Case Law Details
Tahoe Tavern Property Owners Association v. U.S. Forest Service
Project Description:
The 64 Acres project involves the construction of a transit center in Tahoe City, California. In 1981, the Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation (BR) prepared an EA for the transfer of the 64 Acres to the U.S. Forest Service (FS) pursuant to the Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965. The transfer occurred in 1984. In 1986, FS prepared an EA for transportation improvements to the 64 Acres and issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). The transportation plan provided for a transit terminal on the 64 Acres. In 2000, FS, Placer County, and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency published a final EIS/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the transit center. The EIS/EIR stated that the project would not result in any significant impacts to recreational or visual resources. In October and August of 2000, respectively, FS and Placer County approved the project. In 2006, following an additional review, Placer County certified a Recirculated Final EIR.
2007 WL 1279496
2007 WL 1279496
U.S. District Court – California
04/30/2007
64 Acres Project
Transit
Case Summary
The plaintiffs filed Suit against the FS, the Federal Transit Administration, and the County of Placer, California. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants committed violations NEPA, Section 4(f), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in approving the project. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In June 2008, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal is currently pending.
Key Holdings
Section 4(f)
Joint Planning Exception. The District Court held that the joint planning exception to Section 4(f) (see 23 C.F.R.§ 774.11(i)) applied to the 64 Acres. Under the joint planning exception, Section 4(f) does not apply where property is jointly planned for both transportation and recreational uses. The court noted that from the start of its planning process, FS contemplated that the 64 Acres would be used for both transportation and recreation. The court stated that neither changes to the project nor prior commitments to use the property for recreational purposes indicated that the transportation uses were tentative compared to the recreational uses. Thus, the court held that the exception applied. The court also held that the joint planning exception was properly applied. The court reasoned that the joint planning exception only requires that the transportation planning be documented contemporaneously with its recreation planning, not that the plan must contain a certain level of detail.
Analysis of Impacts. The District Court held that the defendants properly took a hard look at the significance of the impacts of the project. The court reasoned that: (1) displacement of a portion of a trail does not equate to replacement of the trial; (2) the conversion of 2.5 acres of open space was offset by the project’s purpose of providing greater access to recreational amenities with minimal loss of open space; and (3) the EIS rebutted the potential Section 4(f) violation.
NEPA
Evaluation of Alternatives. The District Courtheld that the defendants engaged in an appropriate evaluation of alternatives. Even though the defendants initially failed to consider more off-site alternatives, the court reasoned that the evaluation of alternatives as presented in the Recirculated EIR was sufficient to satisfy the NEPA requirement that the agencies review an adequate range of alternatives. Thus, although the defendants initially violated NEPA by failing to review an adequate range of alternatives, the defendants remedied this violation in the final NEPA documents.
Supplemental EIS. The District Court held that the defendants were not required to prepare a supplemental EIS/EIR following the abandonment of a mitigation measure for the project. The court held that the abandonment of the mitigation measure did not constitute significant new information requiring the preparation of a supplemental EIS because other mitigation measures were adopted in its place. The court further held that even if the defendants were obligated to assess whether a supplemental EIS was required, they satisfied this obligation in an earlier supplementation of the Recirculated EIR.
Litigation Procedure
Injunction. The District Court held that an injunction against the project was not appropriate because the NEPA violation had been rectified. The court reasoned that the Recirculated EIR included a sufficient review of alternatives, thereby remedying the violation, and requiring the preparation of a Recirculated EIS would not serve any purpose.
File Attachment
Download the decision