Previous Article

Your authoritative, multi-channel network for natural resources and environmental information since 1989 – by practioners for practitioners.

Line Spacing+- AFont Size+- Print This Article Back To Homepage

California Environmental Quality Act Considerations When Evaluating Impacts to Aquatic and Other Biological Resources

California Environmental Quality Act Considerations When Evaluating Impacts to Aquatic and Other Biological Resources
Related Articles

By Robbie Hull, Scott Birkey, and Clark Morrison

One of the stated legislative policies underlying the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is to:

. . .[p]revent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities. (Pub. Res. Code § 21001(c).)

To meet this goal, CEQA requires local agencies to review, analyze, and mitigate a project’s anticipated impacts on biological resources, including impacts to threatened and endangered species, habitats, and wetlands.

The CEQA statute and the CEQA Guidelines leave a lot of questions unanswered, however. Some of these questions are rooted in legal considerations, while others reflect the practical realities of trying to evaluate unpredictable and variable biological systems. For example: What issues should a local agency consider when a project has the potential to impact biological resources? To what extent do those impacts inform the need for either an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)? What is the appropriate scope of the CEQA document’s analysis of impacts to biological resources? What are acceptable thresholds of significance, and what triggers a determination that an impact is significant? What constitutes adequate mitigation to offset a project’s significant impacts to biological resources? In what circumstances can that mitigation be deferred until later?

This article attempts to address these and other issues that often arise when consultants and lawyers prepare and review the biological resources discussion and analysis in CEQA documents. Though not exhaustive, this article is intended to provide for your consideration some thoughts on these issues to help you navigate the nuances of the biological-resources evaluation in a CEQA document. We presume the reader has at least a good working knowledge of fundamental CEQA principles, but to help place some of these issues into context, we remind the reader of certain basic concepts that apply more generally to CEQA documents and evaluation of projects.

Biological Resources Impacts and the Level of CEQA Clearance Required

During its preliminary review process, a lead agency must determine the appropriate type of CEQA clearance required for a project. A key consideration at this stage in the process is whether an exemption can be used as the CEQA clearance for the project. The potential for impacts to biological resources is sometimes one of the main reasons a project may not be eligible for an exemption. For example, a commonly used exemption—the “Class 32 Infill Exemption”—specifically disallows the use of the exemption in the event the project site has “value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.” (14 CCR § 15332(c).)

Relatedly, practitioners should keep in mind that a project may not rely on a “mitigated categorical exemption” to avoid CEQA review. In the context of biological resources, this issue typically arises when a project is in proximity to a sensitive environment or may have significant impacts on species or habitat and the applicant or lead agency seeks to incorporate mitigation into the project in order to make the project fit within an exemption.

For example, in Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v County of Marin, 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1102 (2004), Marin County approved the construction of a single-family home pursuant to the Class 3 categorical exemption for “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.” The home, however, was in a protected “stream conservation area,” pursuant to the County’s General Plan designation for areas adjacent to natural watercourses and riparian habitat. (Id. at 1102-03.) In approving the project, the county imposed various mitigation measures, including construction limitations, a riparian protection plan, and erosion and sediment control, aimed at minimizing adverse impacts. (Id. at 1102-04.)

According to the Court of Appeal, the county erred in relying upon mitigation measures to grant a categorical exemption:

Reliance upon mitigation measures (whether included in the application or later adopted) involves an evaluative process of assessing those mitigation measures and weighing them against potential environmental impacts, and that process must be conducted under established CEQA standards and procedures for EIRs or negative declarations. (Id. at 1108; see also Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1198-1200 (1997) [operation and minor alteration of existing landfill not exempt, despite mitigation measures addressing leaking of pollutants].)

In a somewhat complicated twist to this principle, a project may include design or operational features that reduce or avoid environmental impacts while remaining eligible for a categorical exemption. In Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State ex rel. 14th Dist. Ag. Assn., 242 Cal.App.4th 555, 570 (2015), the Court of Appeal held that a rodeo could rely on the Class 23 exemption for normal operations of existing facilities for public gatherings, despite the implementation of a manure management plan to minimize pollution to a nearby creek and the resulting indirect impacts to aquatic species. The court found that the management plan was not proposed as a mitigation measure for the rodeo project and, therefore, did not preclude the use of the Class 23 exemption. (Id.) Rather, it preexisted the project and was directed at preexisting concerns. (Id. at 570-71; see also Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1352-53 (2011) [dedication of left-hand turn lane as part of project design was not a mitigation measure].)

Another consideration to take into account are the CEQA Guidelines pertaining to “mandatory findings of significance.” (14 CCR § 15065(a).) These Guidelines specifically refer to impacts to biological resources and specify that an EIR must be prepared in the event certain biological resources are impacted, subject to certain specific requirements. The Guidelines state:

(a) A lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that any of the following conditions may occur:

(1) The project has the potential to: . . . substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species . . .

(b)(2) Furthermore, where a proposed project has the potential to substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, the lead agency need not prepare an EIR solely because of such an effect, if:

(A) the project proponent is bound to implement mitigation requirements relating to such species and habitat pursuant to an approved habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan;

(B) the state or federal agency approved the habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan in reliance on an environmental impact report or environmental impact statement; and

(C)(1) such requirements avoid any net loss of habitat and net reduction in number of the affected species, or

(2) such requirements preserve, restore, or enhance sufficient habitat to mitigate the reduction in habitat and number of the affected species to below a level of significance.

Practitioners should keep these “mandatory findings of significance” standards and requirements in mind for projects where the key consideration is biological resources impacts. These CEQA Guidelines can serve as the touchstone for whether an exemption can be used, and whether the lead agency is required to prepare an EIR rather than a negative declaration or MND.

A benefit of these mandatory findings is that they specifically allow the lead agency to rely on the provisions of an approved Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) in determining that biological impacts have been addressed. Given that the Guidelines require the HCP to have been reviewed in an EIR or environmental impact statement (EIS), these benefits are probably limited to the regional HCPs and Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) that have been adopted in various counties in northern and southern California. Project-specific HCPs do not always generate the need for EIS- or EIR-level review. Moreover, they are rarely entered into prior to completion of CEQA review by the lead agency for the underlying project. Where such review has been conducted, however, a lead agency may rely on its provisions to obviate the need for EIR-level review at the local level. Moreover, projects within regional HCPs that have an aquatic focus may also benefit under the State of California’s new wetlands policies, which provide streamlining for projects consistent with such HCPs where they serve as a “watershed plan.”

The Substance of a Biological Resources Analysis

This section provides a discussion of how impacts to biological resources should be described, analyzed, and mitigated in a CEQA document.

Describing Biological Resources in the Project Description and Environmental Setting

An accurate, stable, and finite project description has been described as the “sine qua non” of a legally sufficient CEQA document. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193 (1977).) It should inform the public about the project’s likely effect on the environment and ways to mitigate any significant impacts. Importantly, the project description must include a list of the permits and other approvals required for the project and a list of the agencies that will use the CEQA document in issuing those permits. (14 CCR § 15124.) Accordingly, if a project will require, for example, an incidental take permit or a wetland fill permit, the CEQA document must provide sufficient information for other governmental agencies to complete their decision-making processes as “responsible agencies” pursuant to CEQA. (14 CCR § 15096.) This may include, for example, a detailed discussion of any special-status species and their habitat located on or in the vicinity of the site, as well as any wetlands or other protected waters that exist and may be impacted by the project. In our experience, state agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) can be quite exacting in what they expect to see in a CEQA document in order for the agency to use that document as its own CEQA clearance for the issue of its permits. (See, e.g., Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, 2 Cal.5th 918 (2017).)

Like the project description, the environmental setting should provide a complete and accurate description of the project setting, i.e., the existing environmental conditions and surrounding uses, to establish the baseline for measuring environmental impacts resulting from the project. (14 CCR § 15125; see also San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Ctr. v County of Stanislaus, 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 729 (1994) [finding EIR inadequate without “accurate and complete information pertaining to the setting of the project and surrounding uses”].) To satisfy this requirement, lead agencies generally should incorporate a detailed review of biological databases (most notably the California Natural Diversity Database, or CNDDB), on-site data gathering and, if necessary, project-specific studies to determine existing environmental conditions. (See, e.g., North Coast Rivers Alliance v Marin Mun. Water District, 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 644-45 (2013) [upholding EIR environmental setting based on database review and specific study to assess aquatic species].) As a practical matter, the level of this effort should be commensurate with the extent to which biological resources are a concern on the project site.

Thresholds of Significance for Impacts to Biological Resources

Once the project and environmental setting have been adequately described, the CEQA document must identify the environmental impacts likely to result from project development, followed by mitigation measures or project alternatives that will avoid or reduce these impacts. To determine whether mitigation is required, or if mitigation can reduce an impact to a level of insignificance, a lead agency must compare a project’s impacts to thresholds of significance. (14 CCR § 15064.)

For biological resources, lead agencies often use the checklist from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires the lead agency to consider whether the project may:

(1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

(2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

(3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

(4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

(5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

(6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Other common examples of significance thresholds include the mandatory findings of significance discussed above or local regulations and plans created for species protection. Ultimately, lead agencies have significant discretion when devising significance thresholds, but their decisions must be supported by substantial evidence. (See, Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara, 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068 (2013) [Appendix G’s thresholds of significance “are only a suggestion” (alterations omitted)]; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency, 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1111-12 (2004) [setting aside EIR for failure to adequately discuss impacts of stream flow reduction]; San Bernardino Valley Audubon Soc’y v County of San Bernardino, 155 Cal.App.3d 738, 753 (1984) [setting aside project approval based on inconsistency with general plan policy protecting rare plants].)

Analysis of Biological Resources

When analyzing project-related impacts to determine if they exceed defined significance thresholds, lead agencies may use a variety of methods, provided that the chosen method is supported by substantial evidence. For example, an agency may employ protocol-level, species-specific surveys adopted or recommended by wildlife agencies to determine whether protected species or habitat exists on the project site. Or, a lead agency may use broader, reconnaissance-level studies to assess biological resources. (See, Gray v County of Madera, 167 Cal.App.4th 1099 (2008) [county not required to follow CDFW study protocols for California Tiger Salamander], 1124-25; Association of Irritated Residents v County of Madera, 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1396 (2003) [“CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every recommended test and perform all recommended research to evaluate the impacts of a proposed project. The fact that additional studies might be helpful does not mean that they are required.”])

Though CEQA does not require an agency to conduct all possible tests or surveys, additional tests or surveys may be necessary if previous studies are insufficient. In particular, lead agencies should beware of outdated studies and information. In Save Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills, 46 Cal.App.5th 665, 692-93 (2020), the Court of Appeal set aside a project approval based, in part, on a CDFW comment letter, which noted that botanical surveys older than two years may be outdated. CDFW also commented that surveys should be performed in conditions that maximize detection of special-status resources, to the extent feasible. (Id.) Surveys performed in a drought, for example, “may overlook the presence or actual density of some special status plant species on the [p]roject site.” (Id. at 692.)

One important fact to consider is that CEQA’s scope of review related to biological resources is quite broad. For example, the CEQA Guidelines broadly define “endangered, rare or threatened species” that must be evaluated in a CEQA document. (14 CCR § 15380.) The definition states:

(a) “Species” as used in this section means a species or subspecies of animal or plant or a variety of plant.

(b) A species of animal or plant is:

(1) “Endangered” when its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors; or

(2) “Rare” when either:

(A) Although not presently threatened with extinction, the species is existing in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or

(B) The species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered “threatened” as that term is used in the Federal Endangered Species Act.

(C) A species of animal or plant shall be presumed to be endangered, rare or threatened, as it is listed in:

(1) Sections 670.2 or 670.5, Title 14, California Code of Regulations; or

(2) Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations Section 17.11 or 17.12 pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act as rare, threatened, or endangered.

(D) A species not included in any listing identified in subdivision (c) shall nevertheless be considered to be endangered, rare or threatened, if the species can be shown to meet the criteria in subdivision (b).

(E) This definition shall not include any species of the Class Insecta which is a pest whose protection under the provisions of CEQA would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man as determined by:

(1) The Director of Food and Agriculture with regard to economic pests; or

(2) The Director of Health Services with regard to health risks.

As such, the scope of a CEQA document’s evaluation of a project’s impacts to biological resources typically go far beyond impacts to species listed under the federal or California Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered.

This result is particularly noticeable with respect to plant species. Largely because of this expansive review, CEQA documents include an analysis of plant species based on the well-known ranking system established by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), which is a non-governmental organization that has made its own determinations as to threats to plant species. Although the use of the CNPS ranking system in CEQA documents is generally accepted in the industry, CEQA’s definition of special-status plant species does not reference the ranking system and thus, arguably the use of this system is not predicated on any actual legal foundation. Notably, some plant species identified as “rare, threatened, or endangered” (Rare Plant Rank 1B) by the California Native Plant Society are not listed as threatened or endangered under the federal or California Endangered Species Act.

Mitigation Measures for Impacts Related to Biological Resources

To satisfy CEQA’s requirements that significant environmental impacts must be mitigated, lead agencies must set forth and identify feasible mitigation measures. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3); 14 CCR § 15126.4.) Significant case law exists regarding the concept of mitigation in the context of biological resources. Based on that case law, several themes are apparent.


Generally, deferring the formulation of a mitigation measure is not allowed. However, deferral can be appropriate if it is impractical or infeasible to fully formulate the mitigation measure during the CEQA review process, provided that the agency commits itself to specific performance criteria for future mitigation. (14 CCR § 15126.4.) For example, a lead agency is not required to identify the exact location of off-site mitigation, provided that it adequately analyzes project-related impacts and imposes specific mitigation, i.e., preservation or creation of replacement habitat at a specific ratio. In such an event, the agency is entitled to rely on the results of future studies to fix the exact details of the implementation of the mitigation measures it identified in the EIR. (California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova, 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 622 (2009); see also Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange, 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 793-96 (2005) [enumeration of possible future mitigation options, including on- and off-site habitat preservation at specific ratios was not improper].)

Deferral also may be allowed if future mitigation is dependent on permits required by other regulatory agencies. For biological resources, this typically involves incidental take permits, Clean Water Act § 404 permits, and other similar species and habitat-related permitting requirements. (See, e.g., Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin, 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 237 (2011) [requirement that project obtain all necessary federal and state permits from Army Corps of Engineers and CDFW for impacts to protected bird habitat was permissible].) But, even when it is expected that another agency will impose mitigation measures on a project, the project’s CEQA document must still commit itself to mitigation, identify the methods the agency should consider and possibly incorporate, and indicate the expected outcome. (See Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto, 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 944-46 (2012) [holding that formal consultation with USFWS was appropriate, and that proposed methods, including avoidance, minimization, and purchase of off-site habitat, ensured impacts would be mitigated].)

With respect to permits issued by other agencies, and specifically permits protecting special-status species, CEQA does not require that a lead agency reach a legal conclusion on whether a “take” is expected to occur as a result of the project. A finding that a project will not significantly impact biological resources does not “limit the federal government’s jurisdiction under the Endangered Species Act or impair its ability to enforce the provisions of this statute.” (Association of Irritated Residents v County of Madera, 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1397 (2003).) Accordingly, a lead agency may disagree with federal or state wildlife agencies regarding the possible take of a species. Such a disagreement will not invalidate an EIR if the agency’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Relatedly, CEQA does not require that a lead agency compel a project applicant to obtain a federal or state take permit to mitigate impacts to species. (Id.) However, if project impacts to protected species are expected to be significant, CEQA imposes upon the lead agency an independent obligation to incorporate feasible mitigation measures which reduce those impacts.

Treatment of Unlisted Species

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15380(d):

. . .[a] species not included in any [federal or state] listing … shall nevertheless be considered to be endangered, rare or threatened, if the species can be shown to meet the criteria in subdivision (b).

In Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council, 222 Cal.App.3d 30, 47 (1990), the court considered whether CEQA Guideline 15380 requires a lead agency to make specific findings as to whether an unlisted species may be considered rare or endangered. The court held that there is no mandatory duty to do so, as CEQA Guideline 15380 was intended to be directory rather than mandatory, and the ultimate authority to designate a plant or animal species as rare or endangered is delegated to the state and federal governments. (Id.) However, in that case, the court also noted that the lead agency extensively considered the potentially rare species and incorporated significant mitigation measures to assure its continued viability. (Id.) Accordingly, lead agencies should carefully consider impacts to unlisted species, particularly when presented with significant evidence that they may be rare or otherwise in jeopardy.

Replacement Habitat and Conservation Easements

CEQA Guideline 15370(e) provides that mitigation may include:

. . .[c]ompensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments, including through permanent protection of resources in the form of conservation easements. (Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 278 [conserving habitat at a 1:1 ratio]; Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794 [on- or off-site habitat preservation at 2:1 ratio].)

Conservation easements over lands set aside as mitigation for impacts to biological resources is often a key element of preserving these lands in perpetuity, thereby justifying their mitigating effect.

There is, however, a growing split of authority on the adequacy of conservation easements as mitigation, at least in the context of easements related to impacts to agricultural resources. Some local governments in California take the position that, because conservation easements merely protect existing land from future conversion, but do not truly replace or offset the loss of converted land, the easements do not reduce project impacts on land conversion. In King and Gardiner Farms v. County of Kern, 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 875-76 (2020), the court found that:

. . .the implementation of agricultural conservation easements for the 289 acres of agricultural land estimated to be converted each year would not change the net effect of the annual conversions. At the end of each year, there would be 289 fewer acres of agricultural land in Kern County.

By contrast, in Masonite Corp. v. County of Mendocino, 218 Cal.App.4th 230, 238 (2013), the court concluded that:

ACEs [agricultural conservation easements] may appropriately mitigate for the direct loss of farmland when a project converts agricultural land to a nonagricultural use, even though an ACE does not replace the onsite resources. . . .ACEs preserve land for agricultural use in perpetuity.

While this split of authority generally pertains to mitigation for the loss of agricultural land, it may be relevant to mitigation for the loss of habitat land. Notably, CDFW and other natural resource agencies in the state routinely rely on this form of mitigation to offset impacts to biological resources. On-site or off-site preservation of comparable habitat, coupled with a conservation easement or other form or development restriction, is a typical form of mitigation included in many permits issued by both the state and federal natural resource agencies.

In-Lieu Fees

Impacts to biological resources are sometimes mitigated using in-lieu fees, either in conjunction with or independent of habitat restoration. The court in California Native Plant Society v. County of El Dorado, 170 Cal.App.4th 1026, 1055 (2009), however, cautions that an in-lieu fee system will only satisfy the duty to mitigate if the fee program itself has been evaluated under CEQA, or the in-lieu fees are evaluated on a project-specific basis. There, El Dorado County adopted by ordinance a rare plant impact fee program for use by developers to mitigate project impacts, which certain developers relied on in preparing an MND, rather than an EIR. (Id. at 1029.) After petitioners challenged the adequacy of the fee program, the court set aside the project MND, finding that:

. . .[b]ecause the fee set by the ordinance have never passed a CEQA evaluation, payment of the fee does not presumptively establish full mitigation for a discretionary project. (Id. at 1030; see also, Save Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills, 46 Cal.App.5th 665, 701-02 (2020) [in-lieu fee payment for oak tree planting inadequate to mitigate project impacts; the MND did not provide any evidence that the off-site tree replacement program was feasible].)

Mitigation Cannot Violate Other Laws

Perhaps it goes without saying, but mitigation measures, even those with laudable species protection and conservation goals, may not violate other laws. In Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, 62 Cal.4th 204, 231-32 (2015), for example, the court held that while the CDFW generally may conduct or authorize the capture and relocation of a fully protected species as a conservation measure, it could not as the lead agency rely in a CEQA document on the prospect of capture and relocation as mitigation for a project’s adverse impacts. There, the Fish and Game Code expressly permitted capture and relocation as part of an independent species recovery effort. (Id. at 232.) However, outside of a species recovery program, those same actions were considered a take of the species: “[m]itigating the adverse effect of a land development project on a species is not the same as undertaking positive efforts for the species’ recovery.” (Id. at 235.)

Battle of the Experts

Litigation regarding the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures often involves a battle of expert opinions. In these cases, the survival of the proposed mitigation, and the project’s CEQA clearance, may depend on the type of CEQA document used for the project. An EIR is subject to the deferential “substantial evidence” standard of review, limiting the court’s review to whether there is any substantial evidence in the record supporting the EIR. (See National Parks & Conservation Assn. v. County of Riverside, 71 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1364-65 [“Effectively, the trial court selected among conflicting expert opinion and substituted its own judgment for that of the County. This was incorrect.”].) For MNDs, however, courts apply the “fair argument” standard, which only requires that the petitioner demonstrate there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the proposed project may have a significant effect even after mitigation measures are considered. (See, California Native Plant Society v. County of El Dorado, 170 Cal.App.4th 1026, 1060 (2009) [“Where the views of agency biologists about the ineffectiveness of MND’s plant mitigation measure conflicted with those of the expert who reviewed the project for the developer, the biologists’ views were adequate to raise factual conflicts requiring resolution through an EIR.”].)

How Biological Resources Might Inform Subsequent CEQA Analysis

Under Public Resources Code § 21166 and CEQA Guideline 15162, a project may require subsequent environmental review if new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. In the context of biological resources, new information is often an issue when a species is newly listed as threatened or endangered. In Moss v County of Humboldt, 162 Cal.App.4th 1041 (2008), for example, the court held that the new listing of the Northern California coastal coho salmon as a threatened species was not new information requiring additional review, as there was no evidence that the species’ habitat was located on or near the project site. (Id. at 1064-65.) In contrast, the newly listed coastal cutthroat trout did constitute new information, as evidence suggested the species was linked to a creek on the project site. (Id. at 1065.) As such, the court required that the lead agency undertake supplemental review with respect to the project’s environmental impacts on the newly listed coastal cutthroat trout.

Conclusion and Implications

This article addresses only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Over CEQA’s 50-year history, much has been said about how lead agencies should approach impacts to biological resources. We hope this article has been helpful in identifying some of the key themes that we’ve seen in our practice as consultants and lawyers alike struggle (at times) to capture the nuances associated with impacts to biological resources and mitigation to offset those impacts.

Robert Hull is an associate at the law firm of Cox, Castle & Nicholson, LLP, and is a member of Land Use and Natural Resources practice group. Robbie’s work focuses on all aspects of land use, natural resources and environmental law.

Scott Birkey is a partner at Cox, Castle & Nicholson. Scott is a land use and natural resources lawyer who handles entitlement, compliance, and litigation matters for residential and commercial developers, educational and health-care institutions, and public agencies throughout California. Scott has successfully represented developers in obtaining all forms of land use entitlements, including securing development agreements, vesting and tentative maps, annexations, General Plan amendments, rezoning, site development permits, and other land use approvals. Scott was a long-serving member of the Editorial Board of the California Land Use Law & Policy Reporter and Co-chairs the annual conference that backs that reporter.

Clark Morrison is a partner at Cox, Castle & Nicholson. Clark has over 30 years of experience in the permitting and development of large and complex development projects. Clark’s areas of experience include all State and Federal laws affecting the development of real property. Clark, along with Scott Birkey, is co-author of the book, Natural Resource Regulation in California, the States leading treatise on natural resources law and agency permitting. Clark sits of the Advisory Board for the California Law Use Law & Policy Reporter.