Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database
Collection

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Erie Unit 2262 v. Federal Highway Administration

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Erie Unit 2262 v. Federal Highway Administration 

20-cv-362W.D. Pa.5 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
12/29/2022
Decision
Defendants' motion for summary judgment granted and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment denied.
The federal district court for the Western District of Pennsylvania upheld the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) approval of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) categorical exclusion for a roadway project in the City of Erie. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the FHWA had failed to examine significant impacts to and from climate change. First, the court said the argument that NEPA’s regulations required consideration of foreseeable indirect impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions from an increased number of vehicles on the road, was “misplaced” because the regulations applied only where an EIS was required. The court also agreed with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) that no regulation or federal standard established that the lack of a greenhouse gas emissions analysis under NEPA rendered an agency decision arbitrary and capricious. Second, the court found that based on PennDOT’s determination that the project was located entirely outside the 100-year floodplain, “it was reasonable to conclude that increased flooding resulting from climate change will not pose a significant risk.”
09/07/2022
Opposition
Opposition filed by federal defendants to motion for preliminary injunction.
08/29/2022
Motion
Memorandum filed in support of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.
09/24/2021
Motion For Summary Judgment
Brief filed in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment in their case challenging the Bayfront Parkway Project, a roadway project in the City of Erie, Pennsylvania, which they argued did not meet requirements for a categorical exclusion under NEPA. The plaintiffs contended that the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) failed to examine a number of potentially significant impacts, including impacts from climate change—both the project’s impact on climate change due to increased greenhouse gas emissions and the potential impact of climate change on the project. Regarding the impact of climate change on the project, the plaintiffs argued that PennDOT should have assessed the project and alternatives for impacts such as soil moisture levels affecting the structural integrity of roads and bridges, damage to culverts and roads during heavy precipitation events, the need for higher design standards to improve resiliency, and an evaluation of historic flooding events and impacts in the study area.