Photo of Tom Henry

Tom Henry

Subscribe to Tom Henry's Posts

Tom Henry focuses his practice on permitting, performing environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and resolving other land use, title and regulatory compliance issues. As a California mining attorney, Tom assists clients in permitting mining projects and resolving compliance issues. Tom’s oil and gas experience involves title review, as well as land use, permitting and CEQA issues related to oil and gas development and production. Tom also advises clients as to California’s AB 32 emissions reporting and Cap and Trade Program. A partner in our Sacramento office, he has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America© in the practice area of Oil & Gas Law since 2012.

Follow:Read more about Tom HenryThomas's Linkedin Profile

California’s State Mining and Geology Board had a busy 2017 with ongoing rulemakings to implement SMARA reform enacted in 2016.  The Board’s 2018 will be busy and one to closely watch too, in particular, because the Board plans to address the unintended environmental consequences created by the adoption fifteen years ago of what is known as the “Backfill Regulation.”

For those who fled California in the wake of the Backfill Regulation, here’s a quick refresher on why you packed your bags and haven’t returned.  The Backfill Regulation has two key requirements for open pit metallic mineral mines.  First, the regulation requires all open pit excavations to be backfilled to the original surface elevation.  Second, any excess material must be graded with the resulting topography not to exceed the pre-mining surface elevation by more than 25 feet.

Overall, the Backfill Regulation has been bad news for the California mining industry and the environment as explained in this February 2016 Update on the Regulatory Environment for Metallic Mines in California.  In a nutshell, the Backfill Regulation requires moving material twice (increasing GHG emissions), fails to address the proper storage and handling of waste materials (jeopardizing water quality), and can cause greater ground disturbances (impacting habitat for sensitive species).Continue Reading California Mining Board to Address Environmental Problems Created by Backfill Regulation Affecting Gold and Other Metallic Mineral Mines

On September 6, 2016, a federal Judge issued an Order finding that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) failed to take a “hard look,” as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), at the potential environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing in issuing a new Resource Management Plan (“RMP”) for the Bakersfield Field Office.  The Order directed the BLM to conduct a supplemental environmental impact statement (“EIS”) focusing on the potential impacts of fracking.   While the decision will likely affect future leasing under the new RMP, it is not a moratorium on fracking.
Continue Reading BLM Must Take a “Hard Look” at Fracking Impacts

Not to be outdone by its federal counter-parts, the California Air Resources Board (“ARB”) released Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities (“proposed rule”) for methane emissions on Tuesday, May 31, following a slew of recent federal regulations targeting reduction of methane emissions.  Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §§ 95665-95676 (proposed).  The federal Bureau of Land Management released proposed regulations for reducing waste and methane emissions in oil and gas operations in January 2016.  Then, in May 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also began regulating methane when it released final regulations to curb emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds from additional new, modified, and reconstructed sources in the oil and gas industry.

While methane is the current emissions target for regulators’ greenhouse gas reduction efforts, the oil and gas sector is the industry target.  The proposed rule is part of California’s plan to reduce emissions from short-lived climate pollutants, including methane emissions, by 40-45% by 2025.  This follows the Obama Administration’s similar methane emissions reduction goal.Continue Reading The Other Shoe Just Dropped on Methane Emissions from the Oil and Gas Industry

Last summer, the Third District Court of Appeal issued a sweeping ruling in Siskiyou County Farm Bureau v. Department of Fish and Wildlife, which made any substantial diversions of water subject to the streambed alteration agreement provisions of the California Fish and Game Code (“CDFW”).  The court ruled that California Fish and Game Code…

On January 20, 2016, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) released a revised draft of thresholds for measuring transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). These draft thresholds are designed to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG”) pursuant to its mandate under Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013). The initial draft was released for review in August 2014.

OPR’s revised draft is fundamentally similar to its initial draft. In particular, under both drafts, the focus of a project’s transportation impacts analysis under revised Guidelines would shift from analyzing the project’s potential to increase traffic delays to the project’s effects on GHG emissions by focusing on vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”). The CEQA Guidelines have always focused a project’s potential transportation impacts analysis on the project’s potential to increase traffic delays by analyzing the project’s level of service (“LOS”). …
Continue Reading Updates to CEQA Guidelines for Transportation Impacts Analysis Under SB 743

My colleague, Michael Sherman, posted yesterday about two issues decided in the California Supreme Court’s decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.  Today, I’ll address the part of the decision that involves the evaluation of the Newhall Ranch project’s greenhouse gas emissions.  In short, the Court just made it a lot harder to evaluate greenhouse gas emissions under CEQA for any large land use project.  There is likely a solution for some situations where the emissions primarily involve the consumption of transportation fuel – the AB 32 Cap and Trade Program was recently expanded to cover those fuels.  This potential solution is hinted at by the Court.  I’ll get to that at the bottom of the post.  But first I’ll discuss the decision and why it’s a problem.

For some background, the Newhall Ranch project would consist of over 20,000 residential units in Southern California.  The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project was certified back in 2010.  The resulting litigation has since been making its way through the courts.  The California Department of Fish and Wildlife used an approach to analyze greenhouse gas emissions similar to what other lead agencies have been using recently.  They relied on the AB 32 Scoping Plan to set a threshold of significance.  AB 32 requires statewide greenhouse gas emissions to return to 1990 levels by 2020.  In the Scoping Plan, the California Air Resources Board determined that this would require a 29% reduction in statewide emissions from a business-as-usual approach — an approach with no conservation or regulatory efforts beyond what was in place when the forecast was made.  Lead agencies have used this standard to find that proposed projects that would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 29% over a project with a business-as-usual approach would, therefore, have a less than significant impact for greenhouse gas emissions.
Continue Reading How to Fix Your GHG Analysis After the California Supreme Court’s Newhall Ranch Decision

According to several news organizations, Governor Brown has announced plans to form a new panel to review the recent well stimulation study conducted by the California Council on Science and Technology (“CCST”).

The study found that while there is little evidence that hydraulic fracturing is directly linked to widespread negative health and environmental impacts, additional…

The California Council on Science & Technology (“CCST”) recently released its Independent Study of well stimulation in California. The report was prepared for the California Natural Resources Agency in response to Senate Bill 4 (“SB 4”).

The Study notes the following key points:

  • Hydraulic fracturing in California does not use a lot of fresh water compared to other states and other human uses.
  • Available evidence indicates that impacts caused directly by hydraulic fracturing or acid stimulation or by activities directly supporting these operations appear small.
  • No recorded negative impacts from hydraulic fracturing chemical use in California were found; however, governmental reporting should be expanded.
  • Additives used in hydraulic fracturing and acid stimulation should be evaluated to reduce any potential adverse impacts.
  • The potential impacts caused by hydraulic fracturing are similar to oil development practices generally, even without the use of hydraulic fracturing.
  • There is a potential for additives used in hydraulic fracturing and acid stimulation to react with other elements underground causing the chemistry to change over time.
  • Fluid injected in the process of hydraulic fracturing will not likely cause earthquakes of concern.
  • Oil produced in California using hydraulic fracturing emits less greenhouse gas per barrel than the average barrel imported to California.

Continue Reading Independent Study on California Fracking Released

On June 4, 2015, the Court of Appeal ruled that California Fish and Game Code section 1602 (“Section 1602”) unambiguously requires notification to the Department of Fish and Wildlife (“Department”) if an entity or individual plans to “substantially divert” water, even when the legal right to use the water was previously established. (Siskiyou…

In Saltonstall, et al. v. City of Sacramento, No. C077772 (Cal. Ct. App. 3rd Dist., Feb. 18, 2015), the Third Appellate District affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court in holding that the City of Sacramento did not violate the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by beginning construction of the downtown arena. This appeal comes just months after the Third Appellate District rejected the same petitioners’ arguments that expedited CEQA timelines were unconstitutional. (Saltonstall et al., v. City of Sacramento, No. C077031 (Cal. Ct. App. 3rd Dist., Nov. 20, 2014) (Saltonstall I).)
Continue Reading Sacramento Kings – 2, Opponents – 0: Court Rules that the Downtown Arena Satisfies Environmental Review Requirements

About Stoel Rives Environmental Law

Learn More

Few firms view their Environment, Land Use, and Natural Resources practices as core legal services. Stoel Rives is one of them. The firm ranks #8 in the United States according to Law360’s list of the largest practices of its kind. Our sophisticated compliance counseling, permitting, regulatory development, and litigation practices continue a long tradition of specialization and deep experience. Our environment, land use, and natural resource attorneys incorporate prior agency experience, technical acumen, and industry knowledge into their legal advice. They also build strong relationships with agency officials and industry associations. Our litigation successes include landmark decisions. More than 60 attorneys, paralegals, and compliance analysts comprise Stoel Rives’ nationwide Environment, Land Use & Natural Resources practice.