ELR Citation: ELR 20062
No(s). 72-2197 (4th Cir. Nov 20, 1973)

The court denies defendants' application for an interlocutory appeal from a lower court's ruling that in a challenge to the adequacy of a NEPA impact statement, the reviewing court is not limited to the administrative record, but may take additional evidence. The controlling authority on this point is Citizens To Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 1 ELR 20110 (U.S. 1971), which states that the administrative record may be supplemented to a limited extent by other evidentiary material. The court notes that while de novo review, as contemplated by plaintiffs, would clearly be inappropriate, the lower court's ruling does not authorize this. For the Circuit Court's earlier decision that the lower court had an obligation to review the merits of the agency's substantive decisions regarding the EIS, see 3 ELR 20132.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Norman B. Smith
P.O. Box 1842
Greensboro, NC 27402

Roger W. Smith
P.O. Box 790
Raleigh, NC 27602

Thomas Schoenbaum
U.N.C. School of Law
Chapel Hill, NC 27514

Counsel for Defendants
William L. Osteen U.S. Attorney
P.O. Box 1858
Greensboro, NC 27402

Wallace H. Johnson Asst. Attorney General
Edmund B. Clark
Irwin Schroeder
Jacques B. Gelin
Larry G. Gutterridge
Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530