The Army Corps of Engineers’ ongoing plan to manage the Middle Mississippi River region received a green light from a federal appeals court on Aug. 1 when the court rejected environmental group's concerns about issues such as flooding and wildlife threats.
The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the environmental group's concerns about the river management plan.
The appellate court favored the environmental reviews and examination of alternatives underlying the Corps of Engineers’ decision to ensure that a Mississippi navigation channel exists that is at least 9 feet deep and 300 feet wide.
The National Wildlife Federation sued the Corps of Engineers, alleging that federal officials had failed to follow federal environmental laws when they issued a 2017 supplemental environmental impact statement about the future of the 195-mile stretch of the Mississippi River.
That section of the river has been subject to the construction of manmade structures such as dikes and chevrons, as well as regular dredging, to ensure ships can navigate the channel. But environmental groups argue that the structures make the region more susceptible to flooding, putting nearby cities, farmland and wildlife at risk.
The Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of the Corps of Engineers' review of the project.
“Given the necessary and permissible limits of a programmatic study, we are satisfied that the Corps took the ‘hard look’ required by the National Environmental Policy Act,” the court’s opinion states. “The supplemental statement also assesses the environmental impact of each studied alternative, including anticipated effects on side-channel habitats, water quality, air quality, fishery resources, threatened and endangered species, and human resources.”
The appellate court also held that the Corps acted reasonably in providing a simplified economic analysis to estimate the cost of construction and other river-management activities.
“The Corps reasonably articulated the purpose and need for the project, identified reasonable alternatives that warranted detailed study, and provided meaningful consideration of those alternatives, given the programmatic nature of the supplemental statement,” the court said.