Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON TRIAL ON THE MERITS BENNETT, District Judge. TABLE OF I.INTRODUCTION........................................................1175 A Background..........................................................1175 1. The parties ......................................................1175 2. Procedural history ...'.............................................1176 3. The LRLDF’s claims..............................................1177 B. Statutory Framework..................................................1178 1. NEPA ..........................................................1178 2. Section 4(f) ......................................................1180 C. Factual Background...................................................1181 1. The Highway 71 project...........................................1182 2. The environmental assessment.....................................1183 3. The preliminary section 4(f) statement...............................1184 4. The 1993 addendum...............................................1184 5. The FONSI and final 4(f) statement.................................1185 a. FONSI......................................................1185 b. Final 4(f) statement...........................................1186 6. “Changed conditions” and “cumulative impacts”.......................1186 II.LEGAL ANALYSIS ......................................................1187 A. NEPA Claims........................................................1187 1. Has NEPA been triggered?........................................1188 2. Was the FONSI arbitrary and capricious? ...........................1189 a. The appropriate standard of review..............................1189 b. Application of the appropriate standard of review..................1193 3. Changed conditions and cumulative impacts..........................1196 a. Impacts identified since the FONSI .............................1196 b. Cumulative impacts............................................1197 c. Maywood Bypass..............................................1197 4. Public involvement................................................1198 B. Section 4(f) Claims....................................................1199 1. Standard of review..................!.............................1199 2. The Overton Park inquiry..........................................1200 3. Application of the Overton Park inquiry .............................1200 a. Claire Wilson Park............................................1202 b. The Okoboji bridge............................................1203 c. The Wharf restaurant..........................................1205 III.CONCLUSION...........................................................1205 Competing interests collide in this action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, commonly called “NEPA,” and the federal Department of Transportation Act. On the one hand is the interest in preserving the character and environment of Iowa’s Great Lakes Region and the “Okoboji lifestyle.” On the other is the interest in improving highway safety and access through this popular resort area. As media attention to this case demonstrates, it is no secret that many Iowans have strong feelings about the Highway 71 project through the Iowa Great Lakes Region. There seems to be no shortage of opinions for and against the project among the state’s citizenry, let alone among the numerous witnesses who testified in this trial. At the outset, however, the court must point out that its job is not to weigh these competing interests. Indeed, pursuant to the applicable statutes dictating the standards for judicial review, this case is not about whether the Highway 71 project is necessary, a good or a bad thing for the region, or the “right” way to do it if some change is required. The court may not exercise its judgment “for” or “against” the project. The court is not allowed to make a judgment about whether the project is “good” or “bad,” nor even whether there is a better way to go about it. Simply put, the court does not sit as a “super legislator” or as a “super highway engineer” entitled to second guess and revise the judgments of the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) or of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) officials — much as the court may be tempted to do so. Rather, by mandate of federal law, the court’s role and the scope of its inquiry is much narrower and more constrained. At bottom, the court must decide whether the decision of the Iowa DOT and the FHWA to conduct only a comparatively limited environmental assessment (EA) rather than a more comprehensive environmental impact statement (EIS), and their further decision that the Highway 71 project has no significant environmental impact, are arbitrary and capricious. I. INTRODUCTION A. Background The plaintiff, Lakes Region Legal Defense Fund (“LRLDF”), challenges the defendants’ decision to widen and improve an approximate six mile stretch of U.S. Highway 71 in the Great Lakes Region of northern Iowa. Although the plaintiff agrees that certain highway repairs are necessary, it complains that the defendants have failed, under the requirements of NEPA, to prepare an adequate environmental assessment (EA) for the Highway 71 project. The plaintiff contends that the inadequate EA has resulted in an improper “finding of no significant impact” (FONSI) on the environment. The plaintiff maintains that contrary to the recommendation of the EA, a more comprehensive environmental impact statement (EIS) should be prepared before the project is allowed to continue. The plaintiff further complains that the defendants have violated section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act by failing to make a “special effort” to preserve public park and historic sites impacted by this highway improvement project. The defendants deny these allegations. As an initial matter, the defendants contend that insofar as no federal funds have been procured for the Highway 71 project, the procedural requirements of NEPA have not been triggered. They further maintain that even if NEPA does apply to the Highway 71 project, the agency’s FONSI determination was not arbitrary and capricious. As to the section 4(f) allegations, the defendants assert that they have fully complied with the statutory requirements and have properly determined that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to using these sites. The court will begin with an introduction of the parties involved, a review of the relevant procedural history, and a recitation of the LRLDF’s contentions. Next, the court will discuss the statutory frameworks applicable to the LRLDF’s claims. The court will then set forth the factual background as established by the testimony and documentary evidence presented. Finally, the court will turn to its legal analysis and resolution of the LRLDF’s claims. 1. The parties Plaintiff LRLDF is a nonprofit Iowa corporation, organized to advocate for “governmental policies and decisions which will preserve the unique features of the Iowa Great Lakes Region.” Pl.’s Amended and Substituted Complaint for Declaratory and Injunc- • tive Relief, ¶ 8. Some of LRLDF’s members are seasonal residents of the Iowa Great Lakes Region. Others reside there year-round. LRLDF claims that several of its members face immediate harm from the proposed Highway 71 project in that their homes will be displaced by the project and that some of their businesses, located adjacent to the current highway, will be destroyed or seriously affected. There are two sets of defendants. The federal defendants are the Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation and the Division Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. Under NEPA, the federal defendants are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that an adequate environmental assessment (EA) is prepared prior to the commencement of a federally funded highway project. The federal defendants delegated the responsibility of preparing the EA to the state defendants in this case. The state defendants are the Director of the Iowa Department of Transportation and the Director of Project Planning, Iowa Department of Transportation. The intervenor/defendant is the Highway 71 Utilities Board (“Utilities Board”). The Utilities Board is an entity created pursuant to the provisions of Iowa Code Chapter 28E. Its members are the City of Arnolds Park, Iowa, the City of Okoboji, Iowa, the Iowa Great Lakes Sanitary District, and the Iowa Department of Transportation. The Utilities Board was organized for the purpose of designing a master plan for the underground utilities necessary for the Highway 71 project. It has assumed responsibility for the relocation of utility services along certain portions of the proposed route. 2. Procedural history During the three months that this case has been on the federal docket, it has followed a swift and somewhat unique procedural course. The LRLDF filed its initial complaint on August 27, 1997, seeking declaratory and in-junctive relief against the federal defendants, Rodney Slater, Secretary of the Department of Transportation, and Robert L. Lee, Division Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. LRLDF amended its complaint on September 9, 1997, for the purpose of adding the state defendants, Darrel Ren-sink, Director of the Iowa Department of Transportation, and Harry S. Budd, Director of Project Planning, Iowa Department of Transportation. On September 9, 1997, LRLDF filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the federal and state defendants from undertaking any activity which would adversely impact the cultural, historical, and environmental features it seeks to protect. Approximately two weeks later, on September 25, 1997, LRLDF moved the court to issue a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to prevent the federal and state defendants from destroying or otherwise damaging The Wharf restaurant building in Okoboji, Iowa. After an abbreviated and expedited eviden-tiary hearing, the court granted the TRO on October 3, 1997. It remains in effect as a permanent injunction. During the TRO hearing, the parties advised the court that a parallel state action for injunctive relief was pending in the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County. The parties further advised that all of the evidence in the state court proceeding would apply to the federal court proceeding. A preliminary injunction hearing had already been scheduled in the state matter for October 16, 1997. Mindful of the longstanding relationship of cooperation and mutual respect enjoyed by Iowa state courts and federal district courts sitting in Iowa, this court offered to combine the federal and state proceedings to minimize the time and expense of the parties. On October 16th and 17th, 1997, a joint preliminary injunction hearing was held by this court and the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County in the Dickinson County Courthouse, Spirit Lake, Iowa. The Honorable Joseph J. Straub presided over the state action. Plaintiff LRLDF was represented by counsel Wallace Taylor, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Robert Goodwin of Goodwin Law Office, P.C., Ames, Iowa. State defendants Darrel Rensink and Harry Budd appeared through their counsel, David Ferree and Kerry Anderson, Special Assistants Attorney General, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, Iowa. Federal defendants Rodney Slater and Robert Lee were represented by counsel Willis Buell, Assistant United States Attorney, Sioux City, Iowa, and Helen Mountford, Regional Counsel for the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Intervenor Utilities Board appeared through its counsel, Ivan Webber of Ahlers, Cooney, Dorweiler, Haynie, Smith & Allbee, P.C., Des Moines, Iowa. During the second day of the prehminary injunction hearing, it became apparent that the magnitude of testimony and documentary evidence presented in the federal matter would require a continuance of the hearing. Observing, that the testimony and evidence offered had exceeded the scope of the preliminary injunction motion, the court advised the parties of its willingness to consolidate the preliminary injunction proceeding with a trial on the merits. All parties agreed to proceed in this manner, and additional testimony and evidence, as well as oral arguments, were presented on October 29, 1997, in the Federal Courthouse in Sioux City, Iowa. 3. The LRLDF’s claims As indicated above, the LRLDF asserts claims pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and the Department of Transportation Act. In the flurry of briefs prepared for the TRO hearing, the preliminary injunction hearing, and the consolidated trial on the merits, the LRLDF has advanced a litany of arguments. The court understands the essence of the LRLDF’s claims to be as follows. The LRLDF contends that the defendants’ finding that the Highway 71 project will have no significant impact on the environment (FONSI), and thus that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is unnecessary, is arbitrary and capricious. The gravamen of this complaint is four-fold. First, the LRLDF asserts that the defendants’ FONSI is based on inadequate and incorrect information contained in the EA and its Addendum. Second, the LRLDF contends that the defendants have essentially ignored the impact “changed conditions”, arising after the issuance of the 1993 FONSI, will have on various residences and businesses, a number of mature trees, wetlands, water-quality in East and West Okoboji Lakes, and almost thirty acres of agricultural land. Third, the LRLDF asserts that the EA, its Addendum, and the FONSI patently fail to address the “cumulative impacts” the improvement project will have on the Iowa Great Lakes Region environment. Finally, the LRLDF contends that the defendants have flouted NEPA’s procedural fairness requirements by faffing to create a “fully-informed public” regarding the various project alternatives and their respective impacts. In addition to its NEPA claims, the LRLDF asserts that the defendants have violated section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. The LRLDF contends that the defendants have failed to demonstrate that there is no feasible alternative to destroying the Okoboji Bridge and The Wharf restaurant. Further, the LRLDF maintains that the defendants have not “shown any effort to find feasible alternatives to taking a portion of Claire Wilson Park.” As relief for its section 4(f) claims, the LRLDF seeks a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from destroying the Okoboji bridge and from encroaching upon Claire Wilson Park. As for its NEPA claims, the LRLDF seeks an injunction halting construction on the Highway 71 improvement project until an environmental impact statement (EIS) is prepared, considering alterna-fives and comparing their respective adverse impacts on the human environment in the Iowa Great Lakes Region. At a minimum, the LRLDF requests that this court reject the FONSI prepared by the defendants, and remand this matter to the agency so that a supplemental EA may be prepared. B. Statutory Framework The LRLDF’s claims revolve largely around the adequacy of a number of environmental documents prepared by the defendants in the course of the Highway 71 improvement project. To give these claims as well as the pertinent documents some context, a discussion of the applicable statutory frameworks is warranted. 1. NEPA The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) “declares a broad national commitment to protecting and promoting environmental quality.” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 348, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 1844, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (citing section 101 of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4331). NEPA has “twin aims.” Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 97, 103 S.Ct. 2246, 2252, 76 L.Ed.2d 437 (1983). First, it “ensures that the agency takes a ‘hard look’ at the environmental consequences of its proposed action____” Dubois v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 102 F.3d 1273, 1286 (1st Cir.1996) cert. denied, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 2510, 138 L.Ed.2d 1013 (1997) (citing Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350, 356, 109 S.Ct. at 1845, 1849)). Second, it “ensures that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decision-making process.” Baltimore Gas, 462 U.S. at 97, 103 S.Ct. at 2252 (citing Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii/Peace Educ. Project, 454 U.S. 139, 102 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981). However, NEPA is process oriented, not result oriented: NEPA does not work by mandating that agencies achieve particular substantive environmental results. Rather, NEPA promotes its sweeping commitment to ‘prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere’ by focusing Government and public attention on the environmental effects of proposed agency action.... Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 371, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 1857, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 4321); Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350, 109 S.Ct. at 1846 (“Although these procedures are almost certain to affect the agency’s substantive decision, it is now well settled that NEPA itself does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process.”); Sierra Club v. United States Forest Serv., 46 F.3d 835, 837 n. 2 (8th Cir.1995) (“The purpose of NEPA is to ensure that government agencies act on full information and that interested groups have access to such information. NEPA thus imposes procedural requirements, but not substantive results on agencies”; citing Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 371, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 1858, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989), and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978)). What NEPA establishes is “important action-forcing’ procedures.” Robertson, 490 U.S. at 348, 109 S.Ct. at 1844 (quoting 115 CONG. REC. 40416 (remarks of Sen. Jackson), and also citing S. REP. No. 91-296, p. 19 (1969), 1969 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2751; Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 350, 99 S.Ct. 2335, 2337, 60 L.Ed.2d 943 (1979); and Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 409 & n. 18, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 2729 & n. 18, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976)). More specifically, “NEPA is a procedural statute that requires federal agencies to gather and disseminate certain information before taking any actions that may affect the environment.” Neighborhood Transp. Network, Inc. v. Pena, 42 F.3d 1169, 1171 (8th Cir.1994). “Simply by focusing the agency’s attention on the environmental consequences of a proposed project, NEPA ensures that important effects will not be overlooked or underestimated only to be discovered after resources have been committed or the die otherwise cast.” Robertson, 490 U.S. at 349, 109 S.Ct. at 1845; Marsh, 490 U.S. at 371, 109 S.Ct. at 1858 (“By so focusing agency attention, NEPA ensures that the agency will not act on incomplete information, only to regret its decision after it is too late to correct.”). NEPA’s requirements that the information gathered be disseminated “permits the public and other governmental agencies to react to the effects of a proposed action at a meaningful time.” Marsh, 490 U.S. at 371, 109 S.Ct. at 1858. However, “[i]f the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action are adequately identified and evaluated, the agency is not constrained by NEPA from deciding that other values outweigh the environmental costs.” Robertson, 490 U.S. at 351, 109 S.Ct. at 1846. To put it another way, “NEPA merely prohibits uninformed-rather than unwise-agency action.” Id. In Sierra Club, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals described the process under NEPA whereby federal governmental agencies obtain the “full information” upon which they are to act: [NEPA] requires an [Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ] be prepared for all “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment....” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). If these activities were not adequately analyzed in the [agency’s] Plan EIS, and they constitute a “major Federal action,” a project level EIS may be necessary in addition to the [agency’s] Plan EIS. See, e.g., Salmon River Concerned Citizens v. Robertson, 32 F.3d 1346, 1356 (9th Cir.1994). If an activity is contemplated that does not automatically require an EIS, an Environmental Assessment (EA) may be conducted to determine whether a project level EIS is necessary. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.3-1501.4. An EA analyzes and compares several alternative courses of action, including doing nothing, the “No Action” alternative. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(2)(b). The purpose of the document is to assist in determining whether any of the proposed actions will significantly affect the environment. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a)(1). Sierra Club, 46 F.3d at 837; Neighborhood Transp. Network, Inc., 42 F.3d at 1171 (outlining the same procedures). Federal regulations pursuant to NEPA “specify what kinds of federal actions clearly require an EIS and which clearly do not.” Neighborhood Transp. Network, Inc., 42 F.3d at 1171 (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1500 et seq.). However, “[f|or federal actions that are not in either category, an agency must prepare an environmental assessment (“EA”) to determine whether an EIS is required.” Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E)). An EA is supposed to be “a concise public document.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a); Sierra Club, 46 F.3d at 840. It is supposed to “[b]riefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a)(1); Sierra Club, 46 F.3d at 840. If the EA results in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), no EIS is required for the project, and the project may proceed. Sierra Club, 46 F.3d at 837-38; Neighborhood Transp. Network, Inc., 42 F.3d at 1171. A FONSI “means a document by a Federal agency briefly presenting the reasons why an action ... will not have a significant effect on the human environment and for which an environmental impact statement therefore will not be prepared.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.13; Sierra Club, 46 F.3d at 837 n. 4 (quoting the regulation). 2. Section 4(f) The LRLDF’s second federal claim is' brought pursuant to what is commonly referred to as “Section 4(f)” of the federal Department of Transportation Act. See 49 U.S.C. § 303(c) (formerly 49 U.S.C. § 1653(f)). The provision in question, § 4(f)of Pub.L. 89-670, 80 Stat. 934, was enacted on October 15, 1966, and was originally codified at 49 U.S.C. § 1653(f), but has since been amended and recodified at 49 U.S.C. § 303(c). In brief, section 4(f) requires that, “[bjefore the Secretary of Transportation can approve the use of publicly owned parkland or any land of historic significance, [he or] she must find that there is no feasible or prudent alternative to such use, and that all planning has been done to minimize the harm to such property.” Ringsred v. Dole, 828 F.2d 1300, 1302 (8th Cir.1987). Accord Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 405, 91 S.Ct. 814, 817, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971) (Section 4(f) “prohibit[s] the Secretary of Transportation from authorizing the use of federal funds to finance the construction of highways through public parks if a ‘feasible and prudent’ alternative route exists. If no such route is available, the statutes allow him [or her] to approve construction through parks only if there has been ‘all possible planning to minimize harm’ to the park.”); Alaska Ctr. for the Env’t v. Armbrister, 123 F.3d 1298, 1300 (9th Cir.1997) (“Section 4(f) prohibits ‘the use of publicly owned land of a public park [or] recreation area’ unless the FHWA determines ‘there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land____,’” quoting 49 U.S.C. § 303(c), and also citing Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 405, 91 S.Ct. at 817); Sierra Club v. Slater, 120 F.3d 623, 634 (6th Cir.1997) (citing the statutory language); Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Transp., 42 F.3d 517, 530 (9th Cir.1994) (citing the statutory language). “[T]he intent of Congress in enacting section 4(f) was to ensure that the protection of parkland was given prime importance in considering where to build federal roads and highways.” Id. at 1303 (citing Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 412-13, 91 S.Ct. at 821-22). Indeed, the language of section 4(f) “is a plain and explicit bar to the use of federal funds for construction of highways through parks — only the most unusual situations are exempted.” Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 411, 91 S.Ct. at 821. In appropriate circumstances, federal authorities must prepare what is commonly known as a “Section 4(f) Statement” to show that the Secretary of Transportation has determined that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the parkland and that the harm to the property would be minimized. See 49 U.S.C. § 303(c) (formerly 49 U.S.C. § 1653(f)); 23 U.S.C. § 138; Ringsred, 828 F.2d at 1301. “Section 4(f) property,” which requires the preparation of a statement when it is encroached upon by a highway project, is a “public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge or national, State, or local significance, ... or any land from an historic site of national, State, or local significance.” 23 U.S.C. § 138; Sierra Club, 120 F.3d at 633. When “parkland” is at issue, “[sjection 4(f) is applicable only if the affected land is publicly owned and designated or administered as a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge.” Ringsred, 828 F.2d at 1304 (citing National Wildlife Fed’n v. Coleman, 529 F.2d 359, 369-71 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 979, 97 S.Ct. 489, 50 L.Ed.2d 587 (1976)). Where a complainant proves only that the land is publicly owned, but fails to prove that it meets any of the other prerequisites for section 4(f) treatment, the Secretary has not erred in failing to consider the land to be “section 4(f) property.” Id. “Section 4(f) property” also includes “historic sites”: Section 4(f) by its own terms protects historic sites of local, state or national significance. In order to invoke the protections of 4(f), an historic site must meet the criteria of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 23 C.F.R. § 771.135(d) [now 23 C.F.R. § 771.135(e) ]. Historic sites or structures eligible for inclusion in the National Register are subject to 4(f) protection only when they will be [ ] used in the construction of the freeway project. 49 U.S.C. § 1653(f) (1976) [ (now 49 U.S.C. § 303(c)) ]. Arizona Past & Future Found., Inc. v. Lewis, 722 F.2d 1423, 1429 (9th Cir.1983). Thus, the historic site in question must at least be eligible for inclusion in the National Register before it is “section 4(f) property.” Id. Accord Citizen Advocates for Responsible Expansion v. Dole, 770 F.2d 423, 438 (5th Cir.1985) (“Under section 4(f), property determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places is afforded the same protection as those properties already on the roll.”); Benton Franklin Riverfront Trailway & Bridge Comm. v. Lewis, 701 F.2d 784, 786 (9th Cir.1983) (“Properties determined eligible are ‘on an equal footing with property that is actually listed’ in the National Register” for section 4(f) purposes). A federal regulation defines the procedure to determine whether a site is eligible for inclusion in the National Register for section 4(f) purposes: (e) In determining the application of section 4(f) to historic sites, the Administration, in cooperation with the applicant, will consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and appropriate local officials to identify all properties on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). The section 4(f) requirements apply only to sites on or eligible for the National Register unless the Administration determines that the application of section 4(f) is otherwise appropriate. 23 C.F.R. § 771.135(e). With these statutory frameworks in mind, the court turns to a recitation of the relevant factual background. C. Factual Background The federal and state defendants have submitted a voluminous administrative record which they contend supports the EA, its Addendum, and the FONSI they issued regarding the Highway 71 project. The propriety of the defendants’ reliance on the administrative record is a matter to be resolved in the Legal Analysis section of this opinion. Here, the court will review the factual background as it has been established by the environmental documents themselves, other portions of the administrative record, and explanatory testamentary evidence. 1. The Highway 71 project U.S. Highway 71 (“U.S.71”) is presently a two-lane highway extending north through the Iowa Great Lakes Region cities of Milford, Arnolds Park, Okoboji, and West Ok-oboji, where it meets Iowa Highway 9 in Spirit Lake, Iowa. Often described in this litigation as the “Highway 71 Corridor,” U.S. 71 passes alongside Lower Gar Lake, Lake Minnewashta, and Center Lake, and stretches across the narrow isthmus separating West Okoboji Lake from East Okoboji Lake. Plans to improve U.S. 71 through the Iowa Great Lakes Region began nearly thirty years ago. The original improvement concept envisioned a four-lane improvement, separated by a raised median that was to be developed into a left turn-lane in the cities of Arnolds Park and Okoboji. Various delays plagued the project, and the original concept was revised numerous times. In 1976, the city of Okoboji filed suit in federal court to halt further development and construction of the project because of alleged economic hardships and ecological concerns. The Iowa Department of Transportation (“Iowa DOT”) voluntarily ceased work on the project at that time. In 1977, the Iowa DOT was formally enjoined from undertaking further activity on the project. The injunction was modified to allow the Iowa DOT to continue with the planning, design, application for permits and approval from other agencies, public hearings, and completion of all environmental studies. The State remained enjoined, however, from acquiring any right-of-way and from actual construction. Continuing legal delays and rising construction costs haunted the project until it was deferred indefinitely in 1980. In 1987, planning studies for the lakes area highway improvement resumed. The Iowa DOT Commission subsequently authorized location/environmental studies for the project. Although the plans and specifications have changed over time, the Highway 71 project is essentially an effort to widen certain portions of the existing U.S. 71 to ease the traffic congestion that has developed in this popular resort area and to improve roadway safety. Current plans propose that various sections of U.S. 71 be widened to three, four, and five lane segments along the six mile stretch from where U.S. 71 meets Iowa Highway 86 in the south, to where it meets Iowa Highway 9 in the north. A design schema prepared by the Iowa DOT sets forth the various segments as follows: a Rural 4 Lane segment extending north from the city of Milford (Maywood Bypass); an Urban 4 Lane segment narrowing to an Urban 3 Lane segment from the Maywood Bypass to the Okoboji Causeway; an Urban 3 Lane segment widening to a Rural 5 Lane segment from the Okoboji Causeway north to 175th Street, Okoboji; and a Rural 4 Lane (divided median) changing to an Urban 4 Lane (divided median) from 175th Street north to the U.S. 71 junction with Iowa Highway 9. Another proposed improvement contemplates replacing the historic two-lane concrete cantilever bridge which extends across the isthmus separating East and West Lake Okoboji with a more modern three-lane bridge. A four-lane bypass around the Maywood residential area is also part of the project proposal. Currently, U.S. 71 passes directly through Maywood. The “Maywood bypass” contemplates an approximate 1.2 mile diversion from the existing right of way. Although a sum certain for the Highway 71 project has yet to be calculated, a recent projection estimates the cost of the proposed lane expansions, the new bridge, the May-wood bypass, and other improvements to be approximately twenty million dollars. 2. The environmental assessment The state defendants prepared an EA and a Draft Section 4(f) Statement for the proposed Highway 71 project in 1989. Copies of the EA were submitted by the Iowa DOT to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the United States Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, and the Iowa State Historic Preservation Office for comment. The EA is set forth in a fifty-four page document with an attached forty-six page appendix. It is divided into six primary sections. The first section sets forth a description of the proposed action for the Highway 71 project. Section II is entitled “Need for the Project.” It contains a detailed review of the Highway 71 project’s evolution and background, as well as a detailed description of the present highway, the highway’s sufficiency ratings, traffic estimates, and an accident study conducted on vehicles traveling through the pertinent area of the Iowa Great Lakes Region. Section III is comprised of proposed improvement alternatives listed as: “Division I — Present Alignment Alternate;” “Division I — Maywood Bypass Alternate’; “Division II — Four-Lane Alternate”; “Division II— Three-Lane Alternate”; and “Division III.” Each division discusses the parameters of the proposed alternative and any displacements anticipated by its implementation. Several maps displaying the proposed alternatives are also included in this section. Section IV is entitled Project Impaets/Pro-posed Mitigation. It is subdivided into the following categories: water quality impacts; natural areas and endangered species; roadside trees; air quality impacts; traffic noise impacts; parks and recreation areas; socioeconomic impacts; cultural resources; and hazardous waste. Section V contains a summary of the Iowa Department of Transportation’s view of the necessity of the project and its opinion that the requisite construction will not result in “any significant adverse social, economic,*or environmental impacts.” Section VI sets forth a description of the coordination process and the comments received by the Iowa DOT from the reviewing state and federal agencies. Appendices A and B contain photographs of the U.S. 71 Corridor, as well as a traffic noise analysis. 3. The preliminary section 4(f) statement The Preliminary Section 4(f) Statement prepared by the Iowa DOT is attached as Appendix C to the EA. It is a nineteen-page document, also comprised of six primary sections. Section I essentially reviews the purposes of the Highway 71 project as set forth in the EA. Section II identifies the section 4(f) property implicated by the proposed project as the Claire Wilson Park. A description of the park and its recreational uses is also set forth in this section. Sections III and IV discuss the projected impacts of the highway improvement project on Claire Wilson Park. Section V identifies possible measures to “minimize the harm” to the park area. Finally, section VI reviews the coordination process utilized by the Iowa DOT and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to develop the preliminary 4(f) statement. 4. The 1993 addendum In 1993, a fifteen page addendum was prepared to address proposed improvements, including a revised Maywood Bypass, that were not contained in the 1989 EA. The addendum sets forth anticipated impacts on water quality, natural areas and endangered species, air and noise, and park and recreation areas. It further considers potential socio-economic and cultural impacts, as well as hazardous waste impacts. Proposed mitigation measures to minimize these impacts are also discussed. Additionally, the addendum contains a supplemental 4(f) statement regarding the Oko-boji bridge. The Okoboji bridge was built in 1929. It spans the narrow isthmus between the East and West Okoboji Lakes. The proposed Highway 71 improvement plan calls for the existing structure to be destroyed and replaced by a more modem three-lane bridge. Although it is not a National Historic Landmark, the Okoboji bridge has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places by the Iowa State Historic Preservation Office. The bridge is significant primarily because it is one of the few reinforced concrete cantilevered deck girder structures remaining in Iowa. Three alternatives to using the Okoboji bridge are set forth in the 4(f) statement. The first alternative is the “Do-Nothing” alternative. According to the 4(f) statement, this alternative was rejected as not feasible and prudent because it would not accomplish the “primary objectives of improving the level of service through the Lakes Area and creating a safer traveling environment within the project corridor.” Similarly, the second alternative, “Build on New Location Without Using the Old Bridge,” was rejected as not feasible and prudent because it “would result in extraordinary bridge and approach engineering, construction difficulties, significant environmental concerns, and higher costs.” Finally, the third alternative, “Rehabilitation Without Affecting the Historic Integrity of the Bridge,” was also rejected as not feasible and prudent because it would require the addition of federal safety features that would dramatically alter the appearance of the bridge and thus destroy “an integral part of its overall historical/aesthetic quality.” Additionally, the construction work for this alternative would result in boat traffic between the lakes being blocked for up to one year. The 4(f) statement indicates that the “FHWA will ensure that fully adequate records are made of the bridge in accordance with the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER).” It also states that for purposes of mitigation, a Memorandum of Agreement will be executed by the FHWA and the Iowa State Historic Preservation Office to ensure that the Okoboji bridge is properly recorded pursuant to the terms of the HAER Survey. 5. The FONSI and final 4(f) statement a. FONSI On December 15, 1993, the FHWA issued a four-page FONSI for the Highway 71 project. The FONSI sets forth a one page description of the planned improvement. It also states that the proposed improvements will require the “acquisition of approximately 48.5 acres of additional right-of-way and the relocation of one vacant commercial structure, two businesses, and six mobile homes.” According to the FONSI, only 27.6 acres of the right-of-way to be acquired are classified as “prime farmland.” The FONSI further represents that the project will not significantly affect water quality in the Iowa Great Lakes Region, and indicates that “special construction methods and erosion control measures have been proposed to mitigate potential impacts.” As for natural areas, wildlife habitat, and wetlands, the FONSI states that the project will have no effect on these features. The FONSI further indicates that with the exception of the Okoboji bridge, “this project will have ‘no effect’ on cultural resources.” It recites the agency’s determination that although alternatives were considered for avoiding, or at least minimizing the impacts to the bridge, “no feasible alternative to [the bridge’s] demolition existed and that the appropriate mitigation was to record the structure according to the standards of the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER).” Finally, the FONSI acknowledges that the proposed Highway 71 project will require acquiring approximately 0.08 acres of the Claire Wilson Park. This impact, according to the FONSI, is to be mitigated by the purchase of “replacement property” and “several other minor mitigative measures.” The FONSI concludes by stating that: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that this [Highway 71] project will not have any significant impact on the human environment. This finding of no significant impact is based on the attached Environmental Assessment (EA) and Section 4(f) Statement which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an environmental impact statement is not required. Disposition of comments received at the public hearing have been inserted in the EA as an addendum to that document. FONSI at 3-4. b. Final 4(f) statement A document entitled Section 4(f) Determinations And Final Section 4(f) Evaluation identifies the only “section 4(f) resource” implicated by the Highway 71 project as Claire Wilson Park. As indicated in the preliminary 4(f) statement, the proposed project requires the permanent acquisition of 0.08 acres of this property. In addition to a detailed description of the park area and the recreational activities it accommodates, the 4(f) statement sets forth the impacts the proposed project will have on the park. A section entitled “Avoidance Alternatives/Other Alternates Considered” delineates the other alternatives considered for the Highway 71 improvements through the causeway area as well as the “Do-Nothing” alternative, and states that these concepts were rejected because they were “either poorly suited to satisfying the need for the project; were disruptive to existing community facilities, including the park; were detrimental to future development; or were not geometrically practicable.” Mitigation action is also discussed in the 4(f) statement. Specifically, the statement indicates that the Iowa DOT will provide replacement land immediately south of, and adjoining Claire Wilson Park on a “square foot for square foot basis for [the land] permanently displaced by the proposed highway improvement.” The 4(f) statement notes that the anticipated replacement land is vacant, and that the building formerly located there has been removed. Other mitigation and enhancement measures include the construction of a sidewalk on the new bridge to facilitate pedestrian access through the area, the use of temporary and permanent erosion control devices in the area, construction of curbs as well as intake and storm sewers to control surface runoff, and the creation of a curbed' entrance to control ingress and egress. Finally, the final 4(f) statement reviews the coordination process undertaken by the Iowa DOT, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. The statement represents that all three agencies “concur that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed action and to the measures to be undertaken to mitigate for the acquisition of a small strip of land from park site.” 6. “Changed conditions” and “cumulative impacts” The LRLDF has identified several examples of what it terms “changed conditions” in the Highway 71 project since the time the EA, the Addendum to the EA, the FONSI, and the Final 4(f) Statement were prepared. Two of the changed conditions concern the Highway 71 project’s use of settling basins. According to the EA, five settling basins were originally contemplated for the project. Current plans indicate that eight settling basins will be created. The EA also represented that one of the settling basins would be positioned on the east side of U.S. 71, just north of the causeway. Presently, a Kentucky Fried Chicken is located in this area. The project now proposes to locate that settling basin across the highway on the west side of U.S. 71, on property currently occupied by The Wharf restaurant. Another changed condition involves the drainage of storm sewers. At the time the EA was prepared, project plans indicated that the storm sewers would discharge into East Lake Okoboji. Project plans now reveal that the storm sewer system will empty into West Lake Okoboji. Other changed conditions concern the displacement of homes and businesses along the proposed improvement route. The Addendum to the EA states that only two businesses and one vacant building would be displaced by the project. Present plans indicate that twelve businesses are now slotted for displacement. Further, the Addendum represented that no residences would be displaced. Seven residences are currently slotted for displacement. The amount of right-of-way to be acquired for the Highway 71 project also constitutes a changed condition. The original EA did not indicate that the improvements in the cities of Arnolds Park and Okoboji would extend beyond the existing right-of-way of U.S. 71. Present plans do involve an extension beyond the existing right-of-way. Further, the EA Addendum stated that approximately 48.5 acres of right-of-way were to be acquired. Iowa DOT project engineer, James Bump, testified that the project now calls for the acquisition of approximately 92 acres. The mitigation replacement land for the identified section 4(f) property has also changed since the preparation of the EA. Originally, the replacement land for the land taken from Claire Wilson Park was planned to be the adjacent land, immediately south of the park area. The project now calls for a portion of The Wharf property to be used for section 4(f) mitigation purposes. The LRLDF contends that all of the impacts it has identified will individually have a significant impact on the environment. This assertion notwithstanding, the LRLDF argues that even if the impacts are not significant when considered individually, when the following impacts are considered in the aggregate, they most certainly rise to the level of a significant impact on the environment: 1. Over 27 acres of prime farmland being taken; 2. Over 380 trees being taken just in Arnolds Park and Okoboji alone. This does not include an unknown number of trees taken for the rest of the project; 3. Some 8.5 acres of wetlands which have been determined just recently even though the delineation process is not complete; 4. A four lane highway segment on a new location [Maywood Bypass]; and 5. Effects on the water quality of the lakes themselves. Plaintiff’s Trial Brief at 13. The LRLDF complains that the defendants failed to undertake the proper “cumulative impacts” analysis of these impacts in either the EA or its 1989 Addendum. II. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. NEPA Claims The LRLDF contends that federal location approval and other prerequisites to the use of federal funds suffice to bring the Highway 71 project within the requirements of NEPA, even if the state defendants have not yet requested federal funds for the project or decided to allocate federal funds to the project. As an initial matter, the state defendants assert essentially a jurisdictional challenge that no NEPA claim arises, because there has been no triggering event to make NEPA applicable to the state highway project at issue. The court will commence its analysis with a consideration of how NEPA requirements are triggered. 1. Has NEPA been triggered? The parties dispute how NEPA requirements are triggered. The LRLDF contends that NEPA is triggered, that is, federal action for NEPA purposes has occurred, when a project such as the one in question here has received location approval from the Federal Highway Administration, citing Indian Lookout Alliance v. Volpe, 484 F.2d 11, 16-17 (8th Cir.1973). The LRLDF asserts that Indian Lookout Alliance stands for the proposition that, when a state highway agency takes steps to comply with federal regulations that make a project eligible for federal reimbursement, the project becomes a “federal action” for NEPA purposes. The state defendants counter that NEPA likely has not been triggered in this case, because the state highway department has not applied for federal funding for the project and has not yet decided whether it will make such an application. This argument is founded on a decision of another circuit’s court of appeals, which holds that, unless the state is actually receiving or is planning to receive federal funding for a project, preparation and approval of an EIS is not “major federal action” triggering application of NEPA. See Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque v. Barnhart, 906 F.2d 1477, 1481 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1109, 111 S.Ct. 1017, 112 L.Ed.2d 1099 (1991). This court notes that there does appear to be a split in the circuits on precisely what triggers NEPA in cases involving state highway projects. See Save Barton Creek Ass’n v. Federal Highway Admin., 950 F.2d 1129, 1134 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1220, 112 S.Ct. 3029, 120 L.Ed.2d 900 (noting that there is no “litmus test” for what constitutes “major Federal action” triggering applicability of NEPA in a dispute over applicability of NEPA to another highway project); Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque, 906 F.2d at 1480 (noting the same problem in another case involving a highway project). On one side of the apparent split is the decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals cited by the LRLDF, Indian Lookout Alliance v. Volpe, 484 F.2d 11, 16-17 (8th Cir.1973). The court finds that Indian Lookout Alliance can be read for the proposition, indeed specifically states as its holding that “the requirements of NEPA and related acts applied when the State Highway Department sought location approval for the proposed highway.” Indian Lookout Alliance, 484 F.2d at 17. On the other side of the question, however, are numerous decisions from other circuit courts of appeals, stating that NEPA is triggered by actual application for, or allocation of, federal funds to a state highway project. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Slater, 120 F.3d 623, 628 (6th Cir.1997) (“Because the [highway] Project required federal funds, it was necessary to comply with the [NEPA]”); Save Barton Creek Ass’n, 950 F.2d at 1135 (where no federal funds had been requested or spent, no federal approvals have been given, federal authorities had disavowed any interest in the project, but the state had “tak[en] advantage of the FHWA’s early coordination procedure and be[gun] to compile NEPA compliance documentation so as to preserve state eligibility for federal funding,” the court reiterated its prior conclusion that ‘the possibility of federal funding in the future for a project or group of projects does not make that project or projects “major [F]ederal action’ during the planning stages,” citing Atlanta Coalition on the Transp. Crisis, Inc., v. Atlanta Regional Comm’n, 599 F.2d 1333, 1347 (5th Cir.1979)); Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque, 906 F.2d at 1481 (unless the state is actually receiving or is planning to receive federal funding for a project, preparation and approval of an EIS is not “major federal action” triggering application of NEPA); City of Highland Park v. Train, 519 F.2d 681, 694-95 (7th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 927, 96 S.Ct. 1141, 47 L.Ed.2d 337 (1976) (where no federal funds had been applied for to construct a state highway, and the record showed nothing more than a possibility that federal funds would be applied for, NEPA was not triggered). See also United States v. Southern Florida Water Mgmt. Dist., 28 F.3d 1563, 1573 (11th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1107, 115 S.Ct. 1956, 131 L.Ed.2d 848 (1995) (federal advice and technical consultation could not require compliance with NEPA for a local water project where only the possibility of federal funding in the future existed, “even when such funding is likely,” and only “if and when” other federal activities occurred, including federal involvement in settlement and remedial measures, federal participation in research, monitoring, and administration, or federal forcing of dispute resolution mechanisms, would they be sufficient to “federalize” the project and make it subject to NEPA); Macht v. Skinner, 916 F.2d 13, 16 (D.C.Cir.1990) (preliminary federal funding of a “light rail project” to prepare a draft EIS was so small in relation to the ultimate cost of the project that it could not constitute “major federal action” triggering NEPA, where the federal entity had not yet decided whether to assist the state in the final design or construction of the project); Enos v. Marsh, 769 F.2d 1363, 1372 (9th Cir.1985) (where a shoreside deep harbor facility was entirely funded by the state and the federal government exercised no control over the planning or development of the state-funded facilities, NEPA was not triggered); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Coleman, 518 F.2d 323, 328 (9th Cir.1975) (FAA approval of an airport layout plan did not require an EIS, and, by analogy to highway funding cases, where federal funding remained an open option, but no such funding had been applied for or obtained, NEPA was not triggered). This court must necessarily follow Indian Lookout Alliance as the law of the circuit, contrary authority of other circuit courts of appeals notwithstanding. Although the stated holding in Indian Lookout Alliance appears to be quite clear, and would require this court to find as a matter of law that NEPA has been triggered here, the import of that decision is somewhat muddied by the fact that more than just site approval had been obtained in that case. In Indian Lookout Alliance, the issue was stated to be the scope and extent of an EIS relating to the construction of highways “intended to be funded in part by federal funds.” Indian Lookout Alliance, 484 F.2d at 13. Still more specifically, in that case, the state of Iowa had submitted a plan for the construction of highways throughout the state to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) “for informational purposes.” Id. No approval had been sought from the FHWA for the entire system, but Iowa “ha[d] requested federal funding of the northern seven-mile segment of Project F-518-4, part of proposed Freeway 518.” Id. The entire F-518 project had been designed by Iowa to qualify for federal assistance. Id. Thus, at a factual level, Indian Lookout Alliance is not inconsistent with those decisions requiring at least actual application for federal highway funds before NEPA is triggered. However, the court need not decide the interesting question of whether Indian Lookout Alliance can or must be harmonized with the decisions of other circuit courts of appeals. Furthermore, although the parties have argued whether NEPA has been triggered in this case, the court finds that it simply need not resolve that question. This is so, because the defendants have assumed that NEPA applied by preparing the 1989 EA and the 1993 supplemental EA. Unless those steps to comply with NEPA were inadequate, it makes no difference whether NEPA was in fact triggered, because only if those steps were inadequate would the defendants need to raise the defense that they were not required to go through those steps at all. Therefore, the court will proceed first to its review of the adequacy of the FONSI determination in this ease, and will return to what might otherwise be the threshold jurisdictional question only if the court finds that the FONSI was inadequate. 2. Was the FONSI arbitrary and capricious? a. The appropriate standard of review In Sierra Club, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated the standard of review applicable to the question of whether an agency’s FONSI decision must be overturned: As did the district court, we review the [agency’s] FONSI decision under an arbitrary and capricious standard with a concern to determining whether the [agency] considered the relevant factors or made a “clear error of judgment.” Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 824, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). We “must render an independent decision on the basis of the same administrative record as that before the district court; the identical standard of review is employed at both levels; and once appealed, the district court decision is accorded no particular deference.” Lockhart v. Kenops, 927 F.2d 1028, 1032 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 863, 112 S.Ct. 186, 116 L.Ed.2d 148 (1991) (quoting Brown v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 679 F.2d 747, 748-49 (8th Cir.1982)). We must affirm if we find the [agency] took a “hard look” at the project, identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, and made a convincing case for its FON-SI. See Audubon Society v. Dailey, 977 F.2d 428, 434 (8th Cir.1992). Sierra Club, 46 F.3d at 838-39 (emphasis added). See also Audubon Soc’y, 977 F.2d at 433 (identifying these factors in the court’s review, citing Cabinet Mountains Wilderness v. Peterson, 685 F.2d 678, 681-82 (D.C.Cir.1982), and Sierra Club v. United States Dep’t of Transp., 753 F.2d 120, 127 (D.C.Cir.1985)). In Audubon Society, the court found that this “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review was prescribed by the Supreme Court in Marsh, 490 U.S. at 375, 109 S.Ct. at 1860. Audubon Soc’y, 977 F.2d at 433. In its turn, in Marsh, the Supreme Court derived this standard of review from section lOe of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706. Marsh, 490 U.S. at 375, 109 S.Ct. at 1860. Thus, if the court finds the EA adequate, “all [it] need consider is whether the [agency’s] FONSI was arbitrary or capricious,” not the kind of EIS the complainant is seeking. Sierra Club, 46 F.3d at 840. Decisions of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals have not always applied this “arbitrary and capricious” standard to the agency’s FONSI determination,' however. In Missouri Coalition for the Env’t v. Corps of Eng’rs of the U.S. Army, 866 F.2d 1025 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 820, 110 S.Ct. 76, 107 L.Ed.2d 42 (1989), the court had instead stated, The standard under which we review an agency’s decision that preparation of an EIS is not required by NEPA is well settled. The initial burden of proof is upon the challenging party to demonstrate that there were facts omitted from the administrative record which, if true, would show that the permitted project could have a substantial impact on the environment. Ringsred v. Duluth, [828 F.2d 1305,] 1307 [ (8th Cir.1987) ]; Olmsted Citizens for a Better Community [v. United States, 793 F.2d 201,] 204 [ (8th Cir.1986) ]; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska v. Ray, 621 F.2d 269, 271 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 836, 101 S.Ct. 110, 66 L.Ed.2d 43 (1980); Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. Butz, 498 F.2d 1314 (8th Cir.1974) (en banc). If such facts are established, and they are of sufficient significance to warrant shifting the burden of proof, the agency must then demonstrate that its negative determination was reasonable under the circumstances. Id. The test is one of reasonableness — not whether the agency’s determination was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance mth law. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, supra at 1320. Missouri Coalition, 866 F.2d at 1032 (emphasis added). Has the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled Missouri Coalition sub silentio, or is there some other way to account for the application of a different standard in that case? The decision in Missouri Coalition, this court finds, preceded the Supreme Court’s decision in Marsh — the decision establishing the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review — -by approximately two months. That time frame provides at least the beginnings of an explanation for the difference. Nonetheless, in Sierra Club, the decision upon which this court relies for the appropriate standard of review, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals simply makes no mention of the differing standard in Missouri Coalition. See Sierra Club, 46 F.3d at 838-39. That is proba