## Facts

- The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority proposed restoring commuter rail service on the Greenbush Line between Braintree and Scituate, Massachusetts.
- The project required a Clean Water Act § 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to discharge dredged or fill material into wetlands and other waters.
- The Corps prepared an Environmental Assessment under NEPA addressing wetlands, historic resources, noise, vibration, traffic, aesthetics, property values, and related social and economic effects.
- The Corps concluded the project would introduce noise, vibration, traffic, and aesthetic effects in historic neighborhoods, but that mitigation measures would reduce these effects and avoid structural damage to historic resources.
- Based on the EA, the Corps issued a Finding of No Significant Impact and granted the § 404 permit without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement.
- A citizen group opposing the project sued under NEPA and the APA, challenging the FONSI and the refusal to prepare an EIS; the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the administrative record.

## Issues

1. Whether the Corps acted arbitrarily or capriciously under the APA in issuing a FONSI and declining to prepare an EIS for the project.
2. Whether the Corps took the required “hard look” at environmental, historic, and socioeconomic effects—particularly noise and vibration impacts on historic properties and districts—when determining that impacts were not “significant” under NEPA.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for the Corps and related federal defendants and denied the plaintiffs’ request to set aside the FONSI or compel an EIS.
- The court held the EA reasonably considered the relevant factors and supported the Corps’ significance determination.
- The court concluded the Corps’ no-EIS decision fell within the APA’s deferential arbitrary-and-capricious review, given the record and mitigation commitments.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA is primarily procedural; courts review whether an agency took a “hard look” at environmental consequences and adequately explained its decision, not whether the court prefers a different outcome.
- Under the APA, agency action must be upheld unless it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
- An agency may rely on an Environmental Assessment and issue a FONSI rather than prepare an EIS if the record supports a reasoned determination that the federal action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
- Courts generally defer to an agency’s technical judgments (including predictive assessments and the efficacy of mitigation) when the agency considered relevant factors and drew a rational connection between record evidence and its conclusions.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the Corps’ NEPA compliance for the § 404 permit, finding that the Corps reasonably analyzed environmental and historic impacts in an EA, permissibly relied on mitigation, and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in issuing a FONSI and declining to prepare an EIS.


Advocates for Transp. Alternatives, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 453 F. Supp. 2d 289 (D. Mass. 2006)