Ecos, Inc. v. Volpe

No. 73-1508 (4th Cir. November 5, 1973)

A lower court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to issue a preliminary injunction requiring strict NEPA compliance from an ongoing highway construction project. See 3 ELR 20303 for the district court's ruling that NEPA is applicable to the project but that an EIS is not required for certain segments already under construction, since the costs of delay would outweigh any prospective benefits.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Michael K. Curtis
816 Southeastern Building
102 N. Elm Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 27401

Jerry W. Leonard
115 1/2 West Morgan St.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27407.

Roger Smith
Durham Life Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

Counsel for Defendants
Glen R. Goodsell
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530

James B. Richmond Asst. Attorney General
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

William L. Osteen U.S. Attorney
P.O. Box 1858
Greensboro, North Carolina 27402

[4 ELR 20010]

Per Curiam.

This appeal presents the troublesome but transitory question [4 ELR 20011] of the application of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to a high way construction project which was in the course of construction on the date that the Act became effective. See Arlington Coalition on Transportation v. Volpe, 458 F.2d 1323 (4 Cir. 1972). Although it concluded that the Act was applicable, the district court denied a preliminary injunction to require strict compliance with the Act. Under the accepted rules of restricted appellate review of interim relief, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

AFFIRMED.