Robinson v. Knebel
Citation: 7 ELR 20358
No. No. 76-1459, 550 F.2d 422/10 ERC 1097/(8th Cir., 03/02/1977)
The court affirms a lower court's judgment that the amplified final environmental impact statement prepared by the Soil Conservation Service in connection with the proposed Cane Creek Recreational Development fully complies within the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).Plaintiffs, who are owners of real property located within the proposed project, assert injuries to their environmental concerns as well as their pecuniary interests and thus have standing to maintain this action. Plaintiffs' claims that the impact statement is inadequate are mistaken, however. The discussion of alternatives presents sufficient information for a reasoned choice and thus suffices under the rule of reasonableness. The cost-benefit analysis is likewise sufficient, although not formally expressed in mathematical terms, because the impact statement recognizes, discusses, and weighs the favorable and adverse effects of agency action. The district court was correct in concluding that the decision to proceed with the project was made in accordance with NEPA.
Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Edward W. Brockman, Jr.
Brockman, Brockman & Gunti
609 Simmons First National Bldg., Pine Bluff AR 71601
Counsel for Defendants-Appellees
W. H. Dillahunty, U.S. Attorney; Fletcher Jackson, Ass't U.S. Attorney
P.O. Box 1229, Little Rock AR 72203
Raymond N. Zagone
Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
Joined by Bright & Henley, JJ.