Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

Grazing Fields Farm v. Goldschmidt

Citation: 11 ELR 20172
No. No. 79-1786-MA, 15 ERC 1285/(D. Mass., 10/24/1980) On remand

On remand from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the district court finds that an alternative route for a highway was not adequately discussed in the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project. The court had previously held, 10 ELR 20293, that on the basis of the administrative record as a whole, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) had adequately dealt with plaintiffs' proposed "upland alternative." In reversing, the First Circuit held, 10 ELR 20533, that under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) an agency's consideration of alternatives must be adequately discussed within the EIS as well as being demonstrated in the administrative record. The district court now finds that the FHWA failed to fulfill its procedural duty under NEPA by providing sufficient discussion in the EIS of the upland alternative. In granting plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and a preliminary injunction, the court directs that a supplemental EIS be prepared to evaluate the upland alternative and to address with specificity the impact of the chosen route on plaintiff's property.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Gregor I. McGregor, Michael A. Leon
27 School St., Suite 603, Boston MA 02108
(617) 227-7289

Counsel for Defendants
Marianne B. Bowler, Ass't U.S. Attorney
1107 John W. McCormack P.O. & Cthse., Boston MA 02109
(617) 223-3181