ELR Citation: ELR 20113
No(s). 86-5354 (8th Cir. Sep 14, 1987)

The court holds that route selection for an extension of Interstate 35 in Duluth, Minnesota, did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or §4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. The court first holds that the combined environmental impact statement/§4(f) statement (EIS) did not violate §4(f)'s restrictions on the use of parkland. The EIS describes the effects of the proposed extension on parkland, including the effects of alternative routes considered but rejected. The court holds that the EIS properly excluded from detailed consideration an alternative that would also adversely affect the parkland because of its impact on its aesthetic value. Other alternatives that would not meet the extension's purpose are by definition unreasonable and need not be evaluated in detail. Moreover, rejected alternatives need not employ precisely the same mitigation measures as the chosen alternative, so long as the method used for analyzing the alternatives is rational and consistently applied. The court holds that §4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act does not apply to the Lake Superior shoreline, since it not designated or administered as a public park, recreational area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge. Finally, the court holds that the EIS complied with the requirements of NEPA.

Counsel for Appellant
Gerald J. Brown
Brown, Andrew, Hallenbeck, Signorelli & Zallar
300 Alworth Bldg., Duluth MN 55802
(218) 722-1764

Counsel for Appellees
Donald Muting, Ass't Attorney General
102 State Capitol, St. Paul MN 55155
(612) 296-6196

Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.