Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

Joseph v. Adams

ELR Citation: 13 ELR 20455
Nos. No. 82-1010, 709 F.2d 1504/(6th Cir., 03/10/1983) Aff'd

The Sixth Circuit affirms a district court ruling that a supplemental negative declaration on a highway extension project satisfied the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The court holds that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required on a southern connector route that has been deleted from the official proposal. Although the connector route may be added in the future, an EIS is required only on proposed, not contemplated actions, and the evidence is insufficient to show that the current proposal will significantly affect the area south of the project so as to require an EIS. The court rejects appellants' argument that an interchange should be down-scaled to minimize wetlands impacts, holding that setting the size of the interchange is within the discretion of the agency's engineers. Finally, it holds that the district court properly denied attorney fees and dismissed pendent state claims because all federal claims were decided against appellants.

Counsel for Appellants
Peter W. Steketee
Steketee & Timmons
505 Peoples' Bldg., 60 Monroe Ave. NW, Grand Rapids MI 49503
(616) 451-8341

Counsel for Appellees
Patrick McElmurry, Ass't Attorney General
525 W. Ottawa St., Lansing MI 48913
(517) 373-1124

Edward J. Shawaker
Land and Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 724-5993

Before Keith, Jones, and Wellford, JJ.