Bair v. California Department of Transportation, No. 19-16478 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs filed suit challenging a highway improvement project proposed by Caltrans, claiming that the project failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The district court determined that Caltrans arbitrarily and capriciously relied upon the 2010 Environmental Assessment (2010 EA), as supplemented and revised, and enjoined Caltrans from continuing the Project until it finalized an appropriate environmental impact statement (EIS). The district court then entered a final judgment against Caltrans.
The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the district court erred in granting partial summary judgment to plaintiffs because none of the purported inadequacies it identified rendered the revised EA arbitrary or capricious. The panel was satisfied that Caltrans took a hard look at the consequences of the Project, and adequately considered the relevant factors. In this case, the district court's rationale for requiring an EIS was predicated on its erroneous conclusions about the Project's effects on redwood tree health and possible increases in truck traffic and noise. Therefore, the district court erred in finding Caltrans' EA arbitrary and capricious and in setting aside the 2017 finding of no significant impact (FONSI). The panel reversed the district court's judgment requiring Caltrans to produce an EIS and enjoining it from continuing the Project until it has done so.
Court Description: Environmental Law. Reversing the district court’s judgment in favor of plaintiffs, vacating an injunction, and remanding, the panel held that the California Department of Transportation complied with the National Environmental Policy Act in relying on an Environmental Assessment for a proposed highway improvement project within Richardson Grove State Park. Granting partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, the district court concluded that Caltrans had failed adequately to consider certain issues and therefore had not taken the requisite “hard look” at the environmental impacts of the Project, and the 2010 Environmental Assessment (EA), as supplemented and revised, was inadequate. The district court concluded that substantial questions had been raised as to the effects of the Project, and it ordered Caltrans to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). The district court enjoined Caltrans from proceeding with the Project until the EIS was finalized. BAIR V. CAL. DEP’T OF TRANSP. 3 Reversing, the panel held that Caltrans based its 2017 finding of no significant impact (FONSI) upon the analysis contained in the revised EA, which incorporated the analysis of the 2010 EA and the 2013 Revised Supplemental EA. Because Caltrans’ 2010 EA, as supplemented and revised, constituted the “hard look” at the Project’s effects required by NEPA, Caltrans’ issuance of the 2017 FONSI was reasonable. The panel held that none of the purported inadequacies identified by the district court rendered the revised EA arbitrary or capricious. Concurring, Judge Wardlaw wrote that she concurred in the majority opinion, and Caltrans did not violate NEPA because its reliance on the EA was not arbitrary and capricious. Judge Wardlaw wrote separately to emphasize that: (1) the administrative record was painful to review; (2) if significant new information is discovered during the proposed construction or substantial project changes are made, Caltrans may need to reevaluate its analysis; and (3) the Project seems likely to provide new data on the effects of construction on old-growth redwoods, which could prove important to future decisions surrounding these historic trees.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.