Section 4(f)

The project was subject to Section 4(f) because it would use land from Richardson Grove State Park. To comply with Section 4(f), Caltrans relied on the Federal Highway Administration’s programmatic evaluation for improvements to existing highways with minor involvements with public parks. To use the programmatic evaluation, Caltrans was required to obtain the concurrence of the official with jurisdiction over the park (in this case, California State Parks) with its assessment of impacts and mitigation. In 2009, California State Parks sent a letter to Caltrans stating that it agreed with Caltrans that there was no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed alignment through Richardson Grove State Park and that the project included all possible planning to minimize long-term harm to the park’s resources.

Concurrence of Official with Jurisdiction

The plaintiffs alleged that California State Parks did not provide the concurrence required for Caltrans to rely on the programmatic evaluation. In particular, the plaintiffs argued that State Parks’ 2009 letter did not serve as concurrence and that State Parks never concurred with subsequent changes to the project design and mitigation measures, citing a 2013 letter from State Parks raising concerns with the project’s impacts on redwood trees. The court found that it was unclear, based on the administrative record, whether State Parks provided the concurrence necessary for Caltrans’ reliance on the programmatic evaluation. However, after considering declarations from the State Parks superintendent that were submitted to the court during the litigation, the court held that Caltrans received the required concurrence from State Parks. These declarations explained that State Parks had considered project changes and new information since 2009 and that its prior concurrence remained valid. The court explained that although judicial review of an agency’s decision is normally limited to the administrative record, it would consider the declarations under an exception to this general rule for determining whether Caltrans considered all relevant factors in its decision. Based on the declarations from the State Parks superintendent, the court concluded that there was no doubt that State Parks concurred with Caltrans’s assessment of impacts and mitigation and that its concurrence remained valid.

Feasible and Prudent Avoidance Alternatives

The plaintiffs claimed that Caltrans should have selected an alternative that would avoid using land from Richardson Grove State Park. The court held that Caltrans’s Section 4(f) documentation adequately explained that potential avoidance alternatives were infeasible or imprudent:

• Adding traffic signals and restricting U.S. 101 to alternating one-way traffic would cause substantial traffic delays and increase the risk of rear-end collisions.
• Imposing time-of-day travel restrictions for extra-long trucks or adding warning signs would not fix the design of the highway to prevent trucks from crossing into oncoming traffic.
• Building a new road to bypass the park would be at least 60 times more expensive than the project.

In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that Caltrans should have considered the possibility of extra-long trucks accessing Humboldt County via a different highway (State Route 299), which allowed extra-long trucks beginning in November 2017. The court noted that Caltrans published the Final EA and FONSI in May 2017, several months before extra-long trucks were allowed to use SR 299. The court held that even if Caltrans knew that future use of SR 299 was a possibility when it issued the 2017 EA and FONSI, Caltrans was not required to consider this alternative because it would not meet the purpose and need: it would not address structural deficiencies of the existing highway and it would require trucks traveling to Humboldt County from the south to take a 93-mile detour.

All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm

The plaintiffs asserted that the project did not include all possible planning to minimize harm to Richardson Grove State Park because the final approved project did not include mitigation measures that had been proposed in the 2010 EA. The court held that the project included sufficient mitigation.

• Night-Time Construction Work: Caltrans’s 2009 Section 4(f) evaluation explained that night-time construction work would occur only as a last resort if the project fell behind schedule. Noise mitigation proposed in the 2010 EA (which was incorporated into the final 2017 EA/FONSI) included restrictions on night-time construction work, time restrictions on noise-generating activities, noise barriers, and prohibitions on idling of noisy engines when not in use. Caltrans originally proposed restrictions on night-time construction work to protect the marbled murrelet (a protected bird species). The court held that it was reasonable for Caltrans to eliminate night-time work restrictions because subsequent surveys indicated that the species was not present in the project area. The plaintiffs asserted that night-time work restrictions should have been retained to reduce impacts on park staff and visitors. The court held, however, that the 2010 EA and the Section 4(f) evaluation demonstrated that Caltrans adequately considered noise and light impacts and mitigation.
• Pneumatic Excavation: The plaintiffs argued that new information about the use of pneumatic excavation to protect redwood tree roots in the 2013 EA was a substantial reduction in mitigation compared to the measures proposed in the 2010 EA. The court held that the project contained adequate mitigation to protect redwood trees: measures included the use of hand tools where possible, preservation of larger tree roots, invasive species removal, arborist monitoring, and mulching to prevent erosion. The court explained that “these changes came about in no small part due to Caltrans’ consideration of public comments, consultation of experts, and collaboration with the appropriate agencies.”