College Gardens Civic Association v. Department of Transportation

No. 81-2085 (4th Cir. March 22, 1982)

The court affirms a district court decision, 12 ELR 20237, that the National Environmental Policy Act is inapplicable to a locally funded roadway project in Rockville, Maryland. The lower court properly determined that the roadway has independent utility apart from a larger circumferential highways system in which there is federal involvement. As a separate project, the roadway involves no plans requiring federal approval. In addition, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exercise pendent jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims under state law.

Counsel are listed at 12 ELR 20237.

Before Phillips, Murnaghan, and Sprouse, JJ.

[12 ELR 20681]

Per curiam:

The plaintiffs — a homeowners' association and individual homeowners in the College Gardens subdivision of Rockville, Maryland — have appealed the district court's denial of any relief under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., from the construction of Gude Drive, which is planned to go within 100 feet of the subdivision. Although Gude Drive has been planned and funded entirely by the city of Rockville and Montgomery County, the plaintiffs have argued that the construction should be delayed until the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) determines whether it should make an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the road. The plaintiffs advance two reasons why an EIS may be required: 1) Gude Drive is part of a longer circumferential system of roads around Rockville. This system will cross I-270 at two points, which requires FHWA approval, and includes the "First Street Extension Project," to which the FHWA contributed some $3.8 million. This combination makes the system a "major federal action," triggering the requirement of an EIS. 2) Even if Gude Drive is regarded as an independent project, the FHWA may determine that the cumulative effects of the decision to cross I-270 amount to a major federal project requiring an EIS of the entire Gude Drive.

The district court rejected both arguments. It found that Gude Drive and the other segments of the circumferential system had significant independent utility, and determined, weighing all the circumstances, that the various segments need not be treated as a single project for purposes of NEPA. It also found no basis for requiring an EIS for Gude Drive as a separate project, since the local governments have not requested federal approval for the proposed crossing of I-270 and the FHWA has not made plans for such a crossing.

We think the district court properly resolved these issues, and affirm for the reasons more fully set forth by the district court, 522 F. Supp. 377 [12 ELR 20237] (D. Md. 1981). We further find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claim under state law.

AFFIRMED.