Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Law Blogs -> Showmeblawgs

State Law

: Showmeblawgs

By stan_sipple

Least Terns, Piping Plovers and Pallid Sturgeons win Appeals Court victory over farmers. Eight Circuit Court of Appeals allows Army Corps of Engineers to proceed with dual Spring water surges from Gavins Point Dam downstream on the Missouri River.
071149P.pdf 02/08/2008 State of Missouri v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 07-1149 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
[PUBLISHED] [Chief Judge Loken, Author, with Riley and Smith, Circuit Judges] The State of Missouri obected to Army Corps of Engineers' plan for a bi-modal release of extra water from Gavins Point Dam near Yankton South Dakota in March and May because the Corps did not issue either additional enviornmental impact statements or specific findings that the Spring dual water release would have no impact. Eighth Circuit affirms because the Corps could proceed without making the additional findings.A substantial change that requires an (supplemental
environmental impact statement) SEIS under 40 C.F.R.§ 1502.9(c)(1)(I) is one that is not ?qualitatively within the spectrum of alternatives that were discussed? in a prior FEIS. an agency?s decision to select a previously rejected alternative is not a substantial change requiring an SEIS if ?the relevant environmental impacts have already been considered.? the EA (enviornmental assessment) comprehensively compared the impacts of the bimodal spring rise in the 2006 Master Manual revision with the spring rise options studied in the (Final Environmental Impact Statement) FEIS and concluded that the bimodal spring rise plan is within the range of impacts previously studied and is not a substantial change from the historical range of release levels on the river. This was the proper inquiry under 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(I). As there is no tenable claim of ?significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns? within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii),7 we agree with the district court that the Corps was not arbitrary or capricious in deciding not to prepare an SEIS.

Full post as published by Showmeblawgs on February 13, 2008 (boomark / email).