[ { "text": "system\n\nThis appeal involves yet another phase in the continuing saga concerning a corridor for Interstate Highway 90 (1-90) in the state of Washington between the cities of Seattle and Bellevue. The proposed facility consists of an eight-lane, limited access highway consisting of two three-lane roadways for the use of private motor vehicles and a two-lane center roadway devoted to the use of transit car pools and limited general traffic from Mercer Island. The project is 6.9 miles in length located between 1-5 in Seattle and 1-405 near Bellevue, and generally follows the alignment of the existing highway facility in the corridor. The new facility will incorporate a new tunnel immediately adjacent to the existing tunnel through Mt. Baker Ridge, require the construction of a new floating bridge adjacent to the existing floating bridge across Lake Washington, and will contain two extensive \u201clidded\u201d sections in Seattle and Mercer Island. Access to and from the facility is provided by several interchanges throughout its length: to Interstate 5, the western terminus of the project, by a major interchange with the center lane ramp terminating at the existing South Dearborn Street, and at another major interchange at the project\u2019s eastern terminus, an already completed portion of 1-90, tying the facility into Interstate 405, the major north-south highway facility east of Lake Washington.user\n\nIn what state did the case Adler v. Lewis arise?assistant\n\nThe State of Washington" }, { "text": "system\n\nAt the heart of this case are the past and future of the Outer Banks, barrier islands along North Carolina\u2019s Atlantic coast. For decades, the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge (\u201cBonner Bridge\u201d) has provided highway access between mainland North Carolina and the Outer Banks\u2019s Hatteras Island. But the effects of time threaten the structural integrity of the Bonner Bridge, while large storms and changing coastal conditions threaten the viability of the non-elevated portions of North Carolina Highway 12 (\u201cNC 12\u201d) south of the Bonner Bridge.user\n\nIn what state did the case Defenders of Wildlife v. North Carolina Department of Transportation arise?assistant\n\nThe State of North Carolina" }, { "text": "system\n\nThis appeal challenges the district court\u2019s action sustaining the approval by the Interior Department of a lease and plan for a surface mining, coal operation on the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico. The complaint alleges that the Department violated various federal statutes in granting its approval. The case was here earlier on appeal from the district court\u2019s denial of a preliminary injunction. We affirmed and remanded for trial on the merits. National Indian Youth Council v. Andrus, 10 Cir., 623 F.2d 694. After trial the district court made comprehensive findings of fact and conclusions of law in a published opinion, 501 F.Supp. 649, which denied a permanent injunction, and dismissed the action. We affirm. The plaintiffs-appellants are the National Indian Youth Council, a non-profit organization, and several individual Navajo Indians. The defendants-appellees are the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (Interior), various officials of Interior, and the lessees Consolidation Coal Company and El Paso Natural Gas Company (together, ConPaso) which were permitted to intervene as defendants. The Navajo Nation (the Tribe), has not been joined as a party. The complaint sought both a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The record is voluminous and complex. The plaintiffs\u2019 attack centers on alleged non-compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 4321 et seq.; The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201 et seq.; the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. \u00a7 470 et seq.; and various regulations under those Acts.user\n\nIn what state did the case National Indian Youth Council v. Watt arise?assistant\n\nThe state of New Mexico" } ]