Friends of Del Norte v. California Department of Transportation

Background

The case concerns a Caltrans project to modify seven sites on U.S. Route 199 and California State Route 197 in Del Norte County. The project was intended to improve passage for larger trucks and abutted the Smith River at several points.

Caltrans conducted environmental reviews and consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). After an earlier proceeding resulted in an injunction because of concerns about the adequacy of the Endangered Species Act review and consultation, Caltrans and NMFS conducted a new consultation process. Caltrans prepared a new biological assessment in 2017, and NMFS issued a written concurrence with Caltrans’s conclusion that the project was not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. Caltrans also completed a re-evaluation and concluded that its prior environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact remained valid.

The plaintiffs challenged the revised work under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). They sought summary judgment and asked the court to require further environmental review and new consultations. The defendants also moved for summary judgment.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the agency decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act’s deferential “arbitrary and capricious” standard. Under that standard, an agency action may be set aside if the agency relied on improper factors, failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or gave an explanation inconsistent with the evidence.

For the NEPA claims, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that Caltrans improperly relied on the biological assessments, used an inadequate re-evaluation process, failed to provide sufficient public or Oregon-agency involvement, and failed to take a sufficiently careful look at environmental effects. The court concluded that Caltrans independently analyzed relevant impacts, reasonably determined that additional environmental review was unnecessary, conducted adequate public outreach, and reasonably analyzed traffic safety, cumulative effects, fish, habitat, and other environmental concerns. The court held that Caltrans did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in making its finding of no significant impact and declining to prepare an environmental impact statement.

For the ESA claims, the court held that the plaintiffs could challenge Caltrans’s decision not to initiate formal consultation. But after reviewing the 2017 biological assessment and NMFS’s concurrence, the court concluded that the agencies reasonably determined that the project was not likely to adversely affect the relevant listed species or critical habitat. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ specific criticisms concerning fish surveys, baseline conditions, runoff, metals, accidents, spills, sediment, and herbicides.

For the MSA claim, the court found that Caltrans had considered measures to minimize adverse effects on essential fish habitat and that NMFS determined that no additional practical measures were available. The court stated that the plaintiffs had effectively abandoned this argument in their reply brief and that the record contradicted their position.

The court allowed limited use of an expert declaration submitted by the plaintiffs to evaluate whether the agencies had considered relevant factors and explained their decisions under the ESA. It declined to use the declaration for the plaintiffs’ NEPA arguments because that proposed use was raised for the first time in a reply brief. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of a news article and a social-media post concerning a later spill.

Disposition

The court granted summary judgment to Caltrans and NMFS on the plaintiffs’ NEPA, ESA, and MSA claims. It lifted the injunction entered on May 2, 2014, which had barred Caltrans from continuing work on the project. The court stated that it understood the order to resolve the case in full and directed the plaintiffs to advise the court if they believed any issues remained.