NEPA. Scope of EIS/Segmentation. CART claimed that the Downtown and East End components of the project were actually separate projects, and therefore should have been addressed in two separate EISs. FHWA argued that it had included the Downtown and East End components in the same EIS in order to avoid “segmentation” of connected actions. The court upheld FHWA’s approach, noting that “whether to pursue a single EIS or to connect the actions “requires a high level of technical expertise and is properly left to the informed discretion of the responsible federal agencies.” Purpose and Need. The purpose and need for the project included multiple goals, which all focused on improving cross-river mobility in the Louisville metropolitan area. CART argued that, in developing the purpose and need, FHWA had not sufficiently considered data regarding the economic conditions in minority and low-income communities; CART also argued that FHWA had not adequately re-considered the purpose and need when preparing the SEIS. The court rejected both arguments. It held that the socio-economic data was adequately considered in developing the purpose and need and that “Defendants did not merely re-adopt their previous finding; rather, Defendants conducted a comprehensive reassessment of the Project’s purpose and need to determine whether the previous Purpose and Need Statement remained valid.” Range of Alternatives. Because the Purpose and Need Statement identified a need for two new bridges, the SEIS eliminated alternatives that consisted of building only a single bridge. CART claimed that a single East End bridge, without tolls, should have been studied as a reasonable alternative in the SEIS. The court agreed with FHWA that single-bridge alternatives were not reasonable because they would not meet the Purpose and Need. Impacts of Tolling. The SEIS included a detailed analysis of the impacts of tolling, including impacts on traffic patterns and the economic impacts of the tolls themselves. CART claimed that the SEIS’s analysis of tolling impacts was inadequate for various reasons. The court upheld FHWA’s analysis of tolling impacts: “Defendants took a hard look at the likely impacts of tolling, including the impact of the tolling period on low income and minority populations. Defendants are not required to select the most benign alternative, but must take a hard look at environmental, social and economic impacts in its consideration of alternatives. The Court is satisfied Defendants met this burden.” Bad Faith/Pre-Determination. CART claimed that FHWA had “pre-selected” the route for the East End crossing, implying that the entire NEPA process was carried out in bad faith. The court held that “[t]o the extent that CART’s claim alleges fraud or bad faith, the Court dismisses that contention outright.” Impacts of Tunnel Spoil. CART claimed that the EIS was flawed because it did not identify the specific locations for disposal of waste material generated from excavation of the tunnel. The court held that the SEIS adequately considered the impacts of disposing of the tunnel “spoilage” (the material excavated during construction of the tunnel). Supplemental EIS Based on Cost Reductions. CART claimed that a supplemental EIS was required because reductions in project cost had undermined the justification for tolls. The court held that the reduction in project cost did not require preparation of another SEIS, because evidence in the record demonstrated that tolls still were needed, and thus the premise of the SEIS remained valid. Water Quality/Stormwater Run-Off. CART claimed that the EIS was flawed because it did not adequately describe impacts of stormwater run-off from the East End Bridge on nearby streams, including water quality impacts from road salt. The court held that, even though the SEIS only discussed those impacts qualitatively, it was sufficient to satisfy NEPA. Air Quality Modeling. CART claimed the air quality analysis was flawed because FHWA had used the latest air quality model, known as MOVES. The court held that use of an earlier model, known as MOBILE6.2, was permissible, because the study was performed during a grace period provided in EPA regulations. Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions. CART claimed that the EIS was inadequate because it did not include a quantitative analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions. The court held that a quantitative greenhouse gas emissions analysis was not required under NEPA: “Although consideration of greenhouse gas emissions is patently important, the Court agrees [with FHWA] that Project-specific quantification of greenhouse gas emissions, and their effect on climate change, would be largely uninformative and speculative.” Effects on Low-Income and Minority Communities. CART claimed that the EIS did not sufficiently assess the impacts of tolling on low-income and minority communities in the project area. The court rejected this argument, finding that the SEIS “analyzed a number of studies examining adverse impacts to minorities, encouraged input from low income and minority community representatives, and adopted various mitigation strategies to address the potential for disparate impacts.” Other Laws 23 USC 129 – Authority to Toll. CART challenged FHWA’s basis for authorizing tolling of the downtown bridge, claiming that FHWA’s approval violated 23 U.S.C 129, which defines limited conditions under which tolling can be allowed on federal-aid highways. The court held that FHWA’s approval was consistent with 23 U.S.C 129, because it allows tolling for “reconstruction or replacement of a toll-free bridge or tunnel and conversion of the bridge or tunnel to a toll facility.” 23 CFR 134 – Planning/Fiscal Constraint. CART challenged the fiscal constraint findings made for the MPO’s long-range plan, arguing that the underlying financial plans were unrealistic because they relied on debt financing that extended over many years. The court noted that “[t]he Project’s mixed funding, ranging from federal financing to debt financing, is common for such complex construction projects.” It held that full funding is “available” for purposes of the fiscal constraint finding as long as a financing plan is in place, even if that plan includes long-term borrowing. Clean Air Act Conformity Analysis – Ultrafine Particles. CART claimed that the air quality conformity analysis should have included “ultrafine particulates.” The court found no basis for this claim, because EPA has not designated ultrafine particulates as a “criteria pollutant” under the Clean Air Act, and therefore no conformity analysis is required for ultrafine particulates. Title VI of Civil Rights Act. CART claimed that FHWA and the States had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by approving a project that was discriminatory against minority groups. CART based this argument primarily on the environmental justice analysis in the SEIS, which found that tolling would disproportionately affect low-income and minority groups, primarily because of the adverse economic effects of tolls.
Title VI Claims Against FHWA . The court dismissed the Title VI claims against FHWA, because Title VI requirements apply only to the recipients of federal assistance – in this case, the States.

Title VI Claims Against State DOTs. The court found that plaintiffs could bring Title VI claims against the States, as the recipients of federal assistance, but found those claims without merit because CART had failed to demonstrate that the States engaged in “intentional discrimination” based on race or other protected status: “Indeed, the disparate impact of bridge tolls is a mathematical fact, but is not an indication of discriminatory intent. … [N]o legal authority suggests that such a tax burden even circumstantially shows discriminatory intent. Something more is legally required.”