NEPA Federalization. The plaintiffs acknowledge that the North Eufala Avenue project was being built solely with State funds, but argued that the project had been “federalized” – and thus required federal environmental review – because it is part of a larger project that the federal government had helped to develop and execute. The court considered three factors in determining whether the project had been federalized: Pretext. First, the court considered whether the project had been labeled as a pretext – that is, as a means of avoiding some obstacle in the federal environmental review process. The court found that “[p]retext is not present in this case” because “Alabama did not apply for federal funds and then decide against using them once the federal government expressed reservations about its environmental-impact statement.” The court did note that “the State’s explanations that it did not want to get involved in the federal process do suggest it wanted to avoid federal-environmental standards.” But it held that the “pretext problem arises only when States obviously tip their hand that they believe a road is part of a federal project by submitting an environmental impact statement and then insist it is a state project after failing the federal standards.” Degree of Federal Involvement. Second, the court considered the degree of federal involvement in the project. The court noted that, in this case, the federal government “did not approve the location, conduct an engineering study, plan with the State, or exercise other forms of control over the 0.8 mile stretch.” The court acknowledged that “the federal government did fund an environmental study of a potential bypass around Eufaula about a decade ago” but found this was not enough to federalize the project: “Just because the federal government once offered to fund a segment of a highway does not mean that an alternative plan, proposed ten years later, constitutes a major federal action, especially when there is minimal federal-government involvement in the new plan.” Part of a Larger Project. Third, the court considered “whether the segment at issue forms part of a larger coherent project.” The court noted that the project did have some connections to other widening projects on Highway 431, but held that “this project is more discrete than those found to be major federal projects in other cases. It did not receive a single source of funding at one time, but has been funded in parts. These discrete parts have also occurred over nearly four decades rather than within a short time span. It is also not a bypass or a wholly new project, but rather improvements on an existing road.” After weighing these factors, the court held that the North Eufala Avenue had not been federalized, and therefore ADOT was free to proceed with the project without completing any federal environmental review. The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs “present a strong argument that this historic area should not be put in jeopardy.” But the court concluded that, because this is a non-federal project, the policy question of how to balance transportation and historic preservation concerns “should thus be resolved at the local level—that is, between the State of Alabama and the City of Eufaula.” Because the court found that there was no federal action, it denied the motion for a TRO.