. 378 F.Supp. 753, 761 (S.D.Ill.1974). (Emphasis added.)
Conduct “presumably” performed by a federal agency can hardly satisfy an express statutory requirement. The record indicates that the comments and criticisms voiced by FHWA officials prior to the preparation of the final EIS were, in large part, brief and insignificant. Many of the comments dealt with the form of the EIS and others were plainly labeled “minor comments.” The comments made by federal officials in response to the final EIS demonstrate a similar lack of serious independent analysis. This is exemplified by one comment which stated, “We agree with the State’s evaluation and disposition of environmental comments as reflected in the final statement.”
The absence of comments by federal officials is also particularly noteworthy. After commenting on the need for the EIS to consider the loss of seven hundred acres of farmland as an adverse effect of the suit project, federal officials approved the final EIS which merely added the following two sentences:
When considering adverse effects, one that should not be overlooked is the loss of over 700 acres of tillable land. This change in land use brings about many side effects that are never fully noted.
As stated in this court’s earlier opinion, there was no indication in the final EIS as to what these side effects might be. Thus, it is clear that the federal defendants did *374little more than offer superficial review of the EIS and did not even bother to make sure that the state officials gave meaningful consideration, much less in-depth analysis, to their few substantive suggestions.
The lack of independent evaluation by the federal defendants is further exemplified by the “detailed discussion” contained in Section VI of the EIS. In the state draft this section, in its entirety, read as follows:
Section VI — Any Irretrievable or Irreversible Commitments of Natural Resources
F.A.P. 406 from Lincoln to Delavan will entail the commitment of natural resources for the construction materials of the project and the diversion of farmland from agricultural production.
The raw materials of highway construction are in plentiful supply, and their commitment should cause no serious concern for long-term allocation of resources. The farmland diverted may be another problem.
Approximately 750 acres would be diverted from agricultural uses. This acreage loss is not considered significant, though, when taking into account the large number of people that the Freeway will serve and the benefits and added safety that will be derived from it.
Because of the influence of the human ecosystem, the natural resources of the environment become a trade-off item, succumbing to the desires of a mobile society. These trade-offs are necessary for the accommodation of mankind.
The final version of this section merely deleted the final paragraph and slightly altered the word sequence of the third paragraph. Similarly, Section V, entitled, “The Relationship between Short Term Uses of Man’s Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Productivity,” originally four and one-half pages in length, appeared in the final EIS without any change whatsoever.
In light of the above, to conclude as did the district court that the FHWA “seriously studied” the EIS is to exalt form over substance and render the statutory requirements of Public Law 94-83 meaningless. Because of the meager record before us and the fact that the final EIS, prepared after review by the federal defendants, was identical to the original state-prepared draft with a few superficial changes and deletions, I am unable to agree with the majority opinion that the draft and final statements were “adequately reviewed” by the FHWA or that “the FHWA complied with the purposes of NEPA, as amended, by accepting and exercising final authority for the evaluation of the environmental impact of the proposal.”
Nor do I agree with the majority opinion that Conservation Society of Southern Vermont, Inc. v. Secretary of Transportation, supra, supports a conclusion that the requirements of Public Law 94-83 have been met. In that case, on remand from the United States Supreme Court, the Second Circuit reconsidered its prior ruling affirming a district court judgment which held that the delegation of authority for the preparation of an EIS by a responsible federal agency to a state agency rendered the state-prepared EIS insufficient under NEPA. 362 F.Supp. 627 (D.Vt.1973), aff’d, 508 F.2d 927 (2d Cir. 1974). In examining the question of whether the state-prepared EIS complied with the requirements of NEPA as amended by Public Law 94-83, the Second Circuit held that the findings of the district court indicated that the conduct of the responsible federal official in the preparation and evaluation of the EIS constituted compliance with the procedural requirements of the NEPA amendment.
Specifically, the court noted that the district court found that “the appropriate federal official ‘maintained frequent contact’ with the state officials” and “was in verbal communication two or three times weekly with the state official primarily responsible for the preparation of the EIS.” The court also pointed out that the “FHWA division engineer undertook a field trip to examine the proposed route, during which environmental considerations were noted and discussed.” In addition the record indicated *375that the state agency prepared the EIS “in consultation with FHWA.” Conservation Society of Southern Vermont, Inc. v. Secretary of Transportation, 531 F.2d at 639. Although the propriety of the Second Circuit’s holding is seriously challenged by the legislative history of Public Law 94-83, as pointed out in an articulate opinion by Judge Adams, dissenting in part,4 it is sufficient for purposes of the instant case merely to note that the record before the court in Conservation Society provides more evidence to support a finding of compliance with the requirements of Public Law 94-83 than does the record before us here. Thus, the Second Circuit’s, analysis of Public Law 94-83 supports the conclusion that the conduct of the federal defendants in the present case failed to satisfy the NEPA amendment.
Because of our holding today which requires the preparation of a new EIS for the entire forty-two mile segment of FAP 406, the importance of the procedures by which the EIS is prepared and reviewed cannot be overemphasized. Both the language of Public Law 94-83 and its legislative history indicate that Congress intended for the responsible federal official to retain a substantial, though not exclusive, role in the development of the EIS. As stated by Judge Adams in Conservation Society of Southern Vermont, Inc. v. Secretary of Transportation, supra:
By Public Law 94-83, Congress has now acted to allow the state agency to prepare the EIS under certain circumstances. But it has imposed a strict requirement of federal control in the process. The federal agency, according to the Congressional mandate, must guide the state agency during the preparation of the EIS. The federal agency must actively participate in that preparation. And the federal agency must review and evaluate the EIS independently, meeting its own responsibility to be fully accountable for the environmental ramifications of the proposed project. These are not duties that are fulfilled easily, or without substantial effort, input, and understanding. Congress has rejected the idea that the federal agency must perform all the work involved in preparing the EIS, but it has reaffirmed the principle that ultimate control must rest in federal hands. 531 F.2d at 644.
Convinced that the federal defendants failed to provide the state either significant guidance and participation in the preparation of the EIS or a meaningful and independent review of the state-prepared statement, I am unable to conclude that the standard of federal involvement mandated by Public Law 94-83 has been met in this case. Therefore, I regretfully disagree with that portion of the majority opinion which concludes that the federal defendants complied with the procedural requirements of Public Law 94-83. However, I fully concur in the remaining portion of the majority opinion.

. The majority states:
The record reveals that the draft and final statements were adequately reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and that it furnished sufficient guidance to the state. The federal participation was not limited to the FHWA, for the appendix to the EIS discloses that the document was considered by each federal agency with an interest in the matter. Most importantly, the FHWA complied with the purposes of NEPA, as amended, by accepting and exercising final authority for the evaluation of the* environmental impact of the proposal.

. Were the federal defendants’ noncompliance with Public Law 94-83 the only ground raised by plaintiffs for reversing the district court’s judgment, a remand to the district court for further evidence on this issue might be appropriate. In light of the majority’s holding, however, it would not be in the interest of judicial economy to require further development of the present record since even if defendants were able to present evidence showing compliance with the statute, such a showing would not cure the insufficient scope of the EIS.

. Public Law 94-83 provides:
(D) Any detailed statement required under subparagraph (C) after January 1, 1970, for any major Federal action funded under a program of grants to States shall not be deemed to be legally insufficient solely by reason of having been prepared by a State agency or official, if:
(i) the State agency or official has statewide jurisdiction and has the responsibility for such action,
(ii) the responsible Federal official furnishes‘guidance and participates in such preparation.
(iii) the responsible Federal official independently evaluates such statement prior to its approval and adoption, and
(iv) after January 1, 1976, the responsible Federal official provides early notification to, and solicits the views of, any other State or any Federal land management entity of any action or any alternative thereto which may have significant impacts upon such State or affected Federal land management entity and, if there is any disagreement on such impacts, prepares a written assessment of such impacts and views for incorporation into such detailed statement.
The procedures in this subparagraph shall not relieve the Federal official of his responsibilities for the scope, objectivity, and content of the entire statement or of any other responsibility under this chapter; and further, this subparagraph does not affect the legal sufficiency of statements prepared by State agencies with less than statewide jurisdiction.

. For an excellent analysis of the legislative history of Public Law 94-83, see Judge Adams’ opinion, dissenting in part, in Conservation Society of Southern Vermont, Inc. v. Secretary of Transportation, 531 F.2d at 640-644.