Richardson Grove: The Legal Chapter Concludes

EPIC and the Save Richardson Grove Coalition recently received a final decision the California Court of Appeals. While we are disappointed in the outcome, the effort to protect these ancient redwoods has had a lasting impact. You can read the full decision here:

Certify (7).pdf

Download PDF • 1.62MB

While our lawyers are still reviewing the decision, this might be the end of litigation on Caltrans’s proposed Richardson Grove Project. Caltrans has announced that it anticipates ground-disturbing activity to begin in May. 

My brief legal analysis of the case is that the Appellate Court found a narrow jurisdictional ground to decide the case, which allowed the court to largely bypass the substantive question of whether Caltrans ever fully considered the likely impacts of the project on the old-growth redwoods that line Highway 101 through Richardson Grove. EPIC still firmly believes that Caltrans invented a methodology to evaluate impacts to old-growth trees to support their pre-ordained conclusion that the project wouldn’t cause significant impacts. We believe that a full airing of this issue would have proved our contentions. But the narrow legal ruling avoided the scrutiny that this project deserved and which Caltrans sought desperately to avoid.

Legacy of Richardson Grove

While we lost, the litigation has helped change practice at Caltrans. For projects with the potential for significant impacts or public controversy, the agency has been more transparent about the environmental considerations before it. For example, the Last Chance Grade Project in Del Norte County, which would reroute Highway 101 to avoid an unstable and failure-prone area, is a good example of this new approach. Before the release of the first CEQA document, the agency spent almost a decade doing stakeholder engagement with Tribes, other government agencies, and even environmental groups. This process helped eliminate the most harmful alternatives from the outset and pushed Caltrans to take mitigation of impacts seriously. The result of this process has been a better project with greater community support and fewer environmental impacts—and ultimately one that will be able to be delivered faster, too. EPIC hopes that this was a lasting lesson learned by the agency. And if not, we will be ready to step in the next time they slip up. 

Understanding the Role of CEQA Litigation

CEQA litigation is designed to ensure transparency, public participation, and informed decision-making when projects may affect the environment. These cases often shape projects by improving environmental review, strengthening mitigation measures, and ensuring agencies fully evaluate impacts. Over 15 years, the Richardson Grove case helped elevate scientific scrutiny and public awareness regarding the vulnerability of old-growth redwood ecosystems.

Experience shows that when communities seek to fundamentally change project outcomes, legal advocacy is most effective when paired with coalition building, public engagement, and legislative solutions that create lasting protections for sensitive resources. EPIC remains committed to advancing long-term safeguards for California’s remaining ancient forests.

Thank You for Your Support

Thank you to Tricia Lotus, Jeff Hedin, Patty Clary, Barbara Kennedy, Ken Miller, and many others for all of your hard work over the past 15+ years. EPIC would like to thank our many friends, some of whom are no longer with us, who have supported EPIC through this fight. To Dave Spreen, Bruce Edwards, Bess Bair, Eileen Cooper, and Loreen Eliason, thanks for all your help in this world and from the other side. We have also been joined by excellent co-plaintiffs: the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of Del Norte, and Californians for Alternatives to Toxics. 

This ruling does not reflect the excellent legal work we have received from our attorneys. To Ross Middlemiss, Stuart Gross, Sharon Duggan, Phil Gregory, Kevin Bundy, Camilo Artiga-Purcell, and others: thank you.