Case Law Details
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. FHWA
Project Description:
The Juneau Access Improvements Project involves the construction of a 50.8-mile, two-lane highway from Juneau, Alaska to a new ferry terminal to be constructed at the Katzehin River delta. The proposed highway would be constructed through an old-growth forest, including an inventoried roadless area in the Tongass National Forest, thus requiring the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (Alaska DOT) to obtain approvals and permits from several federal agencies. In January 2006, FHWA and Alaska DOT issue a Final EIS for the project. In April 2006, FHWA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) approving the project. In May 2006, the Forest Service approved Alaska DOT’s request for appropriation of a right-of-way through the Tongass National Forest.
2007 WL 2988013
2007 WL 2988013
U.S. District Court – Alaska
10/10/2007
Juneau Access Improvements Project
Highway
Case Summary
In August 2006, the plaintiffs filed suit against FHWA, U.S. DOT, and the FHWA Division Administrator. The plaintiffs alleged that the agencies committed violations of various federal laws in approving the project. The State of Alaska intervened in the action. The plaintiffs moved for an order augmenting the agency record and compelling the defendants to supplement the administrative record. The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion. In March 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an injunction and summary judgment. The District Court has not yet issued an order on the plaintiffs’ motion.
Key Holdings
Administrative Record
Supplementation of Administrative Record. The District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the administrative record, which it argued was incomplete. The court reasoned that the documents used by Alaska DOT in preparing the NEPA documents and approving the project were “indirectly considered” by FHWA, and thus were required to be included in the administrative record. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the fact that a FHWA staff member did not have personal knowledge of the documents that were considered indicated that those documents should not be included in the administrative record. The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the administrative record cannot include documents that “pre-date” the request for the federal approval that triggers the need to develop an administrative record. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to add “all other documents that constitute the complete record” as beyond the scope of what is required for a complete record.
File Attachment
Download the decision