ELR Citation: ELR 21205
No(s). 91-0558 HHG (D.D.C. Apr 15, 1993)

The court holds that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), or the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) by failing to submit a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) based on information brought to its attention by a nonprofit group regarding the environmental effects of building a levee system to protect the town of Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, from periodic flooding. The court holds that the Corps is not required to prepare a supplemental EIS, because the allegedly new information does not present a seriously different picture of the environmental landscape of the area. The court holds that the Corps discussion of mitigation measures demonstrates that the agency took a realistic look at the adverse impacts of the project, its discussion of alternative designs was sufficient, and the threat of future Superfund liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act for the city resulting from the project is too speculative to support a claim of arbitrary and capricious agency activity. The court holds that the Corps did not violate the NHPA, because the Corps in planning the project performed eight studies of the area's archeological resources, discussed the project's impact on historic properties, and entered a valid memorandum of agreement. The Corps also did not violate the WRDA, because the statute does not apply to municipalities only tangentially affected by, but not within the project, and all the municipalities within the project have consented to the construction.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Edward L. Rogers, Karen M. Goxem
Rogers, Goxem & Krickenberger
1511 K St., Ste. 811, Washington DC 20005
(202) 628-3330

Counsel for Defendants
James R. Layton, Ass't U.S. Attorney
U.S. Attorney's Office
Judiciary Ctr., 555 4th St. NW, Washington DC 20001
(202) 514-7566