ELR Citation: ELR 21070
No(s). 84-36-CIV-5 (E.D.N.C. Feb 2, 1990)

The court holds that the Army Corps of Engineers' decision not to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a water pipeline was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, though other federal and state agencies concluded that the project might significantly impact the striped bass population. The court holds that the Corps did not err by failing to accept the recommendations of these agencies to prepare an EIS. The Corps was required to consult with these agencies, but the final decision is for the Corps. The Corps concluded that changes in water flow did not have nearly the effect that fishing had on the striped bass population. The court holds that the Corps was not required by the court's remand order to consider cumulative impacts of potential future uses. Congress did not intend to bar withdrawals from the Roanoke River when it appropriated funds to implement the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act, and the Corps has shown that mitigation measures will result in no impact by the project. The Corps also adequately analyzed Virgina Beach's need for water.

[A previous decision in this litigation is published at 17 ELR 21260.]

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Alan Hirsh, Andrew P. Miller
Dickerstein, Shapiro & Morin
2101 L. St. NW, Washington DC 20037
(202) 785-9700

Counsel for Defendants
John R. Jordan Jr., Robert R. Price
Jordan, Price, Wall, Gray & Jones
225 Hillsborough St., 200 Hillsborough Pl., P.O. Box 2021, Raleigh NC 27602
(919) 828-2501

John F. Kay Jr., M. Scott Hart, James E. Ryan Jr., George A. Somerville, Susan Warriner Custer
Mays & Valentine
Sovran Ctr., 1111 E. Main St., P.O. Box 1122, Richmond VA 23208
(804) 697-1200

Glen R. Goodsell
Land and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 272-8144