Opinion ID: 175346
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Efforts to Restore the Everglades' Historic Flows

Text: On the strength of renewed concerns about the health of the Everglades, in 1989 Congress enacted the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act, Pub.L. No. 101-229, 103 Stat.1946, 16 U.S.C. § 410r-5 et seq. (ENPPEA). The ENPPEA directed federal agencies to research ways to improve water flow in the park, and describe them in a report titled Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park. In 2000, the President signed the Water Resources Development Act, Pub.L. No. 106-541, § 601, 114 Stat. 2572, 2680 (WRDA), outlining the thirty-year Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) that updated the original Central and Southern Florida plan for the Everglades. One element of CERP called for improvement of water flow through the Trail. In June 2008, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued its Final Limited Reevaluation Report and Environmental Assessment (LRR/EA) concerning improvements to the Trail. [10] It concluded that the most effective and economical option of all the ones studied was Alternative 3.2.2.aconstruction of a mile-long bridge at the eastern end of the Trail. The bridge would replace the current ground-level roadbed and would greatly increase the amount of water that could flow southward into the Shark River Slough. On June 18, 2008, the Tribe sued the Corps, claiming that the selection of Alternative 3.2.2.a violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. (NEPA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2 (FACA), and WRDA. For ease, we refer to this case as the NEPA case. [11] The Tribe claimed that the federal government failed to obey federal environmental laws in planning the bridge, in part by failing to prepare adequate statements of environmental impact. Moreover, the lawsuit alleged that higher water levels would flood tribal lands and tree islands. The Tribe asked for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and requested an injunction to stop the construction.