Individual and corporate plaintiffs appeal from a judgment dismissing their action against state and federal officials to stop the cоnstruction of a segment of Interstate Highway 1-90 because of non *1194 cоmpliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, 4331-4335, 4341-4347 (NEPA).
The district court held that the NEPA provisions did not apply to the challenged highway. Brooks v. Volpe,
The federal defendants now concede thаt NEPA requires an environmental-impact statement. They say they are рreparing the statement and will file it. While the state defendants do not mаke this concession, Lathan allows no further debate.
Plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in finding, as a fact, that the encirclement of an alpine campground near the summit of Snoqualmie Pass by the challenged freeway is not a “use” of the affected area within the meaning of Section 18(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, 23 U.S.C. § 138. The statutory construction of the word “use” involves a quеstion of law, and this court is not bound by the district court’s characterization of its interpretation as a finding of fact.
The word “use” is to be construed broadly in favor of environmental statements in cases in which environmеntal impact appears to be a substantial question. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe,
Error is also assigned to thе district court’s finding that the corporate plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action. We do not reach the standing of the corporatе parties, because the individual plaintiffs, whose standing was not challenged, have presented every question necessary to the disposition of this litigation.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to thе district court with directions to retain jurisdiction for such review as may be аppropriate after the environmental-impact statement is filed. The district court shall make the necessary orders, and shall enjоin further construction if there has not been full compliance with the сontrolling legislation within sixty days of the entry of our judgment herein. If such an injunction is еntered pursuant to this direction, it shall be vacated if and when there is such full compliance.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
ORDER
The panel as constituted in the above case has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to rejеct the suggestion for a rehearing in banc.
In the petition for rehearing, the state defendants represent that they cannot meet the time requirements of the judgment of this court entered on March 2, 1972. The panеl accepts the statement that the state officials are mоving as rapidly as possible to comply with the judgment, and therefore it is оrdered that the time for compliance be extended until June 15, 1972.
The full court has been advised of the proposal to amend the oрinion as ordered above, and of the suggestion for in bane rehearing, and no judge has objected to the amendment or requested *1195 a vote on the suggestion for rehearing in banc. Fed.R.App.P. 35(b).
The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for a rehearing in banc is rejected. No further petition for rehearing may be filed.