Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Bess Bair; Trisha Lee Lotus; Bruce Edwards; Jeffrey Hedin; Loreen Eliason; Environmental Protection Information Center, a Non-Profit Corporation; Center For Biological Diversity,a Non-Profit Corporation; and Californians For Alternatives To Toxics, a Non-Profit Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. California State Department Of Transportation, andCindy Mckim, in Her Official Capacity As Director Of The State Of California Department Of Transportation.

Pays/Territoire
États-Unis d'Amérique
Type de cour
Nationale- cour inférieure
Date
Avr 4, 2012
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
United States District Court,Northern District California
Juge
Alsup, W.
Numéro de référence
10-cv-04360-WHA
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Forêts, Terre et sols, Espèces sauvages et écosystèmes
Mot clé
Flore sauvage Essence forestière Faune sauvage Espèces végétales protégées Espèces animales protégées Espèces halieutiques protégées Gestion/conservation Biodiversité Gestion forestière/conservation des forêts Protection des espèces
Résumé
This environmental-impact litigation arises out of a proposal to widen Highway 101 through Richardson Grove State Park. The park is home to ancient redwoods 300 feet tall and thousands of years old, and the park shelters an abundance of wildlife, including the marbled murrelet and spotted owl. The federal court has ordered the California Department of Transportation (DOT ) to redo its environmental assessment (EA) of a project to expand Highway 101 through a mile-long park containing the redwood trees up to 16 feet in diameter. Although the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it remanded the action to DOT and issued a preliminary injunction blocking construction and contract solicitations for work on the project. According to the court, the project maps DOT created were inaccurate in that they omitted and incorrectly measured certain redwood trees, raising serious questions about whether DOT “took a hard look at the effects of the project.” The court instructed DOT to draw up more accurate maps and procure the approval of a qualified engineer. Finding that the prepared EA violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the court gave DOT the option of revising its EA or preparing a full environmental impact statement.
Texte intégral
COU-158470.pdf