Everything Southern Humboldt and more
The Times Standard has the story.
Heraldo has the plaintiff’s press release, and a lively thread in progress.
Hank also has the story, with a link to the decision (also in the EPIC press release), and in the thread Kym has a statement from CalTrans about the aspects of the ruling in its favor.
 | Not A Native on March against Monsanto this… |
 | suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | HUUFC on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Eric Kirk on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Just Watchin on March against Monsanto this… |
 | bolithio on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Joe Blow on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Erasmus on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Narration on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | That Other Anonymous on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Forest Queen on March against Monsanto this… |
| Erasmus on March against Monsanto this… |
| Forest Queen on March against Monsanto this… |
| bolithio on March against Monsanto this… |
| Not A Native on March against Monsanto this… |
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 5, 2012 at 11:42 am
AG
As per Kym’s comment, it looks like the ruling went mostly in CalTrans’ favor. I think the project will end up moving forward with minor clarification or modification.
April 5, 2012 at 12:23 pm
tra
AG,
Not necessarily. I suggest that you read the actual decision, and not rely on either of the dueling press releases from the plaintiffs and from Caltrans, each of which, not surprisingly, tries to put the most positive spin (from their point of view) on the decision.
The judge did not rule that a full EIS was not necessary, he ruled that Caltrans has to go back and revise its EA before he can make that determination. The other option he gave Caltrans is to just go ahead and do the full EIS now, but it seems pretty obvious that Caltrans has no intention of doing an EIS unless/until they are forced to.
So Caltrans will go back and come up with a revised EA and we’ll see if the judge will approve it, or reject it. If he approves it, then yes, this will have been just a small bump in the road for Caltrans, but if he rejects it and requires a full EIS, that will be a major setback for Caltrans.
April 5, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Bolithio
Either way, a win for EPIC in the sense that the case continues, and EPIC can continue to get paid.
April 5, 2012 at 1:55 pm
AG
TRA, I did read the decision. Far from Heraldo’s “back to the drawing board” headline implies, it looks like some minor clarifications are in order, and possibly some slight revisions to the plan. The bulk of the decision is squarely in the state’s favor.
April 5, 2012 at 3:18 pm
anonymous
AG, what planet are you on? From the decision:
“the accumulation of data errors certainly raises “substantial questions” about the possible significance of the project’s impact on the environment.”
The judge is telling Caltrans to go back and do the maps right, and from there begin to assess the possible impacts, because the number of errors in their environmental documentation (i.e. maps) are so serious that it raises substantial questions about their conclusion of no significant impact.
Also:
“Alternatively, Caltrans may proceed directly to conducting an EIS. In it’s revised EA (or EIS) Caltrans should give serious consideration to the other significant arguments made by plaintiffs in their motion. On remand, Caltrans is ORDERED to prepare accurate maps….”
This is a very restrained decision, but it also tells the world that Caltrans did a piss poor job of analyzing the impacts of their project–which is exactly what folks like EPIC have been saying all along.
April 5, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Stan the Man
Eric,
What is your opinion of this ruling?
April 6, 2012 at 9:21 am
Eric Kirk
Stan – I don’t know enough about it to give you an intelligent opinion.