Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

Red Line Alert v. Adams

Citation: 10 ELR 20314
No. No. 78-2778-S, 14 ERC 1417/(D. Mass., 02/13/1980)

The court rules that the use of construction methods for a subway extension project different from those described in the environmental impact statement (EIS) does not necessarily require that the project be enjoined pending completion of a supplemental EIS. Defendants bear the burden, however, of establishing that the use of blasting rather than mechanical tunnelling will fall within the general noise level parameters set forth in the EIS and upon which approval of the project was based. The court rejects plaintiffs' claims that the project EIS does not adequately cover a change in location of the excavation site, a change in the termination point of the extension line due to reduced federal funding, effects upon nearby park land, and related highway modifications. A further hearing is required to resolve the question of defendants compliance with the noise level criteria; if those criteria are being exceeded, a supplemental EIS may be required.

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

Counsel for Defendants
Donald Anderson, U.S. Attorney
J. W. McCormack P.O. & Courthouse, Boston MA 02109
(617) 223-2845

Stephen M. Leonard, Jose R. Allen, Ass't Attorneys General
Office of the Attorney General, Environmental Division
1 Ashburton Pl., Boston MA 02108
(617) 727-2265

Robert D. City
50 Congress St., Boston MA 02109
(617) 523-3050