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]