Subj:         NEPA cumulative effects lawsuit
Date:   02-07-26 19:48:32 EDT
From:   [log in to unmask] (John Holtzclaw)
Sender: [log in to unmask] (Sierra Club Forum on
Transportation Issues)
Reply-to:   [log in to unmask] (Sierra Club Forum on
Transportation Issues)
To: [log in to unmask]

APPEALS COURT WEIGHS NEPA SUIT CONSIDERED SPRAWL 'POSTER CHILD'
Date: July 19, 2002

A federal appeals court is poised to issue a decision in a Utah
road-building case that could set a major environmental precedent
by broadening environmental study requirements under federal law.
The decision could lead state and federal transportation agencies
to consider the traffic, congestion and related air quality
impacts to an area served by new roads, rather than just the
narrow environmental impact to the land on which the road is
built.

At issue is a decision expected imminently by the U.S. Court of
Appeals
for the 10th Circuit in Utahns for Better Transportation et al.
v. United States Department of Transportation, et al. on whether
state and federal governments have to give greater weight to the
broader environmental effects of building new roads rather than
only considering the direct environmental impacts that the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) generally requires.
Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com.

In this case, the mayor of Salt Lake City and the Sierra Club
have
joined Utahns for Better Transportation (UBT) in challenging the
adequacy of the environmental impact statement (EIS) for a
14-mile
stretch of road, known as Legacy Highway, set for construction
along the Great Salt Lake. The project would also allow the
filling of more than 100 acres of wetlands considered
internationally important to migratory birds.

The plaintiffs disagree with the Utah Department of
Transportation's
(UDOT) conclusions in its EIS that there would be no growth
impacts from the new highway because growth was occurring anyway.
In addition to demanding that the EIS consider the impact of the
road on Salt Lake City, the plaintiffs are also calling on UDOT
to consider rail transit as an alternative to road building along
the route of the so-called Legacy Highway.

UBT's lead attorney calls the case "the poster child for sprawl"
because it could set a precedent that EISs have to take into
account the broader traffic and congestion impact to an area
served by
the road rather than simply the narrow environmental impact on
the land on which the road is built. The attorney says the
decision could set precedent on what factors highway departments
must consider in approving new roadways in rural areas.

UBT and the Sierra Club have argued that the new highway would
dramatically change the nature of that growth to auto-dependent
sprawl. Salt Lake City officials intervened because the city is
trying to increase alternative transportation within its
boundaries, and though the new highway would abut the northern
tip of the city, they argue the EIS needs to take into account
increased traffic and congestion it would bring to the city at
the same time the city is taking steps to reduce auto dependency.

But an attorney for the state says the EIS was more than adequate, that
it looked "exhaustively" at NEPA requirements and that project is
much improved by the four-volume, four-year EIS. The source cites
a number of changes the EIS already prompted, including moving
the road away from the shore of the Great Salt Lake, lessening
the impact to wetlands from 145 high-value acres to 114
lower-value acres, and doubling the wetlands mitigation area from
1,250 acres to 2,098 acres. "Not
only did [the state] do everything required under the laws,
particularly NEPA, but also the process worked exactly as it
should," the attorney says. "The state is very proud."

In securing permits for Legacy Highway, UDOT convinced the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to issue a dredge and fill permit under the
Clean Water Act because there was no "practicable alternative."
The freeway could have been moved about five miles inland without
impacting the wetlands, but that option was rejected by local
planners because it would have bisected an existing commercial
district, and the corps said it was bound by the local decision
on land use.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the CONS-SPST-SPRAWL-TRANS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]