Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. Adams
| Decision Date | 07 December 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ. 4-73-461.,Civ. 4-73-461. |
| Citation | 482 F. Supp. 170 |
| Parties | MINNESOTA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, a Minnesota non-profit corporation; Dakota County Environmental Protective Association, a Minnesota non-profit corporation; and the City of Sunfish Lake; and the State of Minnesota by the Minnesota Public Interest Research Group; the State of Minnesota by the Dakota County Environmental Protective Association; and the State of Minnesota by the City of Sunfish Lake, Plaintiffs, v. Brock ADAMS, Secretary of Transportation; Donald E. Trull, Regional Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation; E. Dean Carlson, Federal Division Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation; Richard Braun, Commissioner, Department of Transportation, State of Minnesota; Merritt Linzie, District Engineer, District 9, Department of Transportation, State of Minnesota; and each and every one of the foregoing individually as well as in his designated official capacity; and the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Phillip W. Getts, Dayton, Herman, Graham & Getts, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiffs Minnesota Public Interest Research Group and Dakota County Environmental Protective Ass'n.
Richard E. Leonard, City Atty., St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiff-intervenor City of Sunfish Lake.
Stephen G. Palmer, Asst. U. S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants Brock Adams, Donald E. Trull and E. Dean Carlson, William A. Caldwell, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., and Eric B. Schultz, Sp. Counsel, St. Paul, Minn., for defendants Richard Braun, Merritt Linzie and Minnesota Dept. of Transp.
This matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiffs, the Minnesota Public Interest Research Group hereinafter MPIRG, the Dakota County Environmental Protective Association hereinafter DCEPA, and plaintiff-intervenor the City of Sunfish Lake, for a preliminary injunction which seeks to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the construction of the final 11 miles of Interstate 494, a part of the interstate highway beltline route which encircles the Twin Cities metropolitan area. In 1974, the plaintiffs and the state and federal defendants entered into a stipulation whereby defendants agreed to refrain from proceeding in the construction or development of Interstate 494 in order to prepare an environmental impact statement in accordance with Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 42 U.S.C. § 4332. A final environmental impact statement (FEIS) has been prepared and approved by the defendants, and as no expiration date was specified in the 1974 stipulation of the parties, plaintiffs have made the present motion for a preliminary injunction to halt construction. Plaintiffs' principal contentions with respect to their motion for a preliminary injunction are that the FEIS is both procedurally and substantively inadequate under NEPA, and that the proposed construction violates the provisions of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), Minn.Stat. Ch. 116D, and the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA), Minn.Stat. Ch. 116B. At the hearing on plaintiffs' motion, the Court orally denied plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. The Court, having considered the entire record, hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). The Court has jurisdiction of this controversy under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1346 and 5 U.S.C. § 701.
MPIRG is a Minnesota non-profit corporation supported by contributions from student members attending various colleges and universities in Minnesota and is involved in various public interest issues, including environmental protection. DCEPA is also a Minnesota non-profit corporation whose members reside in Dakota County, and this organization is likewise engaged in efforts to preserve the environment. The City of Sunfish Lake is a small residential city located in northern Dakota County along the proposed route of Interstate 494.
The individual defendants are various officials of the federal and state agencies the federal defendants and the state defendants responsible for the Interstate 494 construction proposal. The Minnesota Department of Transportation hereinafter MDOT is also named as a defendant.
The proposed interstate highway construction advocated by the defendants involves the building of a six lane interstate highway beginning near 24th Avenue in Bloomington and extending eastward across the Minnesota River and Dakota County to the Mississippi River Bridge directly east of South Saint Paul. The proposed construction would complete the southern component of the Interstate 494 beltline which surrounds the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The proposed highway will run in an east-west direction and contemplates the construction of a bridge across the Minnesota River. Thus, the beginning point and terminus with respect to the present proposal were predetermined, as the interstate highway has previously been constructed west of 24th Avenue in Bloomington and east of the Mississippi River Bridge. The present proposal involves approximately 11 miles of highway construction. Prior to the actual construction, the federal and state defendants must obtain a number of permits from both federal and state agencies.
Dakota County encompasses an area located directly south of the City of St. Paul, east of Bloomington and southeast of Minneapolis, and is bounded on the north, east and west by the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. The northern portion of Dakota County includes the communities of West St. Paul, South St. Paul, Mendota Heights, Eagan, Sunfish Lake, Mendota, and Inver Grove Heights. While commercial and industrial development and the population of Dakota County has continually increased, it has also retained a certain rural character. The major east-west thoroughfare in northern Dakota County is T.H. (Trunk Highway) 110 which intersects with T.H. 13 in the western portion of Dakota County, and eventually intersects with T.H. 55, T.H. 49 (Dodd Road), T.H. 52 (Robert Street), and T.H. 3. T.H. 55 runs generally in a northwest-southeast direction. Interstate 35E, in various stages of construction, is eventually planned by defendants to run in a north-south direction through western Dakota County. The Mendota Bridge crosses the Minnesota River near Mendota, and three highways — T.H.'s 3, 110 and 55 — all intersect in a confined area southeast of this bridge in Dakota County. According to the FEIS, this intersection has currently reached its theoretical traffic capacity. The FEIS indicates that the automobile accident rate at this intersection is consistently among the highest in the eastern section of the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
The alternate selected, alternate B3, was one of three options within the "preferred corridor," which is basically an area which runs in nearly a straight east-west direction consistent with the beginning point and terminus of the already constructed Interstate 494 from Bloomington to the Mississippi River Bridge. The construction of the selected alternate B3 will result in the impairment of some wetlands, vegetation and wildlife, and the use of the completed interstate highway will to some degree contribute to air and noise pollution.
The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the Interstate 494 project was prepared by the personnel of MDOT and ultimately adopted by the Regional Federal Highway Administration on January 23, 1979. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) approved the FEIS in February of 1979. A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) had previously been released, and a public hearing was held on the DEIS in August of 1977. The plaintiffs took an active role in the public hearing with respect to the DEIS, and made their specific objections known to agency planners. Incorporated in the FEIS is a "Final Section 4(f) Statement for Interstate 494," which is necessary because the proposed construction requires the use of land from Fort Snelling State Park. The FEIS and Final 4(f) Statement is a 233 page document replete with tables, diagrams, maps and analysis. The FEIS focuses on five basic alternatives—alternates B1, B2 and B3 (all located within the preferred corridor), alternate A (which is variously referred to as the "historic" alternate and incorporates T.H. 110 in its design) and the "no build" alternative. The selection of alternate B3 by the defendants was consistent with the Metropolitan Council's transportation plan and local and regional comprehensive plans, as well as the initial interstate highway construction proposals which originally surfaced in 1958.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)
The plaintiffs have challenged the adequacy of the FEIS from both a procedural and substantive standpoint under NEPA. Plaintiffs have supplemented their arguments by filing affidavits authored by Gunnar Isberg (now a professional planner and former Director of Planning for Dakota County) and Thomas Loucks (a land use planning consultant for the City of Sunfish Lake). Plaintiffs contend that the FEIS is procedurally and substantively defective because the FEIS fails to demonstrate a need for the highway construction, omits a good faith analysis of alternatives, and fails to analyze certain secondary impacts, specifically the impact of noise on future residential development and the impact of future urbanization engendered by the construction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Marshall, Civ. A. No. 78-359-H.
... ... effect to the instrument as a matter of public policy ... 5.1 Separate ... Account of each Participant shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum compounded on the ... ...
-
Olmsted Citizens for a Better Community v. United States
...persons on notice of the significant impacts on the environment. Iowa Citizens v. Volpe, 487 F.2d 849 (8th Cir. 1973); MPIRG v. Adams, 482 F.Supp. 170, 176 (D.Minn.1979). The plaintiffs raise four specific inadequacies of the EIS: 1) it fails to identify or address the environmental consequ......
-
Citizens Concerned about Jet Noise, Inc. v. Dalton
...are available, absent some showing of environmental significance of failure to use more recent data); Minnesota Pub. Interest Research Group v. Adams, 482 F.Supp. 170, 176 (D.Minn.1979) Likewise, the court finds that plaintiff's arguments regarding the size of the 1999 noise contours are un......
- Morales v. Desmarais