Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/473-f-2d-346-595914694
Timestamp: 2019-12-15 22:10:02
Document Index: 562938735

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 701', '§ 102', '§ 7', '§ 6', '§ 5', '§ 102']

473 F.2d 346 (8th Cir. 1972), 72-1427, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Froehlke - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 595914694
Docket Nº: 72-1427.
Party Name: ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Robert F. FROEHLKE, Secretary of the Army, et al., Appellees.
473 F.2d 346 (8th Cir. 1972)
Before HEANEY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, [*] District Judge.
The primary question raised on this appeal is whether an environmental impact statement, filed by the Corps of
Engineers in connection with the Cache River-Bayou DeView Channelization Project, complied with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 1 Secondary questions are whether the project violates the Water Bank Act of 1970, 2 the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 3 or 33 U.S.C. § 701a. The trial court answered the first question in the affirmative and the latter questions in the negative. We reverse and remand.
By the Flood Control Act of 1950, 4 Congress authorized construction of the project. Planning funds were regularly appropriated from 1963 to 1971. In July, 1969, a general design for the project was completed. It called for clearing, realigning, enlarging, and rechanneling approximately one hundred forty miles of the Cache River upstream from its junction with the White River, fifteen miles of its upper tributaries, and seventy-seven miles of its principal tributary-the Bayou DeView, for flood control and drainage purposes. The project was estimated to cost the federal government forty-three million dollars.
In 1971, specific plans were completed for the first phase of the project. In July of that year, a contract was let to clear and excavate 6.7 miles of the lower Cache River to relieve backwater flooding. Two million dollars for this phase of construction was appropriated for fiscal 1972 and 1973. 5
The final impact statement, filed on December 7, 1970, is not sufficiently detailed to meet the standards of the Act. It is too vague, too general and too conclusionary. Thus, it cannot form a basis for responsible evaluation and criticism.
The statement does not meet the guidelines laid down by the Council on Environmental Quality or the Corps itself. 6
In this case, a number of alternatives to the proposed project have been suggested by responsible critics, including state and federal agencies and private groups and individuals. These alternatives include (1) acquisition of public lands to mitigate the loss of public access to forest and wildlife resources, 7 (2) flood plain zoning, 8 (3) crop insurance, 9 (4) outright purchase of the fee title to or a flowage easement over the lands in the flood plain, 10 and (5) four plans consisting of various combinations of diversions, floodways, reservoirs, interceptor ditches and levees. 11
This treatment of alternatives is insufficient. Section 102(G) of NEPA states that the Corps should "[ i] nitiate and utilize ecological information in the planning and development of resourceoriented
projects." And § 102(D) of NEPA mandates that the Corps:
Statements on Proposed Federal Actions Affecting the Environment: Interim Guidelines § 7(a)(iii), 35 Fed.Reg. 7390, et seq., April 30, 1970. Accord, Statements on Proposed Federal Actions Affecting the Environment: Guidelines§ 6(a)(iv), 36 Fed.Reg. 7724, et seq., April 23, 1971. And the Corps own guidelines stated that the statement should
EC 1120-2-56 App. B § 5(d), September 25, 1970.
The Corps argues that despite these omissions, its impact statement should be considered sufficient because "at every step of the way, from preauthorization studies through detailed project planning, which includes recent environmental and mitigation studies, the voices of fish and wildlife interests have been heard, considered and reported to Congress." We disagree. Nothing less than a complete impact statement can serve the important purposes of § 102(C)(iii) of NEPA. As the District of Columbia Circuit Court stated in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 834 (D.C.Cir. 1972), "it is the essence and thrust of NEPA that the pertinent Statement serve to gather in one place a discussion of the relative environmental impact of alternatives." Section 102(C) of NEPA requires that copies of the statement "shall be made available to the President, the Council on Environmental Quality and to the public * * * and shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency review processes." A statement which includes a detailed discussion of all reasonable alternatives to a proposed project and their effects, see, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton, supra at 834, insures that agency officials will be acquainted with the tradeoffs which will have to be made if any particular line of action is chosen. A complete impact study is an
integral part of the "careful and informed decision-making process." See, Calvert Cliffs Coord. Com. v. United States A.E. Com'n, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 33, 449 F.2d 1109, 1115 (1971).
Finally, the formal impact statement supplies a convenient record for courts to use in reviewing agency decisions on the merits to determine if they are in accord with the substantive policies of NEPA. To hold that the piecemeal presentation of environmental views to Congress over a period of...