## Facts

- A private operator proposed expanding a ski area within a state reservation, including new and widened ski trails, base-lodge expansion, and upgrades to lifts and snowmaking infrastructure.
- The project triggered review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), including preparation of a supplemental final environmental impact report (SFEIR).
- During review, old-growth forest within the reservation was identified and subject to a statewide old-growth policy; the proposal’s trail layout was shifted to avoid direct encroachment on the identified old-growth area.
- The SFEIR described project objectives (capacity, safety, and accommodating changing skiing practices), evaluated environmental effects (including impacts to vegetation and wildlife), and proposed mitigation.
- The Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) issued findings under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30, § 61 that the project was needed and that all feasible measures had been taken to avoid or minimize environmental damage, and authorized work to begin on lift upgrades.
- Environmental and citizen plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief challenging (i) the MEPA certificate approving the SFEIR and (ii) the Commissioner’s § 61 findings and approval to commence work.
- The trial court dismissed claims against the MEPA Secretary but ruled the SFEIR and § 61 findings inadequate as to trail work, concluding the record lacked substantial evidence and that the plan conflicted with agency management documents and the old-growth policy.
- The Commissioner and the developer appealed; the Supreme Judicial Court took direct appellate review.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs had standing to challenge the MEPA certification and the Commissioner’s § 61 findings, and whether challenges to trail-related approvals were ripe.
2. What standard of judicial review applies to the Commissioner’s § 61 findings: substantial-evidence review or rational-basis (arbitrary-or-capricious) review.
3. Whether, under the proper standard, the SFEIR and § 61 findings adequately addressed project need, alternatives, and environmental impacts, including effects on old-growth forest.
4. Whether the approvals were inconsistent with agency resource-management planning documents and the statewide old-growth policy.

## Decision

- Plaintiffs had standing because the Commissioner’s authorization to commence a significant portion of the project (lift work) made the dispute justiciable; the court also resolved the trail-related questions that had been fully litigated.
- The trial court used the wrong review standard; § 61 findings are regulatory in character and are reviewed for a rational basis, not for substantial evidence.
- Applying rational-basis review, the court held the SFEIR sufficiently addressed purpose/need, reasonable alternatives (including no-build and alternative alignments), and environmental impacts with mitigation.
- The court held the record supported the Commissioner’s determinations that the project was needed and that all feasible measures to avoid or minimize environmental harm were taken.
- The court rejected the trial court’s conclusion that the project conflicted with agency planning documents or the old-growth policy, and reinstated the Commissioner’s approvals.
- The judgment invalidating the SFEIR and § 61 findings was reversed; the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, leaving intact the dismissal of claims against the MEPA Secretary.

## Legal Principles

- MEPA functions primarily as a procedural disclosure and review framework; judicial review is available when agency action effectively permits a project to proceed and plaintiffs allege concrete environmental or recreational injury.
- Agency findings under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30, § 61 that are regulatory (not quasi-adjudicatory) are reviewed under a rational-basis/arbitrary-or-capricious standard; courts may not reweigh technical evidence.
- MEPA requires a reasonable discussion of project purpose/need, feasible alternatives, and environmental impacts with mitigation; it does not demand exhaustive evaluation of every conceivable alternative.
- Agency planning documents and internal environmental policies guide management decisions; an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own plans and policies receives deference absent clear conflict or irrationality.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court upheld the MEPA and § 61 approvals for the ski-area expansion, holding that § 61 findings are reviewed for rational basis and that the environmental review and agency determinations on need, alternatives, impacts, and consistency with management policies were adequately supported and not arbitrary.


Sierra Club v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Env't Mgmt., 439 Mass. 738, 791 N.E.2d 325 (2003)