ELR Citation: ELR 20667
No(s). 72-1041-M (D. Md. Jun 22, 1973)

In a consolidated class action the District Court for the District of Maryland holds that NEPA, the Federal-Aid Highway Act, and the Clean Air Act do not apply to the construction of I-170 in the Franklin-Mulberry Corridor, a part of the larger Federal-Aid Interstate System for Baltimore City. The court finds no reason for an injunction to issue inasmuch as the planning and implementation processes had been significantly completed prior to the time the federal laws in question became effective. Specifically the court holds:

(1) The Department of Transportation (DOT) need not file an environmental impact statement on the entire Federal-Aid Interstate System for Baltimore City when considering approval of a sub-project which can and will function as an independent conveyor of traffic within the larger system. NEPA does not require the Department to expand the scope of its decisions or to elevate the unit of decision making to road "systems" when departmental guidelines have defined the scope and units to be individual roads. Still, at some point the Secretary may be required to consider the total environmental impact that would result from the use of a proposed segment in conjunction with other parts of the system already built or planned in the context of the unit-level decision.

(2) The court will not subject the consideration given to alternative locations, including the choice not to build, to an overly rigorous scrutiny under NEPA when the project was near implementation prior to January 1, 1970. Using a six-factor balancing test the court concludes that no question remained at the time NEPA became applicable to the F-M Corridor segment of I-170 except as to the details of how construction was to be carried out. Thus, minimal references in the environmental impact statement to each of the requirements listed in §102(2)(C) will satisfy NEPA's requirement of full consideration.

(3) DOT need not prepare the environmental impact statement on the F-M Corridor project itself, but may rely on a local agency or planning commission to do so where the Department later acts with good-faith objectivity in reviewing and accepting the statement.

(4) Following a substantial inquiry the court holds that it was not plain error, nor arbitrary and capricious for DOT to determine that the planning process carried out on the local level, involving various local and regional groups in an ongoing review of the project, satisfies the requirements of the Federal-Aid Highways Act "3-C process." When considering whether to issue an injunction for up to two years to require further consideration of alternatives to an ongoing federal highway project that has already reached an advanced stage, the court will balance the policies articulated in NEPA against Congress' express interest in the construction of interstate highways, as announced in FHwA. Where such further delay would be unreasonable in light of the progress already completed on a project, the balance will favor construction of the highway.

(5) Neither the Clean Air Act nor PPM 90-4 require state or federal officials to reconsider decisions on ongoing highway projects that have received final approval of plans, specifications, and estimates prior to the time these provisions became applicable. Where the project is nearcompletion already, there is no "Action Plan" remaining to be approved.

Counsel for Plaintiff, MAD
John C. Armor
Suite 425, The Rotunda
711 W. 40th Street
Baltimore, MD 21211

Counsel for Plaintiff, Sierra Club
Alfred H. Kreckman
20th Floor
10 Light Street
Baltimore, MD 21202

counsel for Defendant, Federal
Jean G. Rogers Assistant United States Attorney
Baltimore, MD

Counsel for Defendant, State of Maryland
Lloyd J. Hammond
1400 One South Calvert Bldg.
Baltimore, MD 21202

Counsel for Defendant, City of Baltimore
Lawrence F. Rodowsky
2 Hopkins Plaza
Baltimore, MD 21202

Thomsen and Miller, District Judges