Opinion ID: 329593
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deficiencies in the Design Study Report (DSR).

Text: 75
76 Section 128 requires that CDHW consider the economic and social effects (of the proposed project and) its impact on the environment. 23 C.F.R. § 790.3(c), which implements this requirement, provides more specifically that state highway departments are to consider:the direct And indirect benefits or losses to the community and to highway users (including) effects that are relevant and applicable to the particular location or design under consideration as to: 77 (1) Regional and community growth, including general plans and proposed land use, total transportation requirements, and status of the planning process. 78 (2) Conservation and preservation including . . . the general ecology of the area as well as manmade and other natural resources, . . . 79 (3) Public facilities and services including religious, health and educational facilities; and public utilities, fire protection and other emergency services. 80 (4) Community cohesion including residential and neighborhood character and stability, . . . and effects on local tax base and property values. 81 (5) Displacement of people, businesses, and farms. . . . 82 (6) Air, noise and water pollution including consistency with approved air quality implementation plans. . . . 83 (7) Aesthetic and other values. . . . 84 The DSR itself contains little discussion of social, economic and environmental effects. Rather, it incorporates by reference the Negative Declaration and a second document, fifty pages long, denominated Additional Environmental Evaluation (AEE). 24 The cursory Negative Declaration, discussed above, certainly is in no way indicative of proper environmental consideration. The AEE, which was completed more than a month in advance of the design public hearings, 25 does discuss the primary impact of the interchange, but fails to explore the secondary or indirect impact: the social, economic and environmental effects of the planned industrial development. These effects are dismissed as speculative and uncertain. For reasons that we have stated relating to NEPA, this will not do. 85 The purposes of § 128, as amplified by NEPA, are ill-served by rigid bifurcation of potential social, economic and environmental effects into those which are primary or direct and those which are secondary or indirect. 86 From what we have said in our discussion of NEPA, the Kidwell project's high potential for inducing serious secondary effects should be evident. Yet despite the factors enumerated in 23 C.F.R. § 790.3(c), which became effective before the date of the design public hearings, the AEE contains no detailed discussion of the project's probable impact on growth, land use or the planning process in the Dixon-Kidwell-Davis area, no detailed consideration of the effect industrialization would have on the proposed recreational development along Putah Creek, no estimate of the increased demand for Davis city services which increased population would occasion, no indication that the effects on community cohesion and the tax base have been studied, and no scientifically supported estimate of the effects of industrialization on air and noise pollution or on the quality and sufficiency of Davis' water supply. These and other unanswered questions must be addressed in an EIS/EIR and properly considered at new public hearings before the project may be completed (if that is what is ultimately decided upon). 87
88 23 C.F.R. § 790.9(b)(1) requires that a design study report include 89 (d)escriptions of the alternatives considered and a discussion of the anticipated social, economic, and environmental effects Of the alternatives, pointing out the significant differences and the reasons supporting the proposed location or design. In addition, the report must include an analysis of the relative consistency of the alternatives with the goals and objectives of any urban plan that has been adopted by the community concerned. 90 (emphasis added). 91 The AEE describes three alternatives: (1) construction of a frontage road along the northwest side of the I-80 right of way from a point near Putah Creek to the Pedrick Road Interchange; (2) construction of the project as currently planned except without exit and entry ramps; and (3) abandonment of plans for the interchange and all frontage roads. A fourth alternative, construction of a tight diamond interchange that would provide access and accommodate the asserted need for a farm crossing but which would not be suitable for industrial traffic, was suggested at the public hearings and discussed in the DSR. 92 But neither the AEE nor the DSR contains any discussion of the respective social, economic and environmental effects of these alternatives or their relative consistency with the urban planning of either Davis or Dixon. Aside from the mere descriptions of the four alternatives, the only discussion is directed at establishing that each alternative would be unworkable because of excessive economic cost. The source of the cost estimates upon which this conclusion is based is not specified, and the estimates are not presented in a manner conducive to comparison or analysis. 93 We reject the notion that considerations of economic cost, however weighty, suffice to release CDHW from its obligation to discuss the social, economic, environmental and planning impacts in the DSR. The 1968 and 1970 amendments to § 128 which require, respectively, consideration of social, economic, environmental and planning impacts and the submission of a report indicating the nature of the consideration of these impacts clearly show congressional sentiment that the decisionmaking calculus with respect to federal-aid highway projects should not be limited to economic factors. See generally, Lathan v. Brinegar, supra, 506 F.2d at 688-89. 94 A properly drafted DSR should allow FHWA, which has the final say on commitment of federal funds, and for whose benefit the DSR is prepared, to compare the project as planned and the alternatives not only on the scale of economic costs and benefits but also with respect to social, economic and environmental impacts and consistency with local planning. It is not for us to say what weight FHWA or state highway departments should, in particular cases, accord to these often conflicting considerations, but when a DSR entirely omits analysis of the social, environmental and planning effects of alternatives, a crucial element in the congressionally mandated decisionmaking calculus is lacking, and the consideration which the statute and regulations contemplate cannot take place. 95 The DSR and AEE also fail to take into proper account the effect of the project as proposed on Davis' urban planning. Davis submitted hundreds of pages of its planning documents and they have been included as a separate volume of the hearing transcript. But neither the DSR nor the AEE makes even a single reference to the contents of these documents. The Kidwell's project's consistency with the urban planning of Dixon and Solano County does not relieve the defendants of their obligation to consider the project's consistency with Davis' urban planning and to disclose in the DSR the nature and extent of any conflict. 96