Description: Challenge to approval of a highway project in Riverside County in California.
-
Center for Biological Diversity v. Federal Highway Administration
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/05/2018 Order Order issued granting voluntary dismissal. 06/29/2018 Settlement Agreement Download Settlement reached. Settlement Resolved State and Federal Challenges to Riverside County Highway Projects. The Center for Biological Diversity and other groups reached a settlement with the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the California Department of Transportation that resolved three lawsuits concerning highway projects in Riverside County. In one of the lawsuits, brought in federal court, the court in May 2017 granted summary judgment to the Federal Highway Administration and other defendants, finding, among other things, that the defendants considered a reasonable range of alternatives, including alternatives that the plaintiffs contended could have reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The plaintiffs had appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit. The settlement agreement provided for a number of mitigation measures, including investment in solar installations at transit station parking lots, requirements to only fund zero or near-zero emission buses, analysis of rail systems to reduce vehicle miles traveled, and funding of financial incentives to increase public transit and vanpools. -
Center for Biological Diversity v. Federal Highway Administration
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/11/2017 Ruling Download Judgment entered for defendants. California Federal Court Rejected Challenge to Riverside County Highway Project. 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. 09/22/2016 Memorandum Download Memorandum of points and authorities filed by plaintiffs in support of motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Sought Summary Judgment in Case Challenging Riverside County Highway Project. 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. 01/22/2016 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Plaintiffs Challenged California Highway Project, Said NEPA Review Should Have Considered Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Building Materials. 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.