Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

Grazing Fields Farm v. Goldschmidt

Citation: 10 ELR 20293
No. No. 79-1786-MA, 14 ERC 1310/(D. Mass., 03/12/1980)

The court dismisses an action to enjoin construction of a highway through a wildlife sanctuary pending preparation of a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Following state law, the state prepared an addendum discussing plaintiffs' proposed alternate alignment for the highway, but the alternative was not discussed in the EIS itself. Defendants contended that the entire administrative record, including the EIS, contained an adequate discussion of the alternatives to support the highway route as finally determined. The court agrees that public hearings and detailed studies show that defendants undertook a careful and exhaustive study of the alternate alignment. In the court's view, while the EIS must be prepared in sufficient detail to ensure full disclosure and show that the agency acted in good faith, it need not contain the text of all referenced studies of alternatives. The court concludes that the EIS, taken with the full administrative record, complies with the statutory requirements and supports the agency's decision as to placement of the highway. Thus, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted.

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

Counsel for Defendants
William A. Brown, Special Ass't Attorney General
10 Post Office Sq., Suite 511, Boston MA 02108
(617) 482-1001