EIR

Subscribe to EIR via RSS

On Thursday, December 10, environmental organizations filed a complaint against Kern County in California Superior Court alleging that the County violated the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by preparing a “grossly inadequate” Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for its new oil and gas rules.  The Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (jointly “the Sierra Club”), along with several other local organizations, take issue with the programmatic approach of the EIR, and urge a well-by-well environmental analysis.  This lawsuit comes as no surprise to the County.  Environmental groups have a long history of opposing oil and gas development in Kern County, which produces over 70% of all the oil in California.

This lawsuit comes in reaction to a Kern County zoning ordinance amendment which harnessed broad local support.  On November 9, 2015, the Kern County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved amendments to Title 19 of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance which provides a streamline permitting process for oil and gas operations.  Notably, the new ordinance encourages oil and gas producers to work with surface owners to agree on a development plan, promoting cooperation and transparency.  The amendments also required the County to conduct an extensive environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA.  The Board of Supervisors certified the Final EIR after holding multiple public Scoping Meetings and reviewing various mitigation measures.Continue Reading Environmental Challenge Blasts Kern County Oil and Gas Rules

Today, July 30, the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) filed a complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court against the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”). CBD claims, among other things, that DOGGR failed to comply with Senate Bill 4 (“SB 4”) by releasing its Final EIR regarding oil and gas well stimulation treatment prior to the release of a state-mandated Independent Study.

This lawsuit strikes us as more of a shout out to the Legislature and the Governor to highlight CBD’s ongoing disappointment with SB 4, more than anything else. CBD mistakenly construes SB 4 to require DOGGR to analyze and incorporate the Independent Study’s findings into its Final EIR, when no such requirement is found in the law. Indeed, by its terms, SB 4 only requires DOGGR to comply with the following requirements relating to the EIR:

  • The EIR shall be certified by the division as the lead agency, no later than July 1, 2015.
  • The EIR shall address the issue of activities that may be conducted as defined in Section 3157 and that may occur at oil wells in the state existing prior to, and after, the effective date of this section.
  • The EIR shall not conflict with an EIR conducted by a local lead agency that is certified on or before July 1, 2015.

(Pub. Resources Code, § 3161.) The Legislature, not the Sacramento County Superior Court, is the proper body to which this additional request should be made, as there is currently no law mandating it.
Continue Reading Activists ask Court to Scrap EIR and Stop Fracking

In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Cal. Ct. App. 5th Dist. May 27, 2014), the Fifth Appellate District found fault with the County of Fresno’s (County)  review of the Friant Ranch Project (Project) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The appellate court concluded that the County’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not sufficiently correlate the Project’s air quality impacts with impacts on human health, and did not sufficiently define mitigation measures designed to address air quality impacts. With respect to correlating air emissions to human health impacts, it is worth noting that the court did not address the extent to which this is possible. Initial reactions from air consultants who have reviewed this decision is that it is not technically possible to calculate this correlation with such specificity, leaving open the question of how lead agencies will respond to this decision in future CEQA documents.
Continue Reading What’s a ROG and Can It Hurt Me? EIR Overturned For Failure to Explain Air Quality Impacts to Human Health

In Trisha Lee Lotus v. Caltrans (Jan. 30, 2014), the First District Court of Appeal reversed a Humboldt County Superior Court decision, and ruled that a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) environmental impact report (EIR) failed to adequately analyze the significance of the project’s impacts to old-growth redwood root systems in a state park.

Caltrans prepared the EIR for the realignment of a 1-mile segment of U.S. Route 101 that passes through Richardson Grove State Park, which is home to old growth California redwoods.  The project’s goal is to accommodate standard-sized trucks that have been restricted from using the road due to its size and configuration.  Petitioners-appellants, including the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Californians for Alternatives to Toxics (jointly, “Lotus”), challenged the adequacy of the EIR on several grounds, and won on appeal on one issue.Continue Reading Caltrans EIR Analysis of Impacts to Redwoods Found Inadequate

Authored by Carissa Beecham

In Friends of Oroville, et al. v. City of Oroville, et al. (“Friends of Oroville”) (filed and published in part on August 19, 2013), the Third District Court of Appeal partially reversed the trial court in finding that the City of Oroville’s (“City”) EIR improperly analyzed the greenhouse…

In Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (filed August 5, 2013) (“Neighbors”), a majority of the California Supreme Court justices announced a new rule regarding the baseline agencies may use when conducting a CEQA analysis of a project’s environmental impacts. Specifically, the Court ruled that CEQA does not prohibit the exclusive use of projected future conditions provided that there is substantial evidence in the record that the use of an existing conditions baseline would “tend to be misleading or without informational value.” Although the Court majority held that the respondent agency in Neighbors used the wrong baseline under this standard, a plurality of the Court upheld the project approval on the ground that the agency’s error was not prejudicial.

Neighbors involved a CEQA challenge to the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority’s (“Authority”) approval of a light-rail project running from Culver City to Santa Monica. In December 2009, the Authority published its final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and, in February 2010, it certified the EIR’s compliance with CEQA. Subsequently, opponents of the project, Neighbors for Smart Rail (“Neighbors”), challenged the project’s compliance with CEQA. Both the superior court and appellate court upheld the project’s CEQA analysis. The Supreme Court accepted certioari on two questions: did the Authority’s EIR violate CEQA because (1) it exclusively analyzed future conditions as a baseline for assessing the project’s environmental impacts, and (2) it used an impermissible mitigation measure to offset the project’s environmental impacts?

Writing for the majority, Justice Werdegar resolved an appellate court split of authority concerning the exclusive use of future conditions as a baseline for assessing project impacts. On one side of the split were the appellate opinions in Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1351 and Madera Oversight Coaliation, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, both of which held that the use of a single future condition baseline was a per se CEQA violation. The appellate court opinion in Neighbors, on the other hand, held that future conditions could properly be used as baselines so long as they were reliable, provided relevant information, and permitted informed decisionmaking.Continue Reading CEQA Baseline Analysis: Future Conditions Baseline Should Be the Exception Not the Rule When Agency Reviews Environmental Impacts, Says Divided California Supreme Court

Decision expected to provide guidance for public agencies in determining the type of environmental review required for such bans.

In Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. County of Marin, et al. (published in part by the First Appellate District on July 25, 2013) (“Marin”), the court upheld the County of Marin’s (“County”) ordinance prohibiting certain retail establishments from dispensing plastic bags and imposing a charge of at least five cents for paper bags.  The court determined that the ordinance did not require review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it was categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines §§ 15307 and 15308 (also known as Class 7 and 8 exemptions, which are actions taken to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource, or protection of the environment from environmental review).  

This decision follows a previous challenge by the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition (“Coalition”) appealing a plastic bag ban ordinance in the City of Manhattan Beach, which proceeded all the way to the California Supreme Court.  See Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach (2011) 52 Cal. 4th 155 (“Manhattan Beach”). Continue Reading Marin County’s Plastic Bag Ban Categorically Exempt From CEQA Review

My colleague, Barbara Brenner, posted an environmental law alert on the recently published CEQA decision issued by the California Third District Court of Appeal in Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Ctr. v. County of Siskiyou, No. C064930, 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1088 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2012).  The case is significant because it…

plastic bag on beach.jpgThe California Supreme Court’s ruling on Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach decided two important issues regarding the interpretation and application of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  First, the Court decided the city of Manhattan Beach was not required to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) under CEQA before enacting…

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley’s recent ruling (PDF) in the case challenging East Bay Municipal Utility District’s (EBMUD) approval of its updated water supply plan is a reminder of the importance of fully disclosing potential impacts of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), even when the CEQA project is a programmatic…

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.