Caltrans scores victory in appeals court ruling
Environmental groups opposing a project that would alter a stretch of Highway 101 through Richardson Grove State Park experienced a setback in court last week.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision Wednesday stating a district court erred in its assessment that Caltrans did not adequately address major concerns about the project, such as how the project would impact the redwoods’ root zones and an increase in traffic volume and noise, in its environmental assessments of the project.
“Caltrans’ environmental analyses regarding the redwoods and traffic satisfied ( National Environmental Protection Act)’s requirements,” the decision states.
“Therefore, we reverse the district court’s judgment, and we vacate the injunction.”
According to a statement from Caltrans, the agency is in the process of reviewing the court’s decision “in order to determine next steps.”
There are still a long series of events that would need to take place before
Caltrans could move forward with the project, said Peter Galvin, co-founder and director of programs at the Center for Biological Diversity, which opposes the project.
The appellate court decision addressed the district court’s four main concerns — whether redwood tree suffocation would result from paving over portions of the redwoods’ root zones, whether construction would negatively impact the trees’ root zones, whether traffic volume and noise would increase, and whether trees would be at increased risk for more frequent and stronger collisions between vehicles and trees — and stated they had been addressed by the agency’s environmental assessments.
For instance, the decision states the concern that redwood trees would suffocate was addressed by the fact that Caltrans would use “a special material to allow ‘greater porosity’ and to ‘ promote circulation’ under the asphalt.”
Ga lv in sa id he a nd the other plaintiffs intend to ask that the decision, which was made by a three-judge panel, be reviewed by the full Ninth Circuit Court.
“We feel the judges on this panel got it wrong,” Galvin said, ” … so we have one more appeals court step available and we intend to take that.”
If the three-judge panel’s decision is reversed, the environmental groups “would be victorious again,” he said, but if it’s not, it would go back to trial at the district court level to address other issues outside of the four main concerns.
One of those concerns is that the project does not comply with Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 that requires transportation projects receiving federal funding to avoid public parks and historic sites, among other things, when feasible alternatives are available.
In this case, Galvin said there are a lter natives, such a s “sig nalization, lowering the speed limit and a variet y of other things that would make it so the project did not have to occur.”
In June 2019, Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Kelly Neel decided Caltrans violated the California Environmental Quality Act when it added an arborist’s assessment, or significant new information, to its environmental assessment without having a proper public comment period.