Sierra Club v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
840 F.3d 1106
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) adopted a 2012 Regional Plan Update (RPU) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) directing new development into designated "community centers," with finer project details to be addressed later in Area Plans.
- Plaintiffs (Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore) challenged the EIS, arguing it failed to take a "hard look" at localized soil and water-quality impacts from concentrated coverage and improperly relied on best management practices (BMPs) despite TRPA’s past weak BMP enforcement.
- The draft EIS analyzed impacts at a regional level; extensive public comments (notably from the California Attorney General and EPA) pressed for watershed- or parcel-level analysis and criticized reliance on BMPs.
- TRPA revised the draft, added a Pollutant Load Reduction Model (PLRM) to assess localized stormwater impacts, retained prohibitions on cross-watershed coverage transfers, tightened some coverage/density proposals, and described steps to strengthen BMP implementation and enforcement.
- Plaintiffs sued after TRPA adopted the RPU; the district court granted summary judgment for TRPA. On appeal the Ninth Circuit considered standing, ripeness, and whether TRPA’s EIS was arbitrary and capricious under the Compact standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs had standing and claims were ripe | Plaintiffs have concrete interests and need to challenge RPU policies now rather than wait for Area Plans | RPU effects are speculative until Area Plans approve increased coverage | Plaintiffs have standing; claims are ripe because RPU adoption itself effects policy changes that can be challenged |
| Whether EIS unlawfully failed to analyze localized impacts of concentrating development | EIS only did region-wide analysis and must analyze cumulative local/watershed impacts (community centers, nearshore, streams) | RPU is a programmatic/regional plan; parcel- or watershed-level analysis is infeasible and speculative; PLRM and RPU revisions adequately address localized impacts | EIS was not arbitrary or capricious; PLRM and other revisions adequately addressed localized water-quality and soil conservation concerns |
| Whether TRPA unreasonably relied on BMPs despite past enforcement failures | Reliance on BMPs is unjustified given documented history of neglected maintenance; EIS should evaluate impacts assuming continued neglect | Final EIS documents reforms, enforcement tools, BMP Handbook updates, funding/grants and incentive structures—reliance is reasonable | Court upheld TRPA’s reliance on BMPs as supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious |
| Whether district court abused discretion in awarding costs under TRPA Rule 10.6.2 | Rule unfairly shifts administrative-record costs to plaintiffs even when they prevail | Plaintiffs lost below and on appeal, so award of costs was permissible; whether the rule is authorized need not be decided here | Affirmed district court’s award of costs to TRPA; merits of Rule 10.6.2’s authorization left for another day |
Key Cases Cited
- Suitum v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725 (1997) (describing TRPA’s Compact origins and authority)
- Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing Bailey system and development impacts)
- League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 739 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (NEPA-like analysis and regional water quality issues)
- Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber, 767 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2014) (permitting programmatic EIS with deferred site-specific analysis)
- Lands Council v. McNair, 629 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010) (EIS purposes and judicial deference to agency analysis)
- Native Ecosystems Council v. Weldon, 697 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2012) (deference to agency scientific determinations)
- Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 451 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2006) (upholding agency reliance on implementation/monitoring programs despite past problems)
- Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 329 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2003) (validating planned monitoring programs under federal statutes)