385 F. Supp. 3d 878
N.D. Cal.2019Background
- Project: Caltrans sought to widen a 1-mile stretch of US-101 through Richardson Grove State Park to accommodate longer STAA-authorized trucks; no old-growth redwoods would be cut but many would have work within their root zones.
- Procedural history: This is litigation follow-up to two prior NEPA suits (Bair I and II); prior rulings found Caltrans’ earlier analyses flawed and required revised analysis or an EIS; Caltrans issued a 2017 EA/FONSI incorporating earlier reports and a 2015 tree report.
- Administrative record: Layered 2010 EA, 2013 Supplement, and 2017 EA/FONSI plus a 2015 arborist report produced a confused, partially inconsistent record; some drafting errors (e.g., residual Table 10) and missing or poor-quality materials complicated review.
- Parties’ dispute: Plaintiffs (environmental groups/individuals) contend Caltrans failed to take the NEPA “hard look” at impacts to ancient redwoods from pavement, root disturbance, noise/public enjoyment, and collision risk from larger trucks; Caltrans relied largely on redwood “resilience” studies and mitigation measures.
- Key factual concerns: (1) pavement could cover >50% of root zones for certain trees (Trees 104, 105, 106); (2) construction would intrude into structural root zones; (3) potential increase in noise/public enjoyment impacts if STAA trucks reroute through the park; (4) risk and greater force of collisions by longer/heavier STAA trucks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pavement covering ≥50% of root zone | Caltrans failed to analyze whether paving over half or more of root zone would suffocate trees (oxygen/aeration issue) | Reliance on studies of redwood resilience and use of permeable/cement-treated base and other minimization measures means no significant impact | Court: Arbitrary and capricious; Caltrans did not take required hard look—failed to analyze oxygen/aeration risk for trees with >50% pavement coverage; EA/FONSI set aside |
| Construction in structural root zone | Project intrudes into structural root zones contrary to State Parks guidance and risks root disease/tipping; Caltrans gave no reasoned explanation | Caltrans relied on arborist studies, selective guidelines, and minimization measures; State Parks concurred in planning | Court: Caltrans failed to meaningfully consider or explain deviations from State Parks Handbook and did not satisfy NEPA hard look regarding structural root zone impacts |
| Noise and public enjoyment from STAA trucks | Allowing STAA trucks will increase heavy-truck traffic/noise and degrade park visitor experience; Caltrans’ traffic/noise analysis is cursory and relies on flawed data | Caltrans contends STAA trucks will replace existing trucks (no net truck increase) and that newer STAA trucks are not noisier | Court: Noise/visitor-enjoyment analysis inadequate; reliance on thin traffic study and conclusory assertions fails NEPA hard look |
| Collision risk and greater damage from STAA heavies | STAA trucks are longer/heavier with larger tractor units and could cause more severe tree damage in collisions; Caltrans did not analyze this risk | Caltrans maintained no greater collision risk or impact | Court: Caltrans failed to consider increased damage potential from STAA-related collisions and thus did not take a required hard look |
Key Cases Cited
- Kern v. BLM, 284 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002) (NEPA requires agencies to take a "hard look" at significant environmental impacts)
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87 (1983) (NEPA's informational and procedural purposes explained)
- Or. Natural Res. Council v. Lowe, 109 F.3d 521 (9th Cir. 1997) (agency conclusions must have a rational connection between facts found and conclusions reached)
- Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2000) (EA/FONSI framework and when an EIS is required)
- WildEarth Guardians v. Provencio, 918 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2019) (reducing impacts does not alone show impacts are not significant)