Case Information

*1 Filed 10/19/17 (unmodified opn. attached)

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK

NORTH AMERICA et al., A145632

Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG14731906)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

PESTICIDE REGULATION et al., ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

Defendants and Respondents, NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT VALENT U.S.A. CORPORATION et al.,

Real Parties in Interest. BY THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on September 19, 2017, be modified as follows:

The “Environmental Baseline” section beginning on page 21 and continuing through page 24 is deleted.

On page 24, in the first sentence of the “Cumulative Impacts” section, the words “that is closely related to consideration of a meaningful project baseline” are deleted.

On page 30, in the second to last sentence of the “Recirculation” section, the words “any discussion of an environmental baseline or” are deleted.

The petitions for rehearing filed September 29, 2017 and October 4, 2017 are denied. The request for judicial notice filed on October 4, 2017 is denied. There is no

change in the judgment.

Date: OCT 19, 2017 McGuiness, P.J.______________P.J.

*3 Filed 9/19/17 (unmodified version)

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK

NORTH AMERICA et al., A145632

Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG14731906)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

PESTICIDE REGULATION et al.,

Defendants and Respondents,

VALENT U.S.A. CORPORATION et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

Defendant California Department of Pesticide Regulation (the Department), approved amended labels for two previously registered pesticides: Dinotefuran 20SG,

manufactured by real party in interest Mistui Chemicals Agro, Inc. (Mitsui), and Venom

Insecticide, manufactured by real party in interest Valent U.S.A. Corporation (Valent).

The amended labels allowed both pesticides to be used on additional crops and allowed

Venom Insecticide to be used in increased quantities. Both pesticides contain the active

ingredient dinotefuran, which is from a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids. In

approving the labels, the Department concluded uses of both pesticides in accord with the

label amendments would cause no significant environmental effect on honeybees or the

environment.

Plaintiff Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) filed suit challenging the approvals and alleging the Department violated the California Environmental Quality

Act (CEQA) by approving the label amendments without sufficient environmental

review. The trial court denied PANNA’s writ petition, which PANNA appeals. The

record demonstrating the Department’s efforts at environmental review here were

deficient. So, we reverse.

BACKGROUND

The Department’s Regulation of Pesticides The Department is responsible for regulating the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides in California. State regulations seek to provide for the proper, safe, and

efficient use of pesticides essential for food production; to protect public health and

safety; and to protect the environment from harm by ensuring the proper stewardship of

pesticide products. (Food & Agr. Code, § 11501.)

All pesticides sold and used in California must be licensed or registered. (Food & Agr. Code, § 12811.) Before a pesticide can be registered in California, it must first be

registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA). (7 U.S.C. §

136a.) Once the EPA registers a pesticide, it is eligible for the Department’s review. The

Department must thoroughly evaluate the pesticide to ensure that, when used in

conformance with its labeling, it is effective and will not harm human health or the

environment. (Food & Agr. Code, § 12824.)

A pesticide that demonstrates “serious uncontrollable adverse effects either within or outside the agricultural environment,” presents a “greater detriment to the environment

than the benefit received by its use” or which has “a reasonable, effective, and practicable

alternate material . . . less destructive to the environment” may not be registered. (Food

& Agr. Code, § 12825, subds. (a), (b), (c).) The Department may also place appropriate

restrictions on how, where and in what quantities any registered pesticide may be used.

(Food & Agr. Code, § 12824.) To remain valid, pesticide registrations must be renewed

annually. (Food & Agr. Code, § 12817.)

The Department also is obligated to continuously evaluate registered pesticides to ensure they pose no danger to the environment. (Food & Agr. Code, § 12824.) The

Department must investigate “all reported episodes and information [it receives] that

indicate a pesticide may have caused, or is likely to cause, a significant adverse impact,

or that indicate there is an alternative that may significantly reduce an adverse

environmental impact. If the Director finds from the investigation that a significant

adverse impact has occurred or is likely to occur or that such an alternative is available,

the pesticide involved shall be reevaluated.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, § 6220.) The

Department may cancel the registration of a pesticide it determines presents serious

uncontrollable adverse effects to the environment. (Food & Agr. Code, § 12825.)

Neonicotinoids Neonicotinoids are a class of widely used pesticides subject to the Department’s regulatory oversight. They are “systemic,” meaning plants exposed to them readily

absorb the chemicals which are distributed throughout the plant, including the tissues,

pollen, and nectar. This is advantageous for controlling pests because neonicotinoids can

protect all parts of the plant.

Neonicotinoids are classified into one of three chemical groups: nitroguanidines, nitromethylenes, and cyanoamidines. This case involves the nitroguanidine chemical

group. It includes four chemicals: imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and

dinotefuran. Dinotefuran is the active ingredient in the two pesticide products at issue,

Mistui’s Dinotefuran 20SG and Valent’s Venom Insecticide. Dinotefuran 20SG was first

registered by the Department in June 2005, and its registration has been renewed annually

since then. Venom Insecticide was first registered in March 2006 , and its registration

has been renewed annually since then as well. A Mitsui-sponsored study from 2002

describes dinotefuran as “one of the most toxicologically benign and environmentally

friendly synthetic insecticides ever developed for commercial use” with “the potential to

replace more acutely toxic pesticide products and to reduce the risks to human health and

the environment when compared to existing products.” The labels for both products have

carried warnings of their toxicity to honey bees since their initial registration.

Declining Bee Populations In 2006, the sudden and widespread decline of honey bees in the United States began to be reported as a phenomenon called “colony collapse disorder.” This

phenomenon is characterized by the sudden loss of worker adult bees from managed

hives, resulting in the eventual collapse of the entire bee colony within a few weeks. The

2012 “Report on the National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health,” (“2012

Stakeholder Report”), observed that approximately 28 to 33 percent of United States

honeybee colonies have failed each year since 2006, compared to a normal loss rate of 10

to percent.

This decline has been alarming and concerning to California’s regulatory agencies.

The Department has acknowledged, “Honeybees are vital to the pollination of many of

California’s agricultural crops, which are critical to our national food system and

essential to the economy of the state.” Improving the health of honey bee colonies is

considered imperative to meet the demands of U.S agriculture for pollination and to

ensure food security.

Scientists have embarked on an intensive level of research towards understanding the cause of honey bee colony collapse. Several possible causes for colony collapse

disorder have been considered, and consensus appears to be building that “a complex set

of stressors and pathogens is associated with [colony collapse disorder], and researchers

are increasingly using multi-factorial approaches to studying causes of colony losses.”

The 2012 Stakeholder Report noted the “[a]cute and sublethal effects of pesticides on

honey bees have been increasingly documented, and are a primary concern.” It also

explained colony collapse disorder “is a complex phenomenon because several factors

seem to be interacting to cause [colony collapse]. [Citation.] The suspected factors

include pests, pathogens, pesticides, nutritional deficiencies and bee hive management

practices.”

The Department’s Neonicotinoid Reevaluation Years ago, the Department received data showing a potential hazard to honey bees from pesticides containing the active ingredient imidacloprid, one of the neonicotinoids

in the nitroguanidine chemical group. The data showed that imidacloprid could

accumulate in plants at levels toxic to honeybees. In February 2009, on the basis of this

information, the Department initiated a reevaluation of imidacloprid as well as

clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran due to their “chemical and toxicological

similarities” to imidacloprid. Based on these 4 chemicals, 50 pesticide registrants and

282 pesticide products—including Dinotefuran 20SG and Venom Insecticide—became

subject to reevaluation.

This reevaluation is underway. The Department has requested data, including additional pesticide safety studies, from neonicotinoid pesticide registrants in order to

characterize the nature and extent of the potential hazard for the reevaluation. But as of

late 2013, the Department had “not received conclusive evidence that neonicotinoids pose

a significant threat to honeybees.” Further, the results of its neonicotinoid monitoring

studies on various crops as of late 2013 “have been inconclusive overall” but have led to

further testing. Results from acute toxicity studies on honeybee larvae are under review

by the Department. ^[1]

*8 In September 2014, California enacted legislation intended to “ensure [the Department] completes a thorough, scientifically sound, and timely analysis of the effects

of neonicotinoids on pollinator health.” (Legis. Counsel’s Digest, Assem. Bill No. 1789

(2013-14 Reg. Sess.) Ch. 578, p. 96.) The Legislature’s findings noted agreement among

scientists “that a combination of factors is to blame for declining pollinator health,

including lack of varied forage and nutrition, pathogens and pests such as the Varroa

mite, and chronic and acute exposure to a variety of pesticides.” ( Ibid. ) The Department

has until July 1, 2018, to issue a determination with respect to its neonicotinoid

reevaluation. (Food & Agr. Code, § 12838, subd. (a).) Within two years of making its

determination, the Department must “adopt any control measures necessary to protect

pollinator health.” (Food & Agr. Code, § 12838, subd. (b)(1).)

The Department’s Public Reports for Amended Labels for Dinotefuran 20SG and Venom Insecticide

On January 17, 2014, the Department released a public report for its proposed decision to approve an amended label for Venom Insecticide. The amendment sought to

expand the product’s use to additional types of crops (e.g., fruiting vegetables) and to

allow its use in increased quantities.

On January 24, 2014, the Department released a public report for its proposed decision to approve an amended label for Dinotefuran 20SG. The label amendment

sought to allow Dinotefuran 20SG to be used on additional crops (e.g., onions, peaches

and nectarines) and to add pollinator protection language.

In each of the reports, the Department stated it “evaluated the new labels for their potential to create adverse environmental effects to human health, water, air, and non-

target species (checklist). After review of the new labels for the above-identified

registered products, [the Department] has determined that use of each product in a

manner consistent with its new label will have no direct or indirect significant adverse

environmental impact, and therefore no alternatives or mitigation measures are proposed

to avoid or reduce any significant effects on the environment.”

Earthjustice (PANNA’s counsel here) and Dr. Eric C. Mussen of the University of California at Davis submitted comments during the review process. Dr. Mussen,

focusing on the Venom Insecticide report, commented on the proposed new label’s lack

of warning of the potential risk of honey bees to consume dinotefuran in “chemigation

water” and in contact with field applications. Earthjustice’s comments were more

extensive and expressed concern that expanded authorized use of both pesticides would

have a profound and adverse impact on honey bees.

In June 2014, the Department evaluated the environmental concerns expressed by Dr. Mussen and Earthjustice. The Department stated it “performed a thorough scientific

analysis of the label expansions for the products . . . . [The Department] has determined

that all identified potential adverse environmental effects associated with the use of the

products have been mitigated and the product’s label instructions provide the necessary

environmental protections. Therefore, approving the proposed label amendments does

not represent additional risk to pollinators. Data indicate that neonicotinoids are acutely

toxic to honey bees and other pollinators; however, [the Department] does not yet have

sufficient scientifically robust data to support a regulatory action to implement additional

mitigation measures, over and above current label restrictions.” The Department joined

its comments with notice of its final decision to approve the label amendments for both

Dinotefuran 20SG and Venom Insecticide.

PANNA’s Challenge to Department Approvals PANNA challenged the decisions in a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking an order “directing DPR to set aside its

approval of Venom Insecticide and Dinotefuran 20SG pending the agency’s reevaluation

of neonicotinoids and compliance with CEQA.” PANNA asserted several CEQA

violations. It claimed the Department abused its discretion when it found the label

amendments had no significant environmental effect; it failed to analyze the direct,

indirect, and cumulative impacts of the new labels; and it failed to analyze project

alternatives. ^[2] PANNA asked for “permanent injunctive relief prohibiting [the

Department] from registering any neonicotinoid pesticide product or any other pesticide

product that is toxic to honey bees, or from approving amended labels or registering new

uses for existing neonicotinoids.” The trial court denied relief and entered judgment in

the Department’s favor. PANNA appealed.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Both parties agree that we “review[] the agency’s action, not the trial court’s decision.” ( Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho

Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 427 ( Vineyard Area ).)

The parties also agree that our review of the Department’s action for compliance with CEQA “shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.”

(Pub. Resources Code, § 21168.5.) Such an abuse “is established if the agency has not

proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not

supported by substantial evidence.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21168.5.)

This “statutory language has been interpreted as classifying abuses of discretion into two types of agency error—namely, legal error (the failure to proceed in the manner

required by law) and factual error (making findings that are not supported by substantial

evidence). [Citation] [¶] Each type of error is subject to a different standard of judicial

review.” ( POET, LLC v. Air Resources Board (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 710–711

( POET ).) For this reason, “a reviewing court must adjust its scrutiny to the nature of the

alleged defect, depending on whether the claim is predominantly one of improper

procedure or a dispute over the facts.” ( Vineyard Area, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 435.)

When the claim is legal error, we conduct an independent review to determine whether

*11 the agency proceeded in the manner required by law. ( Id. at p. 426.) On the other hand,

when reviewing an agency’s factual determination for error, we apply the substantial

evidence standard. ( Ibid. )

B. CEQA’s Application to the Department’s Decisions Before we can determine whether the Department violated CEQA, we must decide the extent to which CEQA applies to the Department’s decisions to approve pesticide

labeling.

“CEQA is a comprehensive scheme designed to provide long-term protection to the environment. [Citation.] In enacting CEQA, the Legislature declared its intention

that all public agencies responsible for regulating activities affecting the environment

give prime consideration to preventing environmental damage when carrying out their

duties. [Citations.] CEQA is to be interpreted to ‘afford the fullest possible protection to

the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ ” ( Mountain

Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 112 ( Mountain Lion ).)

In general, CEQA “requires various state and local governmental entities to submit environmental impact reports before undertaking specified activity. These reports

compel state and local agencies to consider the possible adverse consequence to the

environment of the proposed activity and to record such impact in writing.” ( Friends of

Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 254–255, disapproved on other

grounds in Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888.) “Under CEQA, the ‘lead agency . . .

is responsible for conducting an initial study of the project to determine whether it may

have a significant effect on the environment. If it is found that the project will have no

significant effect on the environment, a negative declaration is prepared, describing the

project and indicating that it will have no significant effect.’ [Citation.] On the other

hand, if the initial study indicates that the project may have a significant effect on the

environment, the lead agency must prepare an [environmental impact report (EIR)]. . . .

The EIR must include a detailed statement concerning the environmental effects,

alternatives and other relevant factors concerning the project.” ( Committee for a

Progressive Gilroy v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 847,

856–857.)

Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 20180.5, state regulatory programs which meet certain environmental requirements and are certified by the Secretary of the

Resources Agency are exempt from some of the usual CEQA requirements. (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21080.5.) There is no mandate for such programs to prepare initial

studies, negative declarations, and EIRs. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15250.) ^[3] Public

Resources Code section 21080.5, subdivision (a) states that when a certified program

requires environmental documentation to be submitted in support of certain activities “the

plan or other written documentation may be submitted in lieu of the environmental

impact report required by this division.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 20180.5, subd. (a).)

Accordingly, a certified program may use other documents which “are considered the

‘functional equivalent’ of documents CEQA would otherwise require” ( City of Arcadia v.

State Water Resources Control Bd. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1422 ( City of Arcadia ))

and which serve as “substitute document[s] for the normal environmental review papers.

[Citation.]” ( Ross v. California Coastal Com. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 900, 930–931

( Ross ).) “The rationale for this rule is to avoid the redundancy that would result if

environmental issues were addressed in both program-related documents and an EIR.”

( POET , supra , 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 710.)

In 1979, the Secretary of the Resources Agency certified the Department’s regulatory program related to the “registration, evaluation, and classification of

pesticides.” ( Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Pesticide

Regulation (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1059 ( Californians for Alternatives ).) The

Code of Regulations identifies the Department’s pesticide program as one “certified . . .

*13 as meeting the requirements of Section 21080.5.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15251,

subd. (i).) “The Legislature found certification warranted, in part, because the

‘preparation of environmental impact reports and negative declarations for pesticide

permits would be an unreasonable and expensive burden on California agriculture and

health protection agencies.’ ” ( Californians for Alternatives , supra , 136 Cal.App.4th at p.

1059.)

Elements of the Department’s certified program can be found in title 3 of the California Code of Regulations, section 6254, which describes the documentation the

Department must prepare for a registration decision. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 3, § 6254.)

This public report must include “a statement of any significant adverse environmental

effects that can reasonably be expected to occur, directly or indirectly, from

implementing the proposal, and a statement of any reasonable mitigation measures that

are available to minimize significant adverse environmental impact.” (Cal. Code of

Regs., tit. 3, § 6254.) It must also contain “a statement and discussion of reasonable

alternatives which would reduce any significant environmental impact.” (Cal. Code of

Regs., tit. 3, § 6254.)

PANNA and the Department disagree on what the exemption from CEQA means, and the import of the Department’s processes for environmental review of the pesticide

label amendments for Dinotefuran 20SG and Venom Insecticide. Notwithstanding the

certification and exemption from formal CEQA requirements, PANNA contends the

Department’s review must still comply with CEQA’s policy goals and substantive

standards. Because it operates a certified regulatory program, the Department contends

its environmental documents serve as the “functional equivalent” of CEQA documents

and are otherwise exempt from CEQA’s substantive requirements. Moreover, it contends

that certification of its pesticide program represents a determination that its own

environmental review procedures were adequate and that CEQA compliance must be

measured against these procedures, with which it has complied.

While the Department correctly states its program documents may be used in lieu of the documents normally prepared under CEQA, it goes too far in asserting its

regulatory program “is exempt from the substantive portions of CEQA.”

The plain language of Public Resources Code section 21080.5 makes the limited scope of the exemption apparent. Subdivision (c) identifies the specific CEQA

provisions from which certified programs are exempt: “A regulatory program certified

pursuant to this section is exempt from Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 21100),

Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 21150), and Section 21167, except as provided in

Article 2 (commencing with Section 21157) of Chapter 4.5.” (Pub. Resources Code, §§

21080.5, subd. (c).)

The CEQA Guidelines also dissuade us from the broad exemption the Department urges for certified programs. The same CEQA Guideline which confirms that certified

regulatory programs are “exempt from the requirements for preparing EIRs, negative

declarations, and initial studies” immediately explains, “A certified program remains

subject to the other provisions in CEQA such as the policy of avoiding significant adverse

effects on the environment where feasible.” (Cal. Code regs., tit. 14, § 15250, italics

added.)

The California Supreme Court has explained the limits of the certified-program exemption. In Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215 ( Sierra Club ),

the Board of Forestry approved two timber harvest plans (THPs) for certain old-growth

forests, through its certified regulatory program for timber harvesting operations, after

finding no significant adverse effect on old-growth dependent species. ( Id. at p. 1219.)

The Supreme Court concluded the board abused its discretion when it evaluated and

approved the THPs on the basis of a record that lacked information that other involved

agencies had deemed necessary regarding the presence of old-growth dependent species.

( Id. at p. 1220.) The Court found the board had an obligation imposed by CEQA to

collect such information, without which it could not identify the environmental impacts

of a project or carry out its obligation to protect wildlife. ( Id. at p. 1236.) The Court

rejected the lumber company’s argument that timber harvesting was exempt from CEQA

because it was a certified regulatory program, explaining, “Our conclusion rests on the

fundamental assumption that in approving [THPs], the board must conform not only to

the detailed and exhaustive provisions of the [applicable regulations], but also to those

provisions of CEQA from which it has not been specifically exempted by the

Legislature.” ( Id. at p. 1228.) It concluded, “Section 21080.5 compels instead the

conclusion that timber harvesting in this state is exempt only from chapters 3 and 4 of

CEQA and from section 21167 of that act.” ( Id. at p. 1231.)

The decision in Sierra Club reinforced an earlier decision reached by the First District in Environmental Protection Information Center, Inc. v. Johnson (1985) 170

Cal.App.3d 604 ( EPIC ), which explained the limits of the exemption granted to certified

programs. EPIC stated, “Chapters 3 and 4 are in large part procedural elements of the

EIR process. A certified program under section 21080.5 is logically exempted from their

coverage as such programs provide an alternative to an EIR. Section 21167 is

specifically geared to the machinery of the EIR process, and the application of any of its

provisions to the THP approval process would be superfluous. Section 21080.5 contains

its own time limitation for judicial action challenging a decision made under a

functionally equivalent regulatory program. The logic of exempting these sections from

the process declared to be an acceptable alternative to EIR preparation is apparent.” ( Id.

at pp. 617–618.) By making these specific exemptions, the EPIC court found “the

Legislature has manifested an intent to retain the applicability of the other provisions of

CEQA and of the Guidelines, particularly the substantive criteria and the specific aspects

of environmental effect that must be evaluated before a project may proceed. . . . [¶] . . .

[¶] While section 21080.5 may allow the industry to prepare abbreviated project plans

instead of full-blown EIRs, it does not except the industry from adhering to the broad

policy goals of CEQA as stated in section 21000, and to CEQA’s substantive standards

designed to fulfill the act’s goal of long-term preservation of a high quality environment

for the citizens of California. [Citations.]” ( Id. at pp. 618, 620.) EPIC clarifies that

“[n]othing in section 21080.5 supplies a basis for concluding that the Legislature

intended the section to stand as a blanket exception from CEQA’s thorough statutory

scheme and its salutary substantive goals.” ( Id. at p. 618.) The court held, “[E]xcept for

the specific exemptions discussed, CEQA and its substantive criteria for the evaluation of

a proposed project’s environmental impact apply.” ( Id. at p. 620.)

We must reach the same conclusion as Sierra Club and EPIC that the Department’s pesticide registration program is exempt only from CEQA chapters 3 and 4

and from Public Resources Code section 21167. Otherwise, the Department’s program—

and the environmental review documents it prepares—remain subject to the broad policy

goals and substantive standards of CEQA not affected by the limited exemption set forth

in section 21080.5, subdivision (c). (See POET , supra , 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 714; City of

Arcadia, supra , 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 1422.)

To support its argument that adhering to its own certified environmental review process is enough to satisfy CEQA, the Department embraces the finding in Californians

for Alternatives , supra , 136 Cal.App.4th 1049, that “the Department’s compliance with

applicable statutes and regulations constitutes CEQA compliance.” ( Id. at p. 1067.)

However, Californians for Alternatives concerned a CEQA challenge related to the

Department’s procedure for annually renewing registered pesticides and whether the

Department had to annually reopen the review for public comment as part of the renewal

process. ( Id. at p. 1055) Neither CEQA nor the Department’s regulations required the

Department to do so. ( Id. at p. 1066.) But this case concerns the adequacy of the

Department’s environmental review documents under both the certified program’s

regulations and the substantive requirements of CEQA. Notably, even Californians for

Alternatives acknowledged the certification of a regulatory program amounted to an

“exempt[ion] from several CEQA procedural requirements.” ( Id. at p. 1067, italics

added.) The Californians for Alternatives court did not address CEQA’s substantive

requirements, nor does it bear on those substantive requirements at issue in this appeal.

The Department’s reliance on Mountain Lion, supra , 16 Cal.4th 105, is also unavailing. The Department contends PANNA’s position directly conflicts with

Mountain Lion , which recognized that a certified program’s environmental

documentation serves as a functional equivalent of an EIR. ( Id. at p. 113.) Our

conclusion does not diminish the significance of environmental review documents from

certified programs as functionally equal to an EIR, nor does it require the Department to

prepare full EIRs for every action it takes. Rather, consistent with statutory language, the

Department’s environmental review is not a “blanket exemption” from CEQA, and it

may not be relieved of CEQA’s substantive requirements to thoroughly evaluate specific

environmental effects before it approves an activity. Even the Supreme Court in

Mountain Lion recognized “[a]n agency operating pursuant to a certified regulatory

program must comply with all of CEQA’s other requirements .” ( Id. at p. 114, italics

added.)

C. The Department’s Compliance with CEQA’s Substantive Requirements Since the Department’s certified regulatory program remains subject to the broad policy goals and substantive requirements of CEQA, we next address whether the

Department’s public reports approving the pesticide label amendments comply with those

requirements and the other content requirements for environmental documentation from a

certified program. PANNA identifies multiple deficiencies in the Department’s review.

Although the Department may prepare abbreviated environmental review documents that

serve as the functional equivalent of what CEQA would normally require, its review

remains subject to CEQA’s policy goals and substantive standards. To determine

whether the Department’s public reports were adequate, we turn to the statutes and

regulations containing the policy goals, substantive standards, and content requirements

for a certified program’s environmental documents.

CEQA’s broad policy goals are set forth in Public Resources Code sections 21000 through 21006. Many of the goals are expressed in legislative findings and declarations

in very general terms. (E.g., Pub. Resources Code, § 21001 [“The Legislature . . .

declares that it is the policy of the state to: [¶] (a) Develop and maintain a high-quality

environment now and in the future, and take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate,

and enhance the environmental quality of the state.”].) Several, however general, are

relevant for this appeal. The substantive standards with which the Department’s

documentation must comply are found throughout CEQA, outside of the exemptions in

CEQA Chapters 3 and 4 and Public Resources Code section 21167 (the procedural EIR).

Public Resources Code section 21080.5 specifies the content required in environmental

review documents prepared by a certified regulatory program. The CEQA Guidelines in

section 15000 et seq. of title 14 of the California Code of Regulations provide additional

content requirements for a certified program’s substitute documentation. Finally, the

regulations adopted by the Department to secure certification appear in section 6254, title

3 of the California Code of Regulations.

We will identify and apply the specific, relevant standards to the Department’s public reports to evaluate the sufficiency of the record supporting the Department’s

review. We recognize substantial parts of PANNA and the Department’s briefing debate

whether the Department’s public reports either embody the EIR process or have no

resemblance to an EIR and are the equivalent of a negative declaration. As the court in

Ross , supra , 199 Cal.App.4th 900, noted, “No doubt, there is an overlap between the

requirements of a substitute document prepared for use in a certified regulatory program

and those applicable to the preparation of an environmental impact report. We need not

describe in detail how the requirements for a negative declaration or an environmental

report, on one hand, and a certified program substitute document, on the other, differ or

are the same.” ( Id. at p. 933.) Rather, we “apply the statutory and regulatory

requirements” specified in applicable CEQA statutory provisions and guidelines to

determine the sufficiency of a certified program’s environmental review documents. (See

id. at pp. 930–944.) When we do, we conclude the Department’s public reports for

Dinotefuran 20SG and Venom Insecticide failed to comply with what CEQA requires for

certified regulatory program substitute documents. ^[4]

*19 Alternatives

PANNA contends the Department’s reports “perhaps most glaringly” failed to address any feasible alternative to registering the proposed new uses for Dinotefuran

20SG and Venom Insecticide. We agree.

Our Supreme Court has held that in a review conducted under a certified regulatory program, “the public agency bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating

that, notwithstanding a project’s impact on the environment, the agency’s approval of the

proposed project followed meaningful consideration of alternatives.” ( Mountain Lion ,

supra , 16 Cal.4th at p. 134.) Indeed, consideration of alternatives is one of the hallmarks

of CEQA analysis. Public Resources Code section 21001, subdivision (g) declares it is

the policy of the state to “[r]equire governmental agencies . . . to consider alternatives to

proposed actions affecting the environment.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21001, subd. (g).)

Public Resources Code section 21002 states that “it is the policy of the state that public

agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives . . .

available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of such

projects, and that the procedures required by this division are intended to assist public

agencies in systematically identifying . . . feasible alternatives . . . which will avoid or

substantially lessen such significant effects.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.) Content

requirements for the documentation of a certified program must include “a description of

the proposed activity with alternatives to the activity.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.5,

subd. (d)(3)(A).) This is reflected in the Department’s own program regulations which

state that “[e]ach public report [prepared by the Department] shall also contain a

program is subject only to certain abbreviated CEQA requirements.” ( W.M. Barr & Co.

v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 406, 408, fn. 6).

Further, “[r]esponses to comments need not be exhaustive; they need only demonstrate a

‘good faith, reasoned analysis.’ ” ( Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v.

Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 378.) For substitute, abbreviated documents in lieu

of the normal environmental review reports, the Department’s public reports’ summary

descriptions of the proposed label amendments were sufficient, and the Department’s

responses to public comments contained enough detail on significant environmental

points raised to understand the extent of the Department’s analysis.

statement and discussion of reasonable alternatives which would reduce any significant

environmental impact.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, § 6254.)

The CEQA Guidelines also call for analysis of alternatives in any functionally equivalent document prepared in a certified program: “The document used as a substitute

for an EIR or negative declaration in a certified program shall include [¶] . . . [¶] [e]ither

[ ¶] “(A) Alternatives to the activity and mitigation measures to avoid or reduce any

significant or potentially significant effects that the project might have on the

environment, or [¶] (B) A statement that the agency’s review of the project showed that

the project would not have any significant or potentially significant effects on the

environment and therefore no alternatives or mitigation measures are proposed to avoid

or reduce any significant effects on the environment. This statement shall be supported

by a checklist or other documentation to show the possible effects that the agency

examined in reaching this conclusion.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15252, subd.

(a)(2)(A) & (B).) Thus, “a legally sufficient [environmental review document] must

include some consideration of feasible alternatives even if the project’s significant

environmental impacts will be avoided through mitigation measures.” ( Friends of the

Old Trees v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1383,

1395.)

The record here fails to address these requirements on multiple levels. Based on our review of the Department’s documentation, the Department made no effort to analyze

alternatives to the expanded use of either Dinotefuran 20SG or Venom Insecticide.

Neither report described any feasible alternatives to the proposed activities including a

“no project” alternative. The Department’s public reports for both pesticides are clear

that “no alternatives . . . [were] proposed,” and the Department’s final decision confirmed

this.

The Department responds that under its regulations, it need only consider alternatives when it has found significant environmental impacts. Indeed, the

Department expressed this position in its reports: “After review of the new labels for the

above-identified registered products, [the Department] has determined that use of each

product in a manner consistent with its label will have no direct or indirect significant

adverse environmental impact, and therefore no alternatives or mitigation measures are

proposed to avoid or reduce any significant effects on the environment.” At oral

argument, to further substantiate this determination, the Department referenced a 2010

Mitsui-sponsored study in the record which concluded application of dinotefuran on

cotton plants had no adverse effects on honeybees. We are nonetheless perplexed how

the Department could reach such a conclusion given since 2009 dinotefuran has been

subject to reevaluation under the Department’s regulations, which require reevaluation

when a substance “may have caused, or is likely to cause, a significant adverse impact, or

that indicate there is an alternative that may significantly reduce an adverse

environmental impact.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, § 6220.) The reevaluation of

neonicotinoids—including dinotefuran—continues.

To reconcile its reevaluation with its approvals of the Dinotefuran 20SG and Venom Insecticide label amendments, the Department contrasts the regulatory standard

for reevaluation with the standard for determining when there are significant

environmental impacts. Rejecting PANNA’s contention that the fair argument standard

the Department acknowledges applies to reevaluation also applies to its registration

decisions, the Department states the term “fair argument” appears nowhere in its certified

program regulations. It notes the phrase “ may have a significant environmental effect ”

which provides the statutory basis for the fair argument standard for reevaluation appears

nowhere in its regulations. The Department contends the specific language of its certified

program regulations requires the Department only to discuss “any significant adverse

environmental effect that can reasonably be expected to occur , directly or indirectly,

from implementing the proposal.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, § 6254, emphasis added.)

Like the trial court, we are not persuaded and see distinctions without a difference. The

Department’s regulations which require review when a significant adverse effect “can

reasonably be expected to occur” is not meaningfully different from CEQA regulations

imposing a fair argument review when an activity “may have a significant environmental

effect.” The Supreme Court has noted that under the CEQA Guidelines, “[I]t is

appropriate for agencies to apply the fair argument standard in determining whether there

is a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment.” ( Berkeley Hillside

Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1115.) There is nothing

distinctive about the specific language in the Department’s program regulations which

give us reason to refrain from applying the fair argument standard to its pesticide

registration decisions as well as its decisions to reevaluate pesticides previously

approved.

But even if the Department’s finding of no significant impacts was meaningfully derived, it does not excuse the Department from showing how it reached its conclusion.

In such circumstances, “a checklist or other documentation to show the possible effects

that the agency examined in reaching this conclusion” is needed. (Cal. Code Regs., tit.

14, § 15252, subd. (a)(2)(A) & (B).) Both public reports refer to a “checklist” evaluation

of the label amendments for their potential to create adverse environmental impacts, but

we found no checklist in the record and the public reports reveal nothing of the

Department’s study. At oral argument, the Department’s counsel represented that

Department staff used a checklist in their analysis but could not provide an explanation

why the analysis was not in the record. Counsel for one of the real parties in interest

explained the absence of any physical checklist in the context of the more than 10,000

pesticide registration applications the Department must process each year and the

systematic, continuous nature of the Department’s review process which here was to

amend to two long-standing registrations to add uses familiar to the Department. We

appreciate the tremendous task before the Department and recognize the utility and

suitability of its certification. While that certification justifies the exemptions from

CEQA’s procedural requirements, it does not excuse the Department from CEQA’s

substantive requirements or explaining its analysis, as we have discussed, without an

adequate record, even for amended label applications. This is especially the case here,

where the Department decided to reevaluate the products several years after its original

registration decisions on the concern such products may cause or are likely to cause

significant environmental effects.

We also reject the Department’s contention that PANNA had the burden to identify feasible alternatives. “Under CEQA, the public agency bears the burden of

affirmatively demonstrating that, notwithstanding a project’s impact on the environment,

the agency’s approval of the proposed project followed meaningful consideration of

alternatives.” ( Mountain Lion , supra , 16 Cal.4th at p. 134.) The Department failed to

demonstrate that it meaningfully considered alternatives to the requested label

amendments, and its approval of the labels without having done so was an abuse of

discretion.

Environmental Baseline PANNA also contends the Department failed to assess baseline conditions with respect to actual use of neonicotinoids in California. We agree that the Department’s

environmental documents lacked adequate baseline information.

Baseline commonly refers to the requirement that an EIR “must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they

exist at the time the notice of preparation is published.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §

15125.) This description of existing environmental conditions ordinarily serves as the

“baseline” for measuring the changes to the environment that will result from the project

and for determining whether those environmental effects are significant. (Cal. Code

Regs., tit. 14, § 15125.) Where a project involves ongoing operations or a continuation of

past activity, the established levels of a particular use and the physical impacts thereof are

considered to be part of the existing environmental baseline. ( Communities for a Better

Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 320–

323, 326–328 ( Communities for a Better Environment ).) “Neither CEQA nor the CEQA

Guidelines mandates a uniform, inflexible rule for determination of the existing

conditions baseline. Rather, an agency enjoys the discretion to decide, in the first

instance, exactly how the existing physical conditions without the project can most

realistically be measured, subject to review, as with all CEQA factual determinations, for

support by substantial evidence.” ( Id. at p. 328.)

Neither party has cited and we have found no reported decision that imposes CEQA baseline requirements on a certified regulatory program’s environmental

documents. The Department never argues that its certified program is exempt from this

requirement. But our conclusion that the Department’s abbreviated environmental

documents must nonetheless assess baseline conditions is consistent with those CEQA

policy goals and substantive standards from which certified regulatory programs are not

exempt. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15250.) The policy underlying CEQA is set forth in

part in Public Resources Code section 21002, which provides that “the procedures

required [by CEQA] are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying

both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible

mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.”

(Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.) This policy is supplemented by CEQA’s guidelines,

which identify as one of its basic purposes to “[i]nform government decision-makers and

the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.”

(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15002, subd. (a)(1).) To give effect to the policy of

identifying significant adverse effects of a proposal, an EIR “must delineate

environmental conditions prevailing absent the project, defining a baseline against which

predicted effects can be described and quantified.” ( Neighbors for Smart Rail v.

Exposition Metro Line Const. Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 447.) The same need for

a delineated baseline applies with equal force to a certified regulatory program’s

environmental documents which also must assess any significant adverse environmental

effects of a project.

The Department says that it acknowledged and assessed baseline conditions and refers to its response letter to public comments which explain that no new significant

impacts will result because “the uses are already present on the labels of a number of

currently registered neonicotinoid containing products” The Department further refers us

to hundreds of pages in the record regarding “the mountains of data about actual use” of

the other registered neonicotinoids to demonstrate its analysis of a meaningful baseline.

While the Department has the discretion to decide how the baseline can be measured, it is not apparent from this mass of data that the Department ever conducted

any such analysis. “The description of the environmental setting shall be no longer than

is necessary to an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project and its

alternatives.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15125, subd. (a).) Here, the entirety of the

Department’s baseline assessment related to the expanded use of the two pesticides

throughout California is a single statement in its public comments that notes “the uses are

already present on the labels of a number of currently registered neonicotinoid containing

products.” This general statement says nothing about the contours of the baseline relied

upon by the Department. Whether the Department relied on actual existing uses of

neonicotinoids or “hypothetical numbers,” as PANNA contends, and in what quantities is

not clear. In the absence of any meaningful discussion of baseline conditions, we cannot

conclude that possible significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed

label amendments were “adequately investigated and discussed.” (See Cal. Code Regs.,

tit. 14, § 15125, subd. (c).) Simply because the Department “had mountains of data about

actual use” of other neonicotinoids does not mean it actually used that data to define a

baseline or to inform its conclusions, and there is nothing in the record that reflects it

actually did so.

The Department says there is no requirement it had to “publicly identify or describe” its baseline under its regulations. We disagree. The Department’s regulations

and its certified regulatory program do not exempt it from the policy goals and

substantive standards of CEQA. One such policy is to “[i]nform government

decisionmakers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of

proposed activities.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15002, subd. (a)(1).) By withholding

adequate information on its selected baseline, the Department obscures any prospect that

the public will be able to ascertain the significant effects of a proposed project or whether

a project will have no significant effects, as the Department concluded here. (See

Communities for a Better Environment , supra , 48 Cal.4th at p. 328 [without comparing

proper baseline conditions with conditions expected to be produced by a project, EIR

“will not inform decision makers and the public of the project’s significant environmental

impacts, as CEQA mandates”].) In this case, the Department’s reports contained no

information on the baseline used for determining environmental impacts. This

constituted a failure to proceed in the manner required by law.

Cumulative Impacts A substantive CEQA requirement that is closely related to consideration of a meaningful project baseline is the assessment of a project’s cumulative impacts on the

environment. This concept considers the incremental effect a proposed approval may

have when viewed in connection with past, current or future approved projects.

PANNA contends the Department’s documentation does not show that it considered

whether the impact to honey bees associated with registering new uses for the two

insecticides would be cumulatively considerable. Again, we agree.

Whether a cumulative impacts analysis is required in a certified program’s documentation is not as readily apparent as the requirement to consider reasonable

alternatives. The broad policy goals of CEQA in Public Resources Code sections 21000

et seq. do not refer to cumulative impacts. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)

Section 21080.5, which sets forth the content requirements for certified program

documentation, also makes no reference to a cumulative impacts analysis. (See Pub.

Resources Code, § 21080.5.) And the Department’s certified program regulations are

silent on this point. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, § 6254.) But case law makes clear such

an analysis is an integral part of a program’s evaluation process.

In Laupheimer v. State of California (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 440 ( Laupheimer ), the plaintiffs petitioned for a writ of mandate to prevent the logging of a neighboring

property pursuant to a THP approved by the California Department of Forestry. ( Id. at

pp. 447–448.) The plaintiffs argued that the approvals were improper because the agency

had not undertaken a cumulative impacts analysis, and the court reviewed the agency’s

obligation to consider such cumulative impacts as part of its certified timber harvesting

program. ( Id. at p. 460.)

Observing that Public Resources Code section 21080.5 and the Department’sown regulations imposed no obligation to review cumulative impacts ( Laupheimer, supra , 200

Cal.App.3d at pp. 461–462), the court identified the cumulative-impacts requirement in

Public Resources Code section 21083, which provides that where “[t]he possible effects

of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable” an evaluation shall

“require a finding that a project may have a ‘significant effect on the environment.’ ”

(Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(2).) “ ‘[C]umulatively considerable’ means

that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in

connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the

effects of probable future projects.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(2).)

Laupheimer found more references to cumulative impacts in the CEQA Guidelines,

including the requirement that “significant” cumulative impacts be discussed in EIRs

( Laupheimer, supra , at p. 460) and a more detailed definition of the term: “ ‘Cumulative

impacts’ refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are

considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. [¶] (a) The

individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate

projects. [¶] (b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the

environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to

other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant

projects taking place over a period of time.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15355.)

Noting the agency’s exemption from the EIR requirement as a certified regulatory program, Laupheimer asserted “the specific cumulative-impact provisions of the

Guidelines cannot be said to be directly applicable” to its THP. ( Laupheimer, supra , 200

Cal.App.3d at p. 462.) But as the court in EPIC , supra , 170 Cal.App.3d at p. 625, had

done, Laupheimer reasoned “that CEQA’s specific-cumulative impact provisions

constitute recognition of the abstract significance of cumulative impacts to an

environmental inquiry, and that in this abstract sense significant cumulative impacts must

be considered in the course of any environmental inquiry subject to CEQA’s broad policy

goals, whether or not also subject to CEQA’s EIR requirements.” ( Laupheimer , supra ,

200 Cal.App.3d at p. 462.) It added, “We cannot quarrel with the proposition that [the

agency] as it exercises its regulatory functions under the Act and Rules, must consider

each timber harvesting plan in its full environmental context and not in a vacuum.”

( Ibid. )

Having determined that consideration of cumulative impacts was necessary and important in “seeing the entire environmental picture,” Laupheimer discussed the

contours of such an analysis by a certified program. ( Laupheimer, supra , 200 Cal.App.3d

at p. 462) The court asserted the agency in every case had “to make at least a preliminary

search for potential cumulative environmental effects, and if any such effect were

perceived, at least a preliminary assessment of its significance.” ( Id. at pp. 462–463.) In

circumstances disclosing “one or more significant potential cumulative effects, then [the

agency] would be obliged to give careful consideration to those effects in determining

whether . . . to approve the . . . plan.” ( Id. at p. 463.) Such an analysis requires the

agency to “look[] for and in some reasonable manner assess[] potential cumulative

environmental effects, and . . . [give] sufficient consideration to any such effect it should

reasonably have considered significant.” ( Id. at p. 466.) Because the agency had not

considered the potential cumulative effects of the timber harvesting plan, Laupheimer

concluded there was an abuse of discretion.

Here, the Department also failed to explain its analysis of the cumulative impacts of registering new uses for the pesticides in the context of the Department’s past, present,

and future decisions regarding neonicotinoid use in California. Neither the public reports

or the final decision contained cumulative impacts analysis. The single record reference

we found to such an analysis appears in the Department’s May 2014 response to

Earthjustice, noting in conclusory fashion that the “crops added to the two dinotefuran

products [at issue here] will not result in new significant direct, indirect and cumulative

impacts to honeybees because the uses are already present on the labels of a number of

currently registered neonicotinoid containing products.”

But “the cumulative impact analysis must be substantively meaningful.” ( Joy Road Area Forest and Watershed Assn. v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection

(2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 656, 676 ( Joy Road ).) “ ‘ “A cumulative impact analysis which

understates information concerning the severity and significance of cumulative impacts

impedes meaningful public discussion and skews the decisionmaker’s perspective

concerning the environmental consequences of the project, the necessity for mitigation

measures, and the appropriateness of project approval. [Citation.]” [Citation.] [¶] While

technical perfection in a cumulative impact analysis is not required, courts have looked

for “adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.” [Citation.]’

[Citation.]” ( Ibid. ) Even under the more relaxed expectation for such an analysis

described by Laupheimer , the Department’s one-sentence response lacked facts and

failed to provide even a brief explanation about how the Department reached its

conclusion.

This is not surprising given the Department’s approach appears to have been to simply put off altogether considering the cumulative effects of approving additional and

increased uses of dinotefuran-containing pesticides until the reevaluation is complete.

The Department revealed as much in its response to Earthjustice when it stated, “The

determination of whether the use of neonicotinoid products is resulting in adverse effects

that require additional mitigation will be addressed by the reevaluation. The two

amended dinotefuran products are already included in [the Department’s] evaluation.”

The promise of more analysis to come following the conclusory explanation here simply

does not measure up to CEQA’s mandate that relevant information on the effects of a

project be made available as soon as possible and presented in a way that is useful to

decisionmakers and the public. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21001, subd. (b), 21003.1, sub.

(b).) ^[5]

*30 The Department did not proceed as required by law and abused its discretion when it approved the amended labels without considering the cumulative effects of its decision.

Recirculation Public Resources Code section 21003.1, subdivision (b) provides that “[i]nformation relevant to the significant effects of a project, alternatives, and mitigation

measures which substantially reduce the effects shall be made available as soon as

possible by lead agencies, other public agencies, and interested persons and

organizations.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003.1, subd. (b).) Further, section 21092.1

also provides, that “[w]hen significant new information is added to an environmental

impact report after notice has been given . . . and consultation has occurred . . . but prior

to certification, the public agency shall give notice again . . . and consult again . . . before

certifying the environmental impact report.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.1.) In Joy

Road, supra , 142 Cal.App.4th 656, the court held the certified regulatory program

exemption from CEQA requirements did not extend to these recirculation provisions.

( Id . at p. 668.)

However, “[r]ecirculation based on the addition of new information after the close of the public comment period is not required unless that information is ‘significant.’

[Citation.] The information is not considered significant unless the document ‘is changed

in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a

substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or

the Department “issued twelve final decisions which either registered new agricultural

products containing neonicotinoid active ingredients or registered label amendments for

existing products containing neonicotinoid active ingredients,” which either added new

crop sites or new target pests for the neonicotinoid product. One expert report concluded

that “annually increasing use of neonicotinoids may be playing a role in driving [bee]

declines.” We also reject any Department effort to minimize cumulative impacts of its

approvals based on the presence of other products on the market for the same crops.

“Focusing on the de minimis effect in absolute terms isolates the effect individually, and

this runs counter to the combined approach that CEQA cumulative impacts law requires.”

( Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103

Cal.App.4th 98, 121.)

avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents

have declined to implement.’ [Citation.] ‘[R]ecirculation is not required where the new

information added to the EIR “merely clarifies or amplifies [citations] or makes

insignificant modifications in [citation] an adequate EIR.” [Citation.] On the other hand,

recirculation is required, for example, when the new information added to an EIR

discloses: (1) a new substantial environmental impact resulting from the project or from a

new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented [citation]; (2) a substantial increase

in the severity of an environmental impact unless mitigation measures are adopted that

reduce the impact to a level of insignificance [citation]; (3) a feasible project alternative

or mitigation measure that clearly would lessen the environmental impacts of the project,

but which the project’s proponents decline to adopt [citation]; or (4) that the draft EIR

was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that public

comment on the draft was in effect meaningless [citation].” ( Center for Biological

Diversity v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 931,

949.)

Here, in light of the Department’s pending neonicotinoid reevaluation, its initial public reports for Venom Insecticide and Dinotefuran 20SG were both so inadequate and

conclusory that public comment on the draft was effectively meaningless. Neither

analysis in the January 2014 public reports exceeded a few pages. As discussed, both

reports referred to a “checklist” evaluation of the label amendments for their potential to

create adverse environmental impacts, but no checklist accompanied the report or is

found in the record. For both products, the Department reached the same conclusion that

there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts if the products are used in a

manner consistent with the labels. But the Department provided no analysis or

explanation to show how it reached that conclusion. Further, it made no attempt to

discuss this conclusion in the context of its decision to reevaluate neonicotinoids on the

basis that they “may have caused, or [are] likely to cause, a significant adverse impact, or

that indicate there is an alternative that may significantly reduce an adverse

environmental impact.” (Cal. Code Regs., title 3, § 6220.) As analyzed above, neither

report described alternatives to the proposed activities nor did they include any discussion

of an environmental baseline or an assessment of cumulative impacts. Given the

Department refrained from explaining its decision until it responded to public comments,

recirculation was required to allow meaningful public comment directed at the rationale

for its decision.

DISPOSITION The judgment denying PANNA’s writ of mandate is reversed. The judgment is remanded to the superior court with instructions to issue a writ of mandate directing the

Department to rescind its June 13, 2014 approval of the Dinotefuran 20SG and Venom

Insecticide label amendments.

_________________________ Siggins, J.

We concur:

_________________________

McGuiness, P.J.

_________________________

Pollak, J.

Pesticide Action Network North America v. California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation ,

A145632

Trial Court: Alameda County Superior

Court

Trial Judge: Hon. George C. Hernandez, Jr.

Counsel:

Earthjustice, Gregory C. Loarie, Tamara T. Zakim, Stacey Putnam Geis for Appellants.

Vic Sher Law, Victor M. Sher for Pollinator Stewardship Council as Amicus Curiae on

behalf of Appellants.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Robert W. Byrne, Senior Assistant Attorney

General, Gaving G. McCabe, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Marc N. Melnick,

Deputy Attorney General for Respondents California Department of Pesticide

Regulation, Brian H. Leahy, and Ann N. Prichard.

Kahn, Soares, & Conway, George H. Soares, Ann M. Grottveit for Respondents

California Citrus Mutual, California Fresh Fruit Association, Western Agricultural

Processors Association, California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association, Western

Plant Health Association, and CropLife America.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, J.D. Horton, Jonathan Cooper for Real Party in

Interest Mitsui Chemicals Agro, Inc.

Dentons US, Stanley W. Landfair, Lawrence S. Ebner, E. Jacob Lubarsky for Real Party

in Interest Valent U.S.A. Corporation.

[1] In judicial notice requests dated February 16, 2016, and May 20, 2016, the Department seeks judicial notice of four documents, two of which are government reports related to both EPA and Department neonicotinoid reevaluation updates. No oppositions to the requests were filed, and we deferred ruling on the requests until a decision on the merits of the case. We now rule that the Department’s requests for judicial notice are denied as to all documents. Two of the documents not granted judicial notice are: (1) the Joint PMRA / USEPA Re-evaluation Update for the Pollinator Risk Assessment of the Neonicotinoid Insecticide, dated January 6, 2016; and (2) the Department’s March 2016 Semiannual Report Summarizing the Reevaluation Status of Pesticide Products During the Period of July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. Both are government documents properly subject to judicial notice as official acts of the agency. ( Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Serv., Inc. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 316, 330–331; Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 483.) However, both reports post-date the Department’s June 2014 approval decision at issue in this appeal and were not relevant to that decision. ( Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063 ( Mangini ).) The other two documents not granted judicial notice are the Order Denying Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief, dated April 29, 2016, in Ellis v. Bradbury (N.D. Cal. No. 3:13-cv-01266-MMC) and PANNA’s Further Request for Judicial Notice, filed in this action in the trial court on April 3, 2015. None of these documents are relevant to our analysis. ( Mangini , supra , 7 Cal.4th at p. 1063.)

[2] In its fourth cause of action, PANNA asserted a violation of the Food & Agricultural Code for the Department’s alleged failing to conduct the neonicotinoid reevaluation in a timely manner. Based on the 2014 enactment of Food and Agricultural Code section 12838, subdivision (a), which established the timeline for the Department’s completion of the reevaluation, PANNA dismissed this cause of action without prejudice. PANNA confirms this cause of action is not part of this appeal.

[3] Title 14, section 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations codifies the CEQA Guidelines, the regulations for the implementation of CEQA authorized by the Legislature (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083) and “prescribed by the Secretary of Resources to be followed by all state and local agencies in California in the implementation of [CEQA].” (Cal. Code regs., tit. 14, §§ 15000 et seq.)

[4] PANNA claims additional deficiencies in the Department’s public reports which do not factor into our conclusion. In a footnote, PANNA argues that the Department failed to describe all the crops affected by the proposed use expansion and that it concealed the increased quantities of pesticide allowed to be used under the amended label for Venom Insecticide. PANNA also criticizes the Department’s “short response” to its “extensive written comments and accompanying scientific studies” as “not detailed enough.” As we have noted, “an agency operating pursuant to a certified regulatory

[5] The Department’s failure to meaningfully consider cumulative effects at this juncture strikes us as a serious misstep, as its consideration of cumulative effects seems critical given past, current, and probable future approvals of neonicotinoid products. We note that in 2012 and 2013, during the Department’s ongoing neonicotinoid reevaluation,