CITY OF DARDANELLE v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

No. 4:14-cv-98-DPM.

CITY OF DARDANELLE and YELL COUNTY WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY & TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT; RIVER VALLEY REGIONAL INTERMODAL AUTHORITY; and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District, Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 30 U.S.C. § 181
Cause: 30 U.S.C. § 181 Environment: Review of Agency Action
Nature of Suit: 893 Environmental Matters
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

City of Dardanelle, Plaintiff, represented by Richard H. Mays , Richard Mays Law Firm, PLLC.

Yell County Wildlife Federation Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Richard H. Mays , Richard Mays Law Firm, PLLC.

Department of Transportation, Defendant, represented by Amarveer S. Brar , U. S. Department of Justice - Environmental Defense Section, Erica M. Zilioli , U. S. Department of Justice - Environmental Defense Section, Jack F. Gilbert , Federal Highway Administration, Jeremy S. Hessler , U. S. Department of Justice - Environmental Defense Section & Marissa Piropato , U. S. Department of Justice - Environmental Enforcement.

Federal Highway Administration, Defendant, represented by Amarveer S. Brar , U. S. Department of Justice - Environmental Defense Section, Erica M. Zilioli , U. S. Department of Justice - Environmental Defense Section, Jack F. Gilbert , Federal Highway Administration, Jeremy S. Hessler , U. S. Department of Justice - Environmental Defense Section & Marissa Piropato , U. S. Department of Justice - Environmental Enforcement.

Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Department, Defendant, represented by Michelle Lee Davenport , Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Department.

River Valley Regional Intermodal Authority, Defendant, represented by Sherry P. Bartley , Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C..

Department of Defense, Defendant, represented by Amarveer S. Brar , U. S. Department of Justice - Environmental Defense Section, Erica M. Zilioli , U. S. Department of Justice - Environmental Defense Section, Jeremy S. Hessler , U. S. Department of Justice - Environmental Defense Section, Kenneth Rooney , U. S. Department of Justice - Environmental Enforcement & Marissa Piropato , U. S. Department of Justice - Environmental Enforcement.


ORDER

D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge.

The Court must review the complete administrative record that was before the FHWA and Corps when they made their decisions. Voyageurs National Park Association v. Norton, 381 F.3d 759, 766 (8th Cir. 2004). And the Corps' designation of its record is entitled to a presumption of regularity. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 415 (1971). The Court concludes, however, that the plaintiffs have shown the Corps considered information not in its lodged record, No 106, as supplemented, No 116. The plaintiffs have sufficiently identified a document that should have been included, and raised a strong and reasonable inference that other missing materials exist. Committee of 100 on the Federal City v. Foxx, 140 F.Supp.3d 54, 60 (D.D.C. 2015). The Court directs the Corps to produce the following to further supplement its administrative record:

• The "draft response" referenced in the 23 October 2014 email, COE0000476. • Any minutes, notes, or other records from the October 2014 Galveston meeting about the River Valley Intermodal Facility. • Any communications, memoranda, or other records regarding the Southwestern Division's concerns mentioned in paragraph 3 of the 29 October 2014 "Memorandum for Record," COE0000478.

The Corps should produce this information as soon as practicable and no later than 7 July 2017. As soon as the record is completed, the Court will set the briefing schedule. Motion, No 108, as supplemented by No 122, granted as modified.

So Ordered.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases