1

Filed 1/30/2014

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

TRISHA LEE LOTUS et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 A137315

 (Humboldt County

 Super. Ct. No. CV110002)

Appellants1appeal from a judgment denying their petition for a writ of mandate

and injunctive relief challenging the sufficiency of an environmental impact report (EIR) 

approved by the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The project

involved is highway construction to adjust the alignment of the approximately one-mile 

stretch of United States Route 101 that passes through Richardson Grove State Park 

(park). While we reject many of appellants’ challenges to the adequacy of the EIR, we 

agree that the report is insufficient insofar as it fails to properly evaluate the significance 

of impacts on the root systems of old growth redwood trees adjacent to the roadway. 

Accordingly, we shall reverse the judgment and remand the matter for further 

proceedings.

 

*

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is 

certified for publication with the exception of parts one, two, and four of the Discussion.

1

The appellants are Trisha Lee Lotus, Bruce Edwards, Jeffrey Hedin, Loreen Eliason, 

Environmental Protection Information Center, Center for Biological Diversity, and 

Californians for Alternatives to Toxics.
2

Factual and Procedural History

Richardson Grove State Park is home to redwood trees 300 feet tall and thousands 

of years old, of particular importance because of the high quality of the old growth

redwood trees.2The park “is the first stand of old growth redwoods that travelers on US 

Route 101 pass through while on their northbound trek from San Francisco to Eureka and 

the Oregon Coast” and the “[m]assive old growth trees located immediately adjacent to 

the highway draw the full visual attention of all visitors who travel through this section of 

US Route 101.”

As Route 101 passes through the park, it narrows to a two-lane road that curves 

tightly between the trees. The curves of the roadway and inadequate shoulder widths, 

among other things, do not meet current design standards. As a result, large vehicles 

traveling on this roadway find it difficult “to stay within the travel lane without using part 

of the opposing lane of traffic (‘off-tracking’) or traveling off the roadway and using the 

shoulders.” Due to the current size and configuration of the road, industry standard-sized 

trucks authorized by the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA trucks) 

are prohibited from using this portion of Route 101.

3

This segment of roadway is the only 

portion of Route 101 that restricts access of STAA trucks into Humboldt County. 

According to Caltrans, this restriction prevents “ ‘businesses [in Humboldt County] from 

being profitable and competitive with other similar business along the west coast.’ ” 

Accordingly, the proposed project is designed “to adjust the roadway alignment to 

accommodate [STAA] truck travel, thereby removing the restriction for STAA vehicles, 

and improve the safety and operation of US Route 101 while also improving goods 

movement.”

Caltrans issued a Notice of Preparation for an EIR in May 2008 and released the

draft EIR (DEIR) on December 4, 2008. Following a public comment period, Caltrans 

 

2 An “old growth” redwood tree is defined in these proceedings as a tree with a diameter 

of 30 inches or more measured at four and a half feet above ground level. 

3

STAA trucks are slightly longer and configured differently than “California legal” 

trucks, which are authorized to use this stretch of highway. 
3

released and certified the final EIR and approved the project on May 18, 2010. The 

Notice of Determination approving the EIR indicates that the project will not have any

significant effect on the environment, but that mitigation measures have been made a 

condition of project approval and that a mitigation monitoring or reporting plan was 

adopted for the project.

The EIR describes the project as involving “minor road adjustments including 

realignments, curve corrections, and shoulder widening” as well as “culvert 

improvements and repaving the roadway.” As relevant to this appeal, the primary 

environmental impacts resulting from the project are tree removal and potential damage 

to the structural root zones of other trees caused by, among other things, excavation and 

placement of impervious material or fill over the roots.

4

Focusing on the “community” of redwood trees as a whole, rather than on 

individual trees, the EIR provides summary information regarding the project’s 

environmental impacts. No old growth redwood trees will be removed. Only six 

redwood trees ranging in size from four to nineteen inches in diameter will be removed. 

“Within the project limits, there would be construction activities that occur within the

structural root zone of approximately 74 redwood trees ranging in diameter from 18 

inches to 15 feet.” With respect to impacts to old growth redwood trees caused by fill, the 

EIR states: “About 41 redwood trees thirty inches or greater in diameter within the park 

would have fill placed within the structural root zone. The maximum depth of fill on 

these redwoods would be three and a half feet. Of those redwood trees affected by fill,

about 50 percent would have fill of six inches or less and over 70 percent would have fill 

of 12 inches or less.” With respect to impacts to old growth redwood trees caused by 

excavation (or cuts), the EIR states: “It is estimated that construction excavation would 

occur within the structural root zone of 58 redwood trees thirty inches in diameter or 

 

4

The EIR explains that the structural root zone of a tree “is a circular area with the tree 

trunk at the center and a radius equal to three times the diameter of the tree trunk 

measured at breast height (4.5 feet above ground level).” The “root health zone” extends 

in a slightly larger circle with a radius five times the diameter of the tree trunk. 
4

greater within the park. The maximum depth of the excavation within the structural root 

zone of redwoods thirty inches in diameter or greater within the park is two feet. Nearly 

thirty percent of these redwood trees affected would experience excavation of six inches 

or less.” With regard to placement of impervious roadway materials, the EIR states: “The 

proposed realignments would require locating the roadbed nearer to some trees and

locating it further from other trees and removing the existing pavement. An additional 

0.30 acres of impervious surface would be placed overall within the project limits. Of 

this, 0.14 acre of roadbed material would be placed within the structural root zone area of 

trees. This represents a nearly five percent increase in the total amount of hardened 

surface (roadbed) within the structural root zone area of trees within the project limits 

including both within the boundaries of the park and outside the park.”

The EIR also describes “avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures” that 

“have been incorporated into the project to avoid and minimize impacts as well as to 

mitigate expected impacts.” These include, “M-l: Restorative planting of 0.56 acre of 

former US Route 101 roadbed alignment. . . . [¶] M-2: To offset the impacts to the trees 

where construction occurs within the structural root zone, mitigation will be provided to 

increase the amount of invasive plant removal. A contract with the California 

Conservation Corps will be established to provide 300 hours a year for four years (three 

days each year for a crew of twelve, the minimum crew size). Crew to be directed at the 

discretion of the California Department of Parks and Recreation.” In addition, the 

following “avoidance and minimization measures” will be implemented for work in the 

park: “[1] An arborist shall be present to monitor any ground disturbing construction 

activities. [¶] [2] All excavation below the finish grade within a setback equal to three 

times the diameter of any redwood trees shall be done with shovels, pick axes, or 

pneumatic excavator or other methods approved by the construction engineer to minimize 

disturbance or damage to the roots with the exception of culvert work at PM 1.18, 1. 28, 

1.34 and 1.35. Mechanized equipment can be used at these locations upon approval of the 

construction engineer. [¶] [3] The contractor will be required to use a pneumatic 

excavator (such as an air spade) while excavating the soil within the structural root zone 
5

of redwood trees to minimize physical injury to the tree roots. [¶] [4] Smaller roots less 

than 2 inches in diameter that must be cut shall be cut cleanly with sharp instrument in 

order to promote healing. [¶] [5] The structural section for new pavement shall consist of 

Cement Treated Permeable Base (CTPB) to minimize the thickness of the structural 

section, provide greater porosity, minimize compaction of roots, and minimize thermal 

exposure to roots from Hot Mix Asphalt paving. [¶] [6] After construction, the . . . cutslope area between PM 1.35 and PM 1.37 will be replanted. After tree removal, but prior 

to excavation of the cut-slope areas, the upper four to six inches of duff and native soil 

(topsoil) will be set aside for placement on finished fill slopes to provide the nutrients and 

a seed bank for natural revegetation. [¶] [7] To help minimize potential stress on the 

redwood trees during construction, watering will be provided. In areas where roadway 

excavation will take place below the finish grade within the structural root zone of 

redwoods 30 inches in diameter or larger, watering equivalent to 1/2 inch depth to an area 

defined as from the edge of existing pavement to 25 feet beyond the edge of pavement 

shall be performed. Watering to be performed not more than 24 hours after the roadway 

excavation work at a site and shall occur weekly thereafter between the dates of June 1st

and September 30th. [¶] [8] Caltrans will adhere to the California Department of State 

Parks and Recreation Commission Statement of Policy (Policy 11.4) which states, ‘In 

order to maintain the genetic integrity and diversity of native California plants, all 

transplant and propagation in the North Coast Redwoods District will be from the local 

populations (preferably from within the same stand). For the purpose of this policy, local 

is defined as being [from] the immediate project area (as close as possible, but generally 

less than one mile).’ [¶] [9] In areas where new embankment is to be constructed to 

protect roots and promote air circulation the following measures shall be used: [¶] [a] 

Any duff layer shall be raked off the area within the clearing limits, stored, and replaced 

as erosion control. For areas within the structural root zone of redwoods thirty inches in 

diameter and greater, the duff will be hand raked. [¶] [b] A 0.75 foot thick layer of Class 

1, Type A permeable material shall be placed and compacted as the first lift of the fill to 

increase water infiltration and air circulation. (In areas next to the shoulder hinge point it 
6

might not be possible to provide this much depth. In those cases, as much as feasible will 

be placed.) [¶] [c] In locations where > 4 inches of fill would be placed next to the trunk 

of a tree > 18 inches in diameter, a brow log shall be used to keep the soil from the tree 

trunk to increase air circulation.”

Ultimately, the EIR concludes that “[n]o significant environmental impacts are 

expected as a result of this project with the implementation of the stated special 

construction techniques.” 

On June 17, 2010, appellants filed their Petition for Writ of Mandate and 

Injunctive Relief. The trial court initially issued an order finding in favor of Caltrans on 

most issues but noting that “Caltrans may not have complied with [Public Resources 

Code section 21000, et seq. (California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA)] in 

adopting mitigation measures.” The court explained, “if a project will have a significant 

effect, one way to comply with CEQA is to incorporate measures into the project that 

would ‘avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect . . . .’ [Citations.] 

An agency adopting such mitigation measures, however, must also adopt a ‘reporting or 

monitoring program’ that is ‘designed to ensure compliance during project 

implementation.’ [Citations.] [¶] The fact of the matter is that Caltrans has adopted 

mitigation measures, some of which are labeled ‘special construction techniques.’

[Citation.] More important, Caltrans’s finding of no significant environmental effects is 

explicitly premised on mitigation measures; namely ‘the implementation of stated special 

construction techniques.’ [Citation.] [¶] The Court does not believe that Caltrans violated 

CEQA simply by taking into account mitigation measures in making its determination 

that no significant effects will occur. It seems perfectly appropriate and realistic for an 

agency in a case like this and in many others to: (1) be uncertain as to whether a project, 

without mitigation, will have a ‘significant effect’ within the meaning of CEQA (a 

fundamentally vague standard that this Court admits it had considerable difficulty 

applying); and (2) be entirely certain that a project will not have a significant effect if 

appropriate mitigation measures are adopted. [Fn. omitted.] [¶] But where, as here. an 

agency decides to incorporate mitigation measures into its significance determination, 
7

and relies on those mitigation measures to determine that no significant effects will occur, 

that agency must treat those measures as though they were required, i.e., the agency must 

treat those measures as though they were adopted following a finding of significance in 

accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1) and Public Resources Code 

section 21081(a)(1). The Court will not punish Caltrans for taking into account its 

mitigation measures when making its significance determination, but at the same time the

Court will not provide Caltrans a shortcut to CEQA compliance by allowing Caltrans to 

rely on mitigation measures that have not been adequately adopted.” (Italics omitted.) 

Accordingly, the court ordered Caltrans to show cause as to whether it had adopted a 

mitigation monitoring or reporting program as required by CEQA.

Caltrans filed a response to the order to show cause on August 11. Although much 

of the submission was ruled inadmissible, the court ultimately concluded, based on 

evidence contained in the administrative record, that Caltrans had adopted a sufficient 

mitigation monitoring program. Among other things, the court relied on the 

Environmental Commitments Record for the proposed project, which is a tool used by 

Caltrans “to track the project specific environmental commitments for a given project,”

as well as Caltrans’s assurances in response to comments on the draft EIR that “[t]he 

minimization measures would be incorporated into the contract plans and specifications.” 

Accordingly, the trial court issued an order denying the petition for writ of mandate and 

this appeal timely followed. 

Discussion

“In a mandate proceeding to review an agency's decision for compliance with 

CEQA, we review the administrative record to determine whether the agency abused its 

discretion. [Citation.] ‘Abuse of discretion is shown if (1) the agency has not proceeded 

in a manner required by law, or (2) the determination is not supported by substantial 

evidence.’ [Citation.] ‘When the informational requirements of CEQA are not complied 

with, an agency has failed to proceed in “a manner required by law” and has therefore 

abused its discretion.’ [Citation.] Furthermore, ‘when an agency fails to proceed as 

required by CEQA, harmless error analysis is inapplicable. The failure to comply with 
8

the law subverts the purposes of CEQA if it omits material necessary to informed 

decisionmaking and informed public participation. Case law is clear that, in such cases, 

the error is prejudicial.’ [Citation.] [¶] ‘In reviewing an agency's decision to certify an 

EIR, we presume the correctness of the decision. The project opponents thus bear the 

burden of proving that the EIR is legally inadequate.’ [Citation.] However, ‘[w]hile we 

may not substitute our judgment for that of the decision makers, we must ensure strict 

compliance with the procedures and mandates of the statute.’ [Citation.]” (State Water 

Resources Control Bd. Cases (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 674, 723.)

1. The EIR adequately describes the project’s environmental setting.

California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15125 provides in relevant part, 

“(a) An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the 

vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if 

no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, 

from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally 

constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an 

impact is significant. The description of the environmental setting shall be no longer than 

is necessary to an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project and its 

alternatives. [¶] . . . [¶] (c) Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment 

of environmental impacts. Special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources 

that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the project.” (Cal. Code 

Regs., tit. 14, § 15125.)5

Appellants contend the EIR’s description of the project’s environmental setting 

fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA because it “failed to fully describe the 

most critical aspect of the Project’s environmental setting: the nature, location, and extent 

of each old-growth redwood root zone that would be affected by the Project.” We 

disagree.

 

5 All future references to California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq. 

will be denoted “Guidelines.”
9

The EIR describes the natural plant community within the park as “predominately 

Redwood series, dominated by an overstory of large redwood trees.” The EIR emphasizes

that “[a]lthough the California Native Plant Society Inventory does not include redwoods, 

it is a species that commands respect in and of themselves . . . .” Table 8 in the EIR 

identifies by size and type each of the 54 trees, including the six redwood trees that will 

be removed; Table 9 identifies additional trees by size and type, including 74 redwood 

trees the structural root zones of which are located within the project area. The EIR 

includes maps showing the location of trees identified in these tables and the proposed 

modifications to Route 101. Accordingly, the EIR amply sets out the environmental 

setting of the proposed project. 

The cases relied on by appellants are distinguishable. In Galante Vineyards v. 

Monterey Peninsula Water Management. Transit Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 

1114, 1122, the description of the environmental setting was found to be inadequate

where the EIR for a proposed dam contained only one passing reference to vineyards in 

the project area although there were “numerous vineyards” in the vicinity that were part 

of a “thriving” industry. Likewise, in San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. 

County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 718, 722-29, the environmental setting 

description was found to be inadequate because it “completely fail[ed] to mention and 

consider a nearby wetland wildlife preserve.” (Id. at p. 725.) As the trial court here noted, 

“[t]he present case would be like Galante Vineyards and San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife if 

Caltrans had completely omitted any discussion of the old-growth redwoods, or made one 

passing reference to the effect of, ‘By the way, some old-growth redwoods are also 

present.’ That is not what happened.”

2. The EIR adequately describes the scope of the project.

CEQA Guidelines section 15124 provides in relevant part: “The description of the 

project shall contain the following information but should not supply extensive detail 

beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact. [¶] (a) The 

precise location and boundaries of the proposed project shall be shown on a detailed map, 

preferably topographic. The location of the project shall also appear on a regional map.
10

[¶] (b) A statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project. A clearly written 

statement of objectives will help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of 

alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and will aid the decision makers in preparing findings 

or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives 

should include the underlying purpose of the project. [¶] (c) A general description of the 

project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics, considering the principal 

engineering proposals if any and supporting public service facilities.” “An accurate, 

stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally 

sufficient EIR.” (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193.) 

“Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public 

decision-makers balance the proposal’s benefit against its environmental cost, consider 

mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the ‘no 

project’ alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance.” (Id. at pp. 192-193.)

As described in the EIR, the project involves “minor road adjustments including 

realignments, curve corrections, and shoulder widening to accommodate STAA truck 

travel, thereby removing the restriction of STAA vehicles, and improving the safety and 

operation of US Route 101 while also improving goods movement. The project also 

includes culvert improvements and repaving the roadway.” The specific proposed 

modifications to the roadway are depicted on several maps and sufficiently described in 

the final EIR.

The EIR explains that the project consists of three segments. In the first, “there 

would be minor realignments of the existing roadway to minimize off-tracking conflicts 

between large vehicles and fixed objects (trees). Two 12-foot lanes with 2-foot shoulders 

are proposed where possible. This work would require minor earthwork, sliver widening 

of the roadway and adjustments to the super-elevation (to ‘bank the curves’). The 

maximum lateral change in the alignment would be 17 feet, but the average alignment 

shift from the existing centerline would be approximately 2 to 6 feet.” There will be three 

main areas of cut and fill; one cut of approximately 300 cubic yards and two fills each 

with approximately 200 cubic yards. “The roadway in this segment would be slightly 
11

widened to provide for two foot shoulders where possible. Proposed shoulders would be 

tapered where existing trees are located adjacent to the edge of pavement.” In addition,

three existing culverts would be replaced or expanded. In the second segment, proposed 

work only “involves removing and replacing the existing open graded pavement and 

striping, and extending a berm to divert water into a downdrain to connect to [an existing 

culvert]. There are no STAA restrictions in this segment, so no realignment or widening 

is proposed.” The final segment “involves widening the roadway to provide for wider 

shoulders, and realigning the roadway to minimize off-tracking conflicts between large 

vehicles and fixed objects. The majority of this segment is located outside the park 

boundary . . . .” A portion of the “proposed alignment would be shifted approximately 

ten feet into an existing cut slope west of the highway.” The remainder of the “proposed 

alignment would be shifted slightly to the east. A 200-foot long soldier pile retaining wall 

would be constructed that would support the roadway from below the road.” 6

Contrary to appellants’ argument, further clarification regarding “how [Caltrans] 

used the ‘Autoturn’ program to design the Project,” including information about “the 

design considerations necessary to reconfigure the highway for STAA access” or “the 

software’s characteristics or assumptions or the inputs Caltrans used to design the 

Project” is not required by CEQA. CEQA requires only “a ‘general description’ of the 

project’s technical characteristics. ‘General’ means involving only the main features of 

something rather than details or particulars. [Citation.] The ‘general description’ 

requirement for the technical attributes of a project is consistent with other CEQA 

mandates to make the EIR a user-friendly document.” (Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. 

County of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 28.) The EIR in this case strikes the desired 

“balance between technical accuracy and public understanding.” (Ibid.) The additional 

technical information sought by appellants is not necessary to allow the public and 

 

6 Contrary to appellants’ argument, the project description did not change significantly 

between the draft and final EIR. While some changes were made, particularly with regard 

to placement of the retaining wall, none significantly changed the scope or purpose of the 

project. That more trees were identified as suffering root zone impacts in the final EIR 

than in the draft EIR does not establish a significant alteration of the project description. 
12

decision-makers to fully understand the environmental consequences of the project. 

Indeed, inclusion of this additional technical information would be inconsistent with the 

directive in Guideline 15124 that the project description not supply “extensive detail 

beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact.” 

3. The EIR fails to comply with CEQA insofar as it fails to evaluate the significance 

of the project’s impacts on the root systems of old growth redwood trees adjacent to the 

roadway.

CEQA requires that an EIR include, among other things, a detailed statement 

setting forth “[a]ll significant effects on the environment of the proposed project” and 

“[m]itigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects on the environment.” 

(Pub. Resources Code, § 21100, subd. (b); see also Guidelines, § 15126 [“Significant 

Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project” and “The Mitigation Measures Proposed 

to Minimize the Significant Effects” shall be discussed “preferably in separate sections or 

paragraphs of the EIR.”].) “For each significant effect, the EIR must identify specific 

mitigation measures; where several potential mitigation measures are available, each 

should be discussed separately, and the reasons for choosing one over the others should 

be stated.” (Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 

1027.) If the EIR identifies significant environmental effects, the public agency may 

approve the project only if it makes one or more of the following findings: “(a). . . [¶] 

(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which 

mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. . . . [¶] (3) Specific 

economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations . . . make infeasible the 

mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.” 

(Pub. Resources Code, § 21081; Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council, supra, 229 

Cal.App.3d at p. 1034.) These findings must be made for each identified significant effect

“accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding.” (Guidelines, 

§ 15091.) 

In Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 

Cal.App.3d 1022, the court explained the importance of these procedural steps and 
13

findings: “[T]he purposes of section 21081 are that there be some evidence that the 

alternatives or mitigation measures in the EIR actually were considered by the decision 

making agency and, as the Supreme Court stated in a similar situation, that there be a 

disclosure of ‘the analytic route the . . . agency traveled from evidence to action.’ 

[Citations.] Thus, when a project is approved that will significantly affect the 

environment, CEQA places the burden on the approving agency to affirmatively show 

that it has considered the identified means of lessening or avoiding the project’s 

significant effects and to explain its decision allowing those adverse changes to occur. [¶] 

. . . [¶] . . . Only by making this disclosure can others, be they courts or constituents, 

intelligently analyze the logic of the board’s decision.” (Id. at pp. 1034-1035.)

As quoted extensively above, the EIR in this case contains information regarding 

the overall impacts on the community of redwood trees. Though somewhat less clearly 

presented, the EIR also contains information about project activity that will take place 

within the root zones of specific old growth redwood trees. For example, Table 10 shows 

the cut and fill depths for each old growth redwood tree in the project area. With this 

data, it is possible to identify the trees that will be subject to the most cut or fill work and 

plot them on the map to determine the location of the tree in relation to the proposed 

roadway modifications. It is also possible using the data available in the EIR (Table 8) to 

calculate the square footage of the root zones and determine what percentage of the root 

zone will be impacted by the cut and fill work. The EIR also indicates the changes that 

will result in the impermeable area covering the root zones of some of the old growth 

redwood trees, both in terms of the number of square feet and as a percentage of the total 

square footage of the root zone. The EIR does not, however, include any information that 

enables the reader to evaluate the significance of these impacts.

Appellants suggest that the proper measure of significance is found in the State 

Parks Natural Resources Handbook (“handbook”), which includes information for 

safeguarding protected trees when planning for construction. According to the handbook, 

“Construction activities in close proximity to trees can wound or destroy tree roots, the 

closer the activity to the tree trunk, the higher the probability that the tree will suffer 
14

injury. This includes soil disturbance from 0 to 3 foot depth including trenching, grade 

changes, storage of vehicles and materials, or compaction caused by machinery 

traversing the zone. . . .[¶] . . .[¶] There should be no construction activities in the 

Structural Root Zone of a protected tree. This includes soil disturbance from 0 to 3 foot 

depth including trenching, grade changes, storage of vehicles and materials, or 

compaction caused by machinery traversing the zone. Any intrusion into this zone is 

usually accompanied by significant injury to roots further from the trunk; this will

shorten the useful life of the tree in the developed area by reducing vigor and introducing 

root disease. Furthermore, damage to any structural roots may cause an already 

structurally compromised tree to become hazardous (i.e., a high risk of uprooting). [¶]

There should be no intrusion beneath the dripline for a protected tree which has preexisting structural root loss.” Finally, the handbook offers guidelines for determining how 

much impact or damage “a protected tree . . . can endure and easily recover from.” “For 

example, a young vigorously growing tree with no existing damage could likely survive a 

30% loss of non-structural roots, or a 30% loss of foliage or some combination of these

[two] impacts totaling ≤ 30%.” In contrast, an old tree in poor health that has already 

suffered a loss of 10% of its root health zone, according to the handbook, could not easily 

survive further impacts.

Caltrans implicitly acknowledges the value of the handbook in its appellate brief, 

citing it for the statement that “even the most low vigor trees can lose 10% of the roots 

from their ‘root health zones’ [fn. omitted] without a significant loss in health. [Fn. 

omitted.]” The EIR itself, however, does not reference the handbook or apply the 

standards it prescribes to evaluate impacts to the old growth redwoods that may be 

expected to result from the highway construction. In fact, the EIR fails to identify any
15

standard of significance, much less to apply one to an analysis of predictable impacts 

from the project.

7

Caltrans compounds this omission by incorporating the proposed mitigation 

measures into its description of the project and then concluding that any potential impacts 

from the project will be less than significant. As the trial court held, the “avoidance, 

minimization and/or mitigation measures,” as they are characterized in the EIR, are not 

“part of the project.” They are mitigation measures designed to reduce or eliminate the 

damage to the redwoods anticipated from disturbing the structural root zone of the trees 

by excavation and placement of impermeable materials over the root zones. By 

compressing the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue, the EIR 

disregards the requirements of CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21100, subd. (b), 

21081; Guidelines, §§ 15126, 15091; Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council, supra, 

229 Cal.App.3d; Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 

 

7

 We do not suggest that the handbook is the only or necessarily the best measure for 

determining significance. The standard of significance applicable in any instance is a 

matter of discretion exercised by the public agency “depending on the nature of the area 

affected.” (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water District Board of 

Directors (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 624.) “The determination of whether a project 

may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of 

the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data.” 

(Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (b); see also Guidelines, § 15064.7, subd. (a) [“Each public 

agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency 

uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. A threshold of 

significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular 

environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be 

determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect 

normally will be determined to be less than significant”].)
16

134 Cal.App.3d.)

8

The EIR fails to indicate which or even how many protected redwoods 

will be impacted beyond the tolerances specified in the handbook and, by failing to 

indicate any significant impacts, fails to make the necessary evaluation and findings 

concerning the mitigation measures that are proposed. Absent a determination regarding 

the significance of the impacts to the root systems of the old growth redwood trees, it is 

impossible to determine whether mitigation measures are required or to evaluate whether 

other more effective measures than those proposed should be considered. Should 

Caltrans determine that a specific tree or group of trees will be significantly impacted by 

proposed roadwork, that finding would trigger the need to consider a range of specifically 

targeted mitigation measures, including analysis of whether the project itself could be 

modified to lessen the impact. (Lincoln Place Tenants Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 

155 Cal.App.4th 425, 445 [“CEQA requires lead agencies to include within EIR’s 

potentially feasible alternatives that, if adopted, would avoid or substantially lessen the 

otherwise significant environmental effects of the proposed projects. In particular, 

mitigation measures should be capable of ‘[a]voiding the impact altogether by not taking 

a certain action or parts of an action’; ‘[m]inimizing impacts by limiting the degree or 

magnitude of the action and its implementation’; ‘[r]ectifying the impact by repairing, 

rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment’; ‘or [r]educing or eliminating the 

impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the 

action.’ ”]; Guidelines, § 15370.) The finding also triggers the need to adopt an 

enforceable monitoring program. (Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (d).) Simply stating that 

 

8

The distinction between elements of a project and measures designed to mitigate 

impacts of the project may not always be clear. For example, in the present case the use 

of “Cement Treated Permeable Base (CTPB) to minimize the thickness of the structural 

section, provide greater porosity, minimize compaction of roots, and minimize thermal 

exposure to roots from Hot Mix Asphalt paving” might well be considered to define the 

project itself. It would be nonsensical to analyze the impact of using some other 

composition of paving and then to consider use of this particular composition as a 

mitigation measure. However, the same cannot be said of most of the “avoidance, 

minimization and/or mitigation measures” here, such as the restorative planting and 

replanting, invasive plant removal, and use of an arborist and of specialized equipment. 

These are plainly mitigation measures and not part of the project itself. 
17

there will be no significant impacts because the project incorporates “special construction 

techniques” is not adequate or permissible. 

The two expert opinions cited in the EIR, both of which conclude that the project 

will have no significant impact on the root health of the redwoods, suffer from the same 

deficiency. Both fail to discuss the significance of the environmental impacts apart from 

the proposed “avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures” and thus fail to 

consider whether other possible mitigation measures would be more effective.

This structural deficiency in the EIR was brought to the attention of Caltrans but 

was disregarded. A letter from the California Department of Parks and Recreation 

commenting on the draft EIR advised Caltrans, “After careful review, the North Coast 

Redwoods District has identified several inconsistencies in the DEIR and there is a 

general lack of data or information that is necessary for our staff to make qualified 

determinations as to the impact to the State Park resources, and the viability of the 

mitigation measures that are presented. . . . Several sections of the DEIR are not 

consistent with CEQA for which we believe additional analysis or mitigation measures 

need to be developed. The document also contains numerous mitigation measures that are 

not enforceable and are therefore not compliant with CEQA. [¶] Because of the apparent 

inconsistencies, lack of clear mitigation methods and a lack of sufficient data to evaluate 

the proposed project, we are not able to make a determination on some critical aspects of 

the project’s impact to the State Park. We are concerned that the document does not meet 

its requirement to be an enforceable environmental tool.” The letter specifically warns, 

“[T]he DEIR states that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse 

effects to the environment and that no mitigation measures are proposed. These 

statements conflict with many of the Environmental Consequences sections of this 

document . . . . The DEIR also contains mitigation measures which are not acknowledged 

in this section but are described in Appendix D. These measures need to be listed in this 

section and the CEQA checklist needs to be corrected to indicate that significant adverse 

effects will occur and then determine if those measures are adequately mitigated. The 

DEIR also contains other measures that should be listed as mitigation but which will only 
18

be done at the discretion of the contractor. These need to be measurable and enforceable 

and listed as mitigations.” Despite Caltrans’s assurance that “[t]he final document will be 

revised to identify the avoidance and minimization mitigation measures,” the final EIR

fails to do so.

9 As succinctly summarized by the Board of Directors of the Save the 

Redwood League, “the level and format of environmental review made it extremely 

difficult to fully comprehend and assess the project.” 

The failure of the EIR to separately identify and analyze the significance of the 

impacts to the root zones of old growth redwood trees before proposing mitigation 

measures is not merely a harmless procedural failing. Contrary to the trial court’s 

conclusion, this short-cutting of CEQA requirements subverts the purposes of CEQA by 

omitting material necessary to informed decision-making and informed public 

participation. It precludes both identification of potential environmental consequences

arising from the project and also thoughtful analysis of the sufficiency of measures to 

mitigate those consequences. The deficiency cannot be considered harmless. For this 

reason, we must reverse the denial of the petition for a writ of mandate and remand the 

case for issuance of a writ directing Caltrans to set aside its certification of the final EIR 

pending modification of those portions of the EIR discussing impacts on old growth 

redwood trees and proposed mitigation measures in compliance with CEQA. (Pub. 

Resources Code, § 21168.9)

Caltrans is not required to start the EIR process anew. Caltrans need only correct 

the deficiencies we have identified before considering recertification of the EIR. Whether 

the correction requires recirculation of the EIR is for Caltrans to decide in light of the 

 

9 At oral argument, counsel for Caltrans argued that a subsequent letter, dated November 

18, 2009, from the Department of Parks and Recreation, confirming compliance with 

requirements for federally-aided highway projects, indicates that the deficiencies in the 

EIR had been corrected. In this letter the department “accept[ed] that [Caltrans] has 

concluded there is currently no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed 

realignment through Richardson Grove State Park” and agreed “that the proposed 

realignment action has included all possible planning by [Caltrans] to minimize long term 

harm to Richardson State Park Resources.” However, the letter does not indicate that the 

information necessary to evaluate this conclusion has been properly included in the EIR.
19

standards governing recirculation of an EIR prior to certification. (Pub. Resources Code, 

§ 21092.1; Guidelines, § 15088.5.) 10

4. Analysis of cumulative traffic impacts from other Caltrans projects was not 

required.

CEQA defines a cumulative impact as “an impact which is created as a result of 

the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing 

related impacts” and requires that an EIR “discuss cumulative impacts of a project when 

the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.” (Guidelines, § 15130, 

subd. (a).) However, “[a]n EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part 

from the project evaluated in the EIR.” (Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (a)(1).) 

Caltrans argues that no discussion of cumulative traffic impacts was necessary in 

light of the conclusion in the EIR that the project will not result in an increase in 

commercial traffic. In discussing the environmental impacts of the project on population 

growth, the EIR concludes that the project will not increase truck traffic in Humboldt 

County. The EIR provides, “Caltrans commissioned a study in 2008 in order to assess the 

disadvantages and potential growth impacts. The study, “Realigning Highway 101 at 

Richardson Grove: The Economic Impact on Humboldt and Del Norte Counties” (Dr. 

David Gallo, March 2008) found that transportation costs are currently higher within 

these counties due to STAA restrictions, however, the removal of these restrictions would 

not be expected to result in an increase in truck traffic, rather an increase in efficiency. 

The study cites information from business owners in the region who estimated a 

reduction in the number of annual truck trips of 12.3 percent if the STAA restrictions 

through Richardson Grove were 1ifted. The reduction in the number of trips due to 

increased efficiency would likely offset any increase in number of trips due to reduced 

transportation costs, with a result that eliminating STAA restrictions in southern 

 

10 With the exception of the cumulative impacts section discussed post, in light of the 

remand, we do not reach appellants’ remaining arguments. 
20

Humboldt County would not significantly change truck traffic. [¶] Another reason why 

STAA truck traffic is not likely to substantially increase in Humboldt County is due to 

the types of industr[ies] utilizing trucking as a primary goods movement method. A 

report prepared by Caltrans for the California Senate Transportation Committee titled, “A 

Study of Various Aspects of Tractor-Semi-trailer Productivity” (January 1986) examined 

the comparative economic value of STAA trucks’ greater volume. The study analyzed the 

theory that longer trailers constituted a substantial economic advantage in terms of 

hauling volume. The study concluded that, when maximum weight is a criterion, the 48-

foot semi-trailers allowed under the STAA regulations ‘are more productive only for 

high-cube (low density) freight. They are usable for heavier products but, for such goods, 

are no more productive tha[n] the shorter non-STAA trailers.’ Meaning, that there is a 

maximum weight restriction for loads as well as maximum length of cabs and trailers, 

and that for heavy loads, the economic advantage for the longer vehicles is not present 

because STAA trucks are subject to the same weight restriction as non-STAA trucks. [¶]

Additionally, the total number of trucks utilizing US Route 101 would not be likely to 

change regardless of truck size for routine truck trips, regardless of the vehicle's volume 

or the payload's weight (for instance, weekly or biweekly deliveries from distribution 

centers to retail outlets). Increasingly, businesses rely upon products delivered to the 

customer “just in time” rather than warehoused items. Trips of this kind would not likely 

be affected by the proposed project. This is particularly true in light of economic trends. 

Truck transport has been declining nationwide with the rise in fuel prices and many firms 

are requiring full return payloads in order to maximize fuel economy. [¶] It is not likely 

that truck traffic would be diverted from the 1-5 corridor to use US Route 101 if the 

STAA restriction is lifted. Diversion onto US Route 101 would depend upon it being

economically feasible for the trucking companies to change their existing routes based 

upon fuel consumption and travel times. Since all the major coastal cities from southern 

California to northern Washington have readily available access to the 1-5 and Route 99 
21

corridors, which have straighter alignments and faster travel times, the opening of STAA 

access to US Route 101 through Richardson Grove is not expected to generate a 

substantial amount of diverted truck traffic. In addition, a traffic study performed for the 

projects to lift STAA restrictions on Routes 197 and 199 in Del Norte County [fn. 

omitted] also found that there was very little latent demand [fn. omitted] expected with 

the removal of the STAA restriction. That study estimated that providing STAA access 

could add about eight truck round trips per day on Routes 199 and 197.”

Appellants argue that discussion of cumulative traffic impacts was required 

because Caltrans knew that the effects of the project, although minor themselves, may be

significant when combined “with other Caltrans STAA truck access projects planned and 

currently underway in Northern California.” We disagree that the evidence cited by 

appellants supports such a conclusion.

Appellants cite to a comment by a Caltrans staffer in response to a draft of the

Richardson Grove Natural Environment Study in which she identifies “several STAA 

Curve improvement projects that have recently been completed, or are planned in 

Humboldt and Del Norte Counties” that “may increase commercial traffic levels.”

Appellants also cite to an email by another Caltrans staffer in which she notes that there 

are changes in motion to allow use of STAA trucks on state highways in Humboldt and 

Del Norte Counties and that the “shifting of Cal-Legal and STAA-configured truck 

modes may cause some shifting of travel paths for some truckloads entering and leaving 

Humboldt and Del Norte Counties.” Unlike the EIR quoted extensively above, neither 

comment offers any additional analysis of these potential impacts.

Appellants rely on a prediction found in the traffic study for the Highway 197/199 

STAA project, cited in the EIR, which estimates that in the year 2030 there will be 

approximately 46 round-trips, or 92 more trucks, per day using the SR-199 and US-197 

corridors than under the no build scenario. That same report concludes, however, “[t]he 

Del Norte STAA improvements project is not expected to significantly increase truck 
22

volumes on US-199, SR-197 or US-101. The [level of service] on US-101, US-199, and 

SR-197 are within the acceptable thresholds . . . for existing and future 2030 background 

conditions. . . . [¶] . . . While the project is expected to attract additional trucks to US-199 

and SR-197, the increase in truck traffic will not have a significant negative impact on 

traffic operations, transit operations, or the bicycle/pedestrian environment.” Contrary to 

appellants’ argument, the report does not conclude that these two STAA access projects, 

both of which have insignificant impacts on traffic, will have a significant cumulative 

impact. 

Disposition

The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court with 

directions to enter a new judgment, consistent with Public Resources Code section 

21168.9 and this opinion, granting plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of mandate. Appellants 

shall recover their costs on appeal. 

_________________________

Pollak, J.

We concur:

_________________________

McGuiness, P.J.

_________________________

Jenkins, J.
23

Trial Court: Humboldt County Superior Court

Trial Judge: Hon. Dale A. Reinholtsen

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Appellants: Center for Biological Diversity:

 Kevin P. Bundy

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy:

 Joseph W. Cotchett,

 Philip L. Gregory

 and

 Paul N. McCloskey

Gross Law:

 Stuart G. Gross

Law Offices of Sharon E. Duggan:

 Sharon E. Duggan

Counsel for Defendants and Respondents: Department of Transportation:

 Ronald W. Beals, Chief Counsel,

 David Gossage,

 Lucille Baca,

 Janet Wong

 and

 Stacy Lau