Lakes Region Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Slater

• Decision Date: 24 November 1997
• Docket Number: No. C 97-4077-MWB.,C 97-4077-MWB.
• Citation: 986 F.Supp. 1169
• Parties: LAKES REGION LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., Plaintiff, v. Rodney SLATER, as Secretary of Department of Transportation; Robert L. Lee, as Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration; Darrel Rensink, as Director of the Iowa Department of Transportation; and Harry S. Budd, as Director of Project Planning, Iowa Department of Transportation, Defendants, Highway 71 Utilities Board, Intervenor/Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

986 F.Supp. 1169

LAKES REGION LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., Plaintiff, v. Rodney SLATER, as Secretary of Department of Transportation; Robert L. Lee, as Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration; Darrel Rensink, as Director of the Iowa Department of Transportation; and Harry S. Budd, as Director of Project Planning, Iowa Department of Transportation, Defendants, Highway 71 Utilities Board, Intervenor/Defendant.

No. C 97-4077-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

November 24, 1997.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Wallace Taylor, Cedar Rapids, IA, Robert Goodwin of Goodwin Law Office, P.C., Ames, IA, for Plaintiff Lake Region Legal Defense Fund, Inc.

David Ferree, Kerry Anderson, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Iowa Dept. of Transp., Ames, IA, for State Defendants Darrel Resink, Harry Budd.

Willis Buell, Asst. U.S. Atty., Souix City, IA, Helen Mountford, Regional Counsel for U.S. Dept. of Transp., Fed. Highway Admin., for Federal Defendants Rodney Slater, Robert Lee.

Ivan Webber of Ahlers, Cooney, Dorweiler, Haynie, Smith & Allbee, P.C., Des Moines, IA, for Intervenor, Highway 71 Utilities Bd.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON TRIAL ON THE MERITS

BENNETT, District Judge.

                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................1175
                   A. Background .....................................................1175
                       1. The parties ................................................1175
                       2. Procedural history .........................................1176
                       3. The LRLDF's claims .........................................1177
                   B. Statutory Framework ............................................1178
                       1. NEPA .......................................................1178
                       2. Section 4(f) ...............................................1180
                

                   C. Factual Background .............................................1181
                       1. The Highway 71 project .....................................1182
                       2. The environmental assessment ...............................1183
                       3. The preliminary section 4(f) statement .....................1184
                       4. The 1993 addendum ..........................................1184
                       5. The FONSI and final 4(f) statement .........................1185
                          a.  FONSI ..................................................1185
                          b.  Final 4(f) statement ...................................1186
                       6. "Changed conditions" and "cumulative impacts" ..............1186
                II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ...................................................1187
                    A. NEPA Claims ...................................................1187
                       1. Has NEPA been triggered? ...................................1188
                       2. Was the FONSI arbitrary and capricious? ....................1189
                          a. The appropriate standard of review ......................1189
                          b. Application of the appropriate standard of review .......1193
                       3. Changed conditions and cumulative impacts ..................1196
                          a. Impacts identified since the FONSI ......................1196
                          b. Cumulative impacts ......................................1197
                          c. Maywood Bypass ..........................................1197
                       4. Public involvement .........................................1198
                   B. Section 4(f) Claims ............................................1199
                       1. Standard of review .........................................1199
                       2. The Overton Park inquiry ...................................1200
                       3. Application of the Overton Park inquiry ....................1200
                          a. Claire Wilson Park ......................................1202
                          b. The Okoboji bridge ......................................1203
                          c. The Wharf restaurant ....................................1205
                III. CONCLUSION ......................................................1205
                

Competing interests collide in this action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,¹ commonly called "NEPA," and the federal Department of Transportation Act.² On the one hand is the interest in preserving the character and environment of Iowa's Great Lakes Region and the "Okoboji lifestyle."³ On the other is the interest in improving highway safety and access through this popular resort area. As media attention to this case demonstrates, it is no secret that many Iowans have strong feelings about the Highway 71 project through the Iowa Great Lakes Region. There seems to be no shortage of opinions for and against the project among the state's citizenry, let alone among the numerous witnesses who testified in this trial.

At the outset, however, the court must point out that its job is not to weigh these competing interests. Indeed, pursuant to the applicable statutes dictating the standards for judicial review, this case is not about whether the Highway 71 project is necessary, a good or a bad thing for the region, or the "right" way to do it if some change is required. The court may not exercise its judgment "for" or "against" the project. The court is not allowed to make a judgment about whether the project is "good" or "bad," nor even whether there is a better way to go about it. Simply put, the court does not sit as a "super legislator" or as a "super highway engineer" entitled to second guess and revise the judgments of the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) or of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) officials—much as the court may be tempted to do so. Rather, by mandate of federal law, the court's role and the scope of its inquiry is much narrower and more constrained. At bottom, the court must decide whether the decision of the Iowa DOT and the FHWA to conduct only a comparatively limited environmental assessment (EA) rather than a more comprehensive environmental impact statement (EIS), and their further decision that the Highway 71 project has no significant environmental impact, are arbitrary and capricious.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background

The plaintiff, Lakes Region Legal Defense Fund ("LRLDF"), challenges the defendants' decision to widen and improve an approximate six mile stretch of U.S. Highway 71 in the Great Lakes Region of northern Iowa. Although the plaintiff agrees that certain highway repairs are necessary, it complains that the defendants have failed, under the requirements of NEPA, to prepare an adequate environmental assessment (EA) for the Highway 71 project. The plaintiff contends that the inadequate EA has resulted in an improper "finding of no significant impact" (FONSI) on the environment. The plaintiff maintains that contrary to the recommendation of the EA, a more comprehensive environmental impact statement (EIS) should be prepared before the project is allowed to continue. The plaintiff further complains that the defendants have violated section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act by failing to make a "special effort" to preserve public park and historic sites impacted by this highway improvement project. The defendants deny these allegations. As an initial matter, the defendants contend that insofar as no federal funds have been procured for the Highway 71 project, the procedural requirements of NEPA have not been triggered. They further maintain that even if NEPA does apply to the Highway 71 project, the agency's FONSI determination was not arbitrary and capricious. As to the section 4(f) allegations, the defendants assert that they have fully complied with the statutory requirements and have properly determined that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to using these sites.

The court will begin with an introduction of the parties involved, a review of the relevant procedural history, and a recitation of the LRLDF's contentions. Next, the court will discuss the statutory frameworks applicable to the LRLDF's claims. The court will then set forth the factual background as established by the testimony and documentary evidence presented. Finally, the court will turn to its legal analysis and resolution of the LRLDF's claims.

1. The parties

Plaintiff LRLDF is a nonprofit Iowa corporation, organized to advocate for "governmental policies and decisions which will preserve the unique features of the Iowa Great Lakes Region." Pl.'s Amended and Substituted Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, ¶ 8. Some of LRLDF's members are seasonal residents of the Iowa Great Lakes Region. Others reside there year-round. LRLDF claims that several of its members face immediate harm from the proposed Highway 71 project in that their homes will be displaced by the project and that some of their businesses, located adjacent to the current highway, will be destroyed or seriously affected.

There are two sets of defendants. The federal defendants are the Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation and the Division Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. Under NEPA, the federal defendants are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that an adequate environmental assessment (EA) is prepared prior to the commencement of a federally funded highway project. The federal defendants delegated the responsibility of preparing the EA to the state defendants in this case.⁴ The state defendants are the Director of the Iowa Department of Transportation and the Director of Project Planning, Iowa Department of Transportation.

The intervenor/defendant is the Highway 71 Utilities Board ("Utilities Board"). The Utilities Board is an entity created pursuant to the provisions of Iowa Code Chapter 28E. Its members are the City of Arnolds Park, Iowa, the City of Okoboji, Iowa, the Iowa Great Lakes Sanitary District, and the Iowa Department of Transportation. The Utilities Board was organized for the purpose of designing a master plan for the underground utilities necessary for the...