|
| CASE LAW UPDATE DETAILS | Date Printed: 5/19/2021 |
| Case Title | Case No. | |
| Bair v. Caltrans | 982 F.3d 569 | |
| Court | State | Date |
| U.S. District Court - California | California | 12/2/2020 |
| Project |
| U.S. 101 |
| Project Type |
| Highway |
| Project Description |
|
The project involved improvements to a one-mile section of U.S. Highway 101 in Richardson Grove State Park in California. The purpose of the project was to widen that section of the highway to accommodate industry-standard extra-long trucks, which were prohibited from using the existing road due to its narrow width and tight curves. The project would be near, and potentially impact, dozens of old-growth redwood trees. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was the federal lead agency for the project because it had assumed the Federal Highway Administration’s NEPA responsibilities pursuant to the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program (23 U.S.C. § 327). Caltrans first issued a Draft EA for the project in 2008. Caltrans modified the project in response to public comments on the Draft EA, and then issued a Final EA and FONSI in 2010. A federal court ruled in 2012 that the EA was inadequate. Caltrans then modified the project again and issued a Supplemental EA in 2013 and, in 2014, a Reevaluation of the 2010 FONSI. As a result of subsequent litigation in state court concerning the project’s compliance with state environmental laws, Caltrans then withdrew its FONSI and further revised the project. In 2017, Caltrans issued a new EA and FONSI, which incorporated by reference the 2010 EA and the 2013 Supplemental EA. |
| Case Summary |
| In May 2019, a federal district court ruled that the 2017 EA and FONSI were inadequate. The district court also ordered Caltrans to prepare an EIS because the court found there were substantial questions as to whether the project would have a significant environmental effect. In this ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The appeals court ruled that the 2017 EA adequately analyzed the project’s potential environmental effects and that Caltrans’s decision not to prepare an EIS was sufficiently supported by the record. The appeals court faulted the district court for not giving sufficient deference to Caltrans’s conclusions regarding the project’s environmental effects. |
| Key Holdings | ||
|
NEPA Adequacy of EA/FONSI Paving over Tree Roots. The plaintiffs asserted that Caltrans did not adequately consider the effects of paving over the roots of redwood trees. The project would use a special paving material that would allow for greater oxygen diffusion to the soil than traditional asphalt. Caltrans’s arborist evaluated each tree in the project area and determined that the amount of paving and root disturbance would not threaten the health of any trees. Based in part on this analysis, Caltrans concluded that the project’s additional paving would not damage redwood trees by limiting their roots’ oxygen intake. The court held that Caltrans sufficiently analyzed the effects of paving and reasonably concluded that paving would not harm trees. Construction in Trees’ Structural Root Zones. The plaintiffs claimed that Caltrans did not adequately consider the effects of construction activity within the structural root zones of redwood trees. The plaintiffs relied primarily on a statement in a California State Parks guidance document that “there should be no construction activities in the structural root zone of a protected tree” because the work could injure tree roots and introduce root disease. The court held that Caltrans adequately considered the issue. The court explained that it was not clear that a different agency’s guidance document applied to Caltrans’s project. Furthermore, the court held, Caltrans reasonably decided not to follow the guidance document based on its arborist’s on-the-ground assessment of the health of individual trees in the project area. “NEPA anticipates that the administrative record may contain contradictory and conflicting opinions, expert and otherwise, and does not require an agency to follow all recommendations made by commentators, other agencies, or experts.” Impacts of Truck Traffic Noise on Park Visitors. The court held that Caltrans adequately studied potential noise impacts to park visitors resulting from additional truck traffic. The court found that the record supported Caltrans’s conclusion that the total volume of truck traffic would not increase as a result of the project. Caltrans based this determination on a survey of regional business owners, traffic studies in nearby areas suggesting little latent demand for the route, the fact that the project would not increase highway capacity, and Caltrans’s expert opinion that the larger trucks would be unlikely to use the route to reach major cities given the faster travel time provided by a parallel interstate highway. In addition, there was no evidence in the record that the larger trucks would be noisier than trucks allowed to use the existing highway. Risks of Truck Collisions with Trees. The court held that the EA did not need to consider potential damage to redwood trees along the highway from head-on collisions with the larger trucks. The court explained that the purpose of the project was to make the road safer for the larger trucks, and Caltrans had reasonably concluded that the project would decrease the risk of collisions with trees by widening and straightening the road. Furthermore, there was no evidence in the record to support that notion that the larger trucks could cause more damage to trees from collisions compared to the trucks allowed to use the existing highway. |
||
| File Attachments | ||
| ||