Center for Biological Diversity v. Federal Highway Administration

The federal district court for the Central District of California entered judgment for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in a lawsuit challenging a highway project in Riverside County. Four environmental groups had alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as violations of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. The court ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies for all but two of their arguments. One of the two remaining arguments concerned whether FHWA and the other defendants had considered a reasonable range of alternatives, including transit and high-occupancy vehicle lane options that could result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The court said that the plaintiffs had made incorrect assertions about the defendants’ consideration of alternatives and that the defendants had engaged in “a lengthy and detailed consideration of alternatives” and had given reasons for why alternatives that combined transit, HOV, and roadway upgrades were not viable.

Four environmental groups moved for summary judgment in their challenge to a major highway project in Riverside County, California. In their motion, filed in the federal district court for the Central District of California, the plaintiffs argued, among other things, that the Federal Highway Administration’s review under the National Environmental Policy Act failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, including certain alternatives that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Four environmental groups filed a complaint in the federal district court for the Central District of California to challenge the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) approval of a highway project in Riverside County in California. The plaintiffs alleged that FHWA failed to disclose and evaluate environmental impacts, including increased greenhouse gas emissions. The plaintiffs said that FHWA should have considered greenhouse gas emissions from “all sources,” including building materials, truck hauls, and water trucks. Plaintiffs alleged violations of NEPA, as well as violations of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act because the project did not avoid certain parks and schools.