Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-14-15998/USCOURTS-ca9-14-15998-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SIERRA CLUB; FRIENDS OF

THE WEST SHORE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

TAHOE REGIONAL

PLANNING AGENCY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 14-15998

14-16513

D.C. No.

2:13-cv-00267-JAM-EFB

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 12, 2016

San Francisco, California

Filed November 2, 2016

Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Mary M. Schroeder,

and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Schroeder

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 1 of 29
2 SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA

SUMMARY*

Environmental Law

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment

and award of costs in favor of Tahoe Regional Planning

Agency, a bi-state land use and environmental resource

planning agency for the Lake Tahoe Region, on

environmental organizations’ claims that the environmental

impact statement for TRPA’s Regional Plan Update did not

comply with the requirements of the Regional Planning

Compact between California and Nevada.

The panel held that plaintiffs had standing and their

claims were ripe. Applying a standard similar to the standard

for evaluating an environmental impact statement under the

National Environmental Policy Act, the panel held that

TRPA’s environmental impact statement and Regional Plan

Update adequately addressed the localized effects of the

runoff created by the amount of development permitted under

the Update. TRPA’s analysis of the effects of concentrating

development in “community centers” was not arbitrary or

capricious and did not violate Compact article VII(a)(2)(A)

by failing to address significant environmental impacts of the

Regional Plan Update. The panel also held that TRPA’s

assumptions regarding best management practices and

whether they would reduce water quality impacts of

concentrated development under the Regional Plan Update

were not arbitrary or capricious and were supported by

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 2 of 29
SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA 3

substantial evidence. The panel affirmed the district court’s

award of costs.

COUNSEL

Trent W. Orr (argued) and Wendy S. Park, Earthjustice, San

Francisco, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Whitman F. Manley (argued) and Howard F. Wilkins III,

Remy Moose Manley LLP, Sacramento, California; John L.

Marshall, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Stateline,

Nevada; for Defendant-Appellee.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General; Daniel L. Siegel,

Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Nicole U. Rinke,

Deputy Attorney General; Sacramento, California; for

Amicus Curiae California Resources Agency.

Cassandra P. Joseph, Senior DeputyAttorneyGeneral; Office

of the Attorney General, Carson City, Nevada; for Amicus

Curiae Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural

Resources.

Thomas Watson, City Attorney; Nira Doherty, Assistant City

Attorney; City of South Lake Tahoe, South Lake Tahoe,

Nevada; for Amici Curiae City of South Lake Tahoe,

California; El Dorado County, California; Placer County,

California; Douglas County; Nevada; Carson City and

County, Nevada; and Washoe County, Nevada.

Lewis S. Feldman and Kara L. Thiel, Feldman McLaughlin

Thiel LLP, Zephyr Cove, Nevada, for Amici Curiae Lake

Tahoe Community College, South Shore Chamber of

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 3 of 29
4 SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA

Commerce, North Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce, Sierra

Nevada Association of Realtors, Incline Village Board of

Realtors, Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority, Tahoe Douglas

Visitors Authority, South Tahoe Alliance of Resorts, and

Barton Health.

OPINION

SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge:

INTRODUCTION

The Lake Tahoe Region is an area of unmatched beauty

surrounding the largest alpine lake in North America. It first

caught the world’s attention with the 1960 Winter Olympics

at Squaw Valley, when the area became a recreation

destination and home to a rapidly expanding population. It

has since become the focus not only of admiration for the

lake’s beauty and clarity, but of litigation over the efforts to

preserve them. See, e.g., Suitum v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning

Agency, 520 U.S. 725 (1997); People v. Tahoe Reg’l

Planning Agency, 766 F.2d 1308, 1310 (9th Cir. 1985); Sierra

Club v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 916 F. Supp. 2d 1098,

1105 (E.D. Cal. 2013).

This case concerns the Regional Plan Update (“RPU”)

that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (“TRPA”) adopted

in 2012 after more than ten years of work. Plaintiffs, The

Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore, are

environmentalist organizations that challenged the

environmental impact statement (“EIS”) for the RPU. They

now appeal the district court’s summary judgment in favor of

TRPA.

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 4 of 29
SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA 5

The RPU generally restricts future development to areas

that are already developed, and sets forth the amount of

further development that will be permitted in those areas in

the future. The precise nature of that development is to be

determined in Area Plans to be adopted later.

Plaintiffs’ principal contentions in this appeal are that the

RPU fails adequately to address the localized effects of the

runoff created by the amount of development permitted, and

that the RPU improperly assumes that best management

practices (“BMP”s) can be utilized to achieve the planning

goals, in light of TRPA’s poor record of enforcing BMPs in

the past.

We also must consider TRPA’s challenge to standing and

ripeness. While there will doubtless be more litigation

concerning subsequent Area Plans, Plaintiffs’ interests in the

lake are affected by the RPU, and they will have no future

opportunity to challenge the policies the RPU adopts. We

therefore hold that Plaintiffs have standing to assert claims

that are ripe.

On the merits, however, we conclude that the district

court properly entered summary judgment in favor of TRPA. 

The draft EIS drew criticisms that necessitated substantial

revisions, but the final EIS for the RPU adequately addressed

localized impacts on soil conservation and water quality. 

Notably, while California had strenuously objected to certain

aspects of the draft EIS, particularly with respect to the

localized impacts of runoff, both California and Nevada now

urge approval of the plan, as evaluated in the final EIS. We

also hold that TRPA reasonably concluded that, in light of

anticipated improvements in BMP maintenance, the

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 5 of 29
6 SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA

development permitted in the RPU would have less than a

significant effect on water quality.

Our analysis must take place against the background of

past efforts to maintain the pristine quality of the lake, so we

begin with an historical summary.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF TRPA’S 2012

REGIONAL PLAN UPDATE

Lake Tahoe is located in the northern Sierra Nevada

Mountains, and covers 191 square miles. The Lake Tahoe

Region comprises 501 square miles, including the lake. The

Region encompasses the Lake Tahoe basin, a watershed

situated between the main crest of the Sierra Nevada and the

Carson mountain ranges. The lake’s outlet is the Truckee

River, running from the north end of Lake Tahoe to Pyramid

Lake in Nevada. The basin was acquired by the United States

in the mid-1800s, but later in the century, private owners

acquired much of the land and converted it to agricultural use,

as well as beginning the resort industry at the south end of the

lake. See Richard J. Fink, Public Land Acquisition for

Environmental Protection: Structuring a Program for the

Lake Tahoe Basin, 18 EcologyL.Q. 485, 493, 498–99 (1991).

Two-thirds of the region is in California and one-third is

in Nevada. In the late twentieth century, the population of the

region expanded by more than 70%, with the most rapid

expansion, as described in the draft EIS, occurring in the

1970s.

The attraction is the lake’s size, depth, and distinctive

blue color. The lake’s clarity is the result of the lack of algae. 

See League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 6 of 29
SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA 7

Agency, 739 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1264 (E.D. Cal. 2010), aff’d

in part & vacated in part, 469 F. App’x 621 (9th Cir. 2012). 

In the region’s natural state, its poorly developed soils

contribute relatively small amounts of sediment to the lake,

and biological communities, known as stream environment

zones (“SEZ”s), remove sediments and nutrients. See Fink,

18 Ecology L.Q. at 494.

Human activity in the late twentieth century, however,

began increasing nutrients and sediments in the lake, bringing

about a decline in clarity. Deposits tied to human activity

were to blame. See Holly Doremus, Reinvigorating the

Union of Wonder and Power, 24 Va. Envtl. L.J. 281, 285

(2005). According to scientists, the loss of clarity was tied to

nitrogen and phosphorous related to soil erosion, sewage

discharge, and runoff from impervious developments. Id.

More recently, scientists added to the list of threats

atmospheric deposits caused by rain washing nitrogen from

automobile exhaust down into the lake. Id. at 285–86; see

also Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l

Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir. 2003)

(explaining the process of “eutrophication,” by which

nutrients encourage the growth of algae, which makes the

water greener and less clear and depletes oxygen in the water,

to the detriment of fish and other animals). As this court has

explained, artificial disturbance of the land, especially in

steeper areas and areas near streams and other wetlands,

greatly increases soil erosion and the flow of nutrients into

the lake. Tahoe-Sierra, 322 F.3d at 1070. There have been

other problems as well. As one district court put it, “[t]he

Lake Tahoe Basin has also suffered from degradation of other

measures of water and air quality. Many of the aesthetic and

recreational values of the region have been impaired,

including scenery, noise, and the ability to use the lake for

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 7 of 29
8 SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA

recreational purposes.” League, 739 F. Supp. 2d at 1265. 

These declines have been caused by onshore development,

piers and other structures in the lake, and emissions from

motorized watercraft. Id.

The visible decline in water clarity led to efforts to reduce

discharges into the lake, beginning with prohibition of

sewage into any waters of the Tahoe basin. See Fink,

18 Ecology L.Q. at 504. In 1968, California and Nevada

entered into the first Regional Planning Compact, which

Congress approved in 1969. Suitum, 520 U.S. at 729. The

Compact created TRPA to serve as a bi-state land use and

environmental resource planning agency for the Lake Tahoe

Region. See id.; Compact art. I(b). TRPA’s governing board

includes a California delegation and a Nevada delegation,

with delegation members appointed by various state, county,

and city entities. Compact art. III(a)–(g). TRPA appoints an

advisory planning commission and employs an executive

officer and other staff and legal counsel. Compact arts. III(h),

IV(a).

The original Compact also adopted a system, known as

the “Bailey system,” for classifying the environmental

sensitivity of the lands, with limits for the amount of

development on each type. See Tahoe-Sierra, 322 F.3d at

1070. That system remains as part of TRPA’s regulatory

scheme, but was not enforced with sufficient strictness to

protect the lake and its environment. As this court explained,

TRPA’s regulatory scheme, incorporating the Bailey system,

“was diluted in its implementation by numerous exceptions

permitting development on sensitive lands.” Id. at 1070–71. 

In other words, some people thought the 1969 Compact was

not sufficiently anti-growth. See People, 766 F.2d at 1310.

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 8 of 29
SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA 9

In 1980, Congress therefore approved Compact

amendments, requiring TRPA to adopt a Regional Plan, and

barring any development exceeding environmental threshold

carrying capacities. Suitum, 520 U.S. at 729. The Compact,

as amended, requires that the Regional Plan include a land

use transportation plan, a conservation plan, a recreation plan,

and a public services and facilities plan. Compact art. V(c). 

Pursuant to the 1980 Compact, TRPA has adopted multiple

threshold standards for, inter alia, water and air quality,

fisheries, and vegetation.

TRPA adopted its first Regional Plan in 1984, but that

was challenged in court by the State of California, leading to

a reissuance of the Plan, adding a land classification system

that rated individual land parcels on their suitability for

development. The Individual Parcel Evaluation System, or

“IPES,” rated the land on a scale of 0 to 1150, and only those

above an “IPES Pass-Fail Line” were eligible to apply for

permission to develop parcels.

Between 1987 and 2010, the 1987 Regional Plan was both

amended and litigated. See Tahoe-Sierra, 322 F.3d at

1073–74. In 1997, TRPA adopted the “Environmental

Improvement Program” as part of the Regional Plan to

improve water quality, yet, according to the 2012 RPU, the

primary pollutants affecting water clarity and quality

remained sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorous.

The draft EIS for the RPU now before us concluded that

the 1987 Plan was largely successful in slowing growth and

making new development more environmentally compatible

by “tightly controlling” what could be built on vacant land. 

It concluded that “the Tahoe region is now virtually at full

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 9 of 29
10 SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA

build-out, with less than 10% of the region’s development

rights remaining.”

Unfortunately, as the draft EIS explained, buildings and

other uses put into place before the 1987 plan continue to

cause environmental problems. Hence, the 2012 RPU was

intended to address these issues. As described in the draft

EIS, the 2012 RPU was intended to “repair damage of the

past, while also promoting redevelopment of Tahoe’s

localized town centers to accelerate obtainment of threshold

standards with more environmentally appropriate and

attractive structures.”

The RPU was developed by the Regional Plan Update

Committee of the TRPA governing board over a period of

nearly ten years. Indeed, the process took so long that

Nevada passed a bill calling for the state’s withdrawal from

TRPA if the plan were not updated in a timely manner. Nev.

Senate Bill 271 (2011).

The RPU, adopted by TRPA’s board on December 12,

2012, and effective February 9, 2013, was meant to be a

general governing document for development and

environmental protection in the region, leaving more local

governance to Area Plans. Such Area Plans must conform to

the RPU.

The RPU provided for the concentration of new and

existing development into “community centers.” It

encouraged concentrated development by allowing TRPA

itself, or local governments, through the “Area Plans,” to

raise density, height, and coverage limits in community

centers. “Coverage” refers to the coverage of land with

impervious material such as asphalt and concrete. The RPU

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 10 of 29
SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA 11

emphasized the Total Maximum Daily Load (“TMDL”)

model, which aims to reduce the total flow of certain

pollutants into the lake.

REGULATORY HISTORY OF THE RPU AND ITS

EIS

The events that occurred during the regulatory process

following the release of the draft EIS and draft RPU, and

leading to the issuance of the final EIS and final RPU, are

critical to the proper understanding of the issues in this case.

The draft EIS and draft RPU were released in April 2012,

with a public comment period open for 63 days, from April

25 to June 28, 2012. The draft RPU and the draft EIS were

released for public comment on April 25, 2012, followed by

a series of meetings conducted by both California and Nevada

to make recommendations for amendments. TRPA’s

governing board voted to incorporate the revisions

recommended by the RPU Committee in August 2012, and

the final EIS was issued October 24, 2012.

The RPU was undertaken concurrently with two related

planning efforts, a Regional Transportation Plan and a

Sustainable Communities Strategy. A separate EIS was

produced for these two projects. In addition, in 2011,

California, Nevada, and the Environmental Protection

Agency (“EPA”) approved the TMDL model, a water quality

restoration plan that aims to reduce the total flow of certain

pollutants into the lake. None of these efforts are affected

directly by this litigation, but they are central to TRPA’s

analysis in the RPU and EIS.

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 11 of 29
12 SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA

During the public comment period on the draft RPU and

EIS, TRPA received comments that fill a large volume of the

final EIS. The California Attorney General submitted

extended comments. She expressed concerns about

delegation of project approval via Area Plans, weakening of

coverage requirements, and allowance of potentially

significant amounts of new development. With regard to land

coverage, the Attorney General criticized the draft EIS’s

assumption that coverage could be calculated on a Basin-wide

basis without regard to location and concentration of

coverage. California was worried about concentrated

localized pollution in the lake. The Attorney General also

questioned TRPA’s allowance of coverage transfers and

mitigation across the boundaries of hydrologically related

areas, i.e., across different watersheds. With respect to the

effects of concentrated development, she stated that

watershed-level or even parcel-level analysis, rather than

region-wide analysis, was more consistent with the Bailey

system and with available science. The Attorney General

also questioned the draft EIS’s reliance on BMPs. She stated

that because the track record for maintaining BMPs at Lake

Tahoe was poor, the EIS “should disclose the history of

neglected BMP maintenance and disclose the impacts of its

alternatives assuming that past patterns of neglect continue

into the future.”

Plaintiffs also submitted extensive comments addressing

many of the same issues. They expressed concerns that the

draft EIS, while analyzing impacts of coverage transfer on

Lake Tahoe itself, did not consider “soils, vegetation,

streams, fisheries and invertebrates within streams, and

sensitive habitat.” They pointed out that non-degraded soils

perform many functions, including “infiltration, erosion

prevention, vegetation growth, and nutrient cycling.” 

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 12 of 29
SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA 13

Plaintiffs complained that the draft EIS, in considering

coverage in developed areas, failed to analyze the effects on

streams and the nearshore of concentrating coverage. 

According to Plaintiffs, the draft EIS “fails to acknowledge

studies that show that urban coverage is the most detrimental

coverage and fails to analyze the impact of increased and

concentrated urban coverage in the Basin.”

Several commenters, including the California Tahoe

Conservancy and representatives of the EPA, expressed

concern about “the consistency between and coordinated

implementation of” the TMDL, the proposed RPU, and water

quality management.

The final EIS included TRPA’s responses to all of the

comments received during the public comment period. While

generally concluding that the draft EIS was adequate, TRPA

made several significant changes to the draft RPU in response

to comments.

TRPA’s “Master Response 3” addressed the California

Attorney General’s and Plaintiffs’ comments criticizing the

coverage standards established on a Region-wide basis and

permitting transfers of coverage allowances between

hydrologically related areas. TRPA’s response described the

relevant comments as expressing

concern about the programmatic approach to

coverage assessment presented in the Draft

EIS, including the application of coverage

standards on a Region-wide versus a parcelby-parcel basis; potential undercounting of

coverage by excluding consideration of some

‘soft’ coverage in the Basin; and the

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 13 of 29
14 SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA

differences in impact between hard and soft

coverage.

TRPA explained that in response to these comments, it had

decided, among other things, to continue to prohibit coverage

transfers between hydrologically related areas, rather than to

start allowing such transfers in the RPU. TRPA pointed out,

however, that Region-wide, rather than parcel-by-parcel or

sub-watershed scale analysis was appropriate because the

RPU was regional in scope, and the Bailey method did not

require parcel-by-parcel analysis.

In “Master Response 4,” addressing comments on

coordination between the RPU and the TMDL, TRPA

explained that it had made changes. The final RPU “includes

important new features that address the relationship between

the Regional Plan and the TMDL, specifically in the use of

the TMDL water quality improvement plan and TMDL

reporting information in the re-certification of Area Plans . . .

and revisions that create alignment in reporting

requirements.”

In other Master Responses, TRPA addressed the

comments expressing concern about the effects of more

concentrated development on water quality.

[C]omments suggest that policies

incentivizing additional concentration of

development in community centers could

have localized adverse impacts on water

quality, including on nearshore and tributary

conditions. Concerns are expressed that the

Draft EIS analysis does not adequately

account for the fact that community centers

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 14 of 29
SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA 15

are near the Lake, pollutant loading may be

higher in community centers than in outlying

areas, and BMPs may not be adequate to

mitigate the impact.

TRPA stated its conclusion that the concerns were not

warranted, describing the draft EIS as “adequate as

presented,” and stating that “policies that incentivize transfers

of development and additional concentration of coverage in

specific areas would not result in significant impacts to water

quality.” Nevertheless, TRPA made modifications to the

draft RPU, which it said were required in order to “narrow the

scope of changes to coverage policies.” In addition, TRPA

prepared a “Pollutant Load Reduction Model” (“PLRM”)

stormwater modeling simulation, used to estimate localized

water quality impacts of concentrating development within

community centers. It added the PLRM to the final EIS in

order to better gauge the effect of concentrated development

on the lake.

TRPA made other significant changes to the draft RPU as

well. In response to comments on the impact of revised

height and density allowances for community centers, the

final RPU included more scenic protections. In response to

comments about the feasibility of a program of incentives for

the transfer of development rights from sensitive and outlying

areas into designated community centers, the final RPU

retained the transfer incentive ratios set forth in the draft

RPU, but made revisions such as limiting allowances for

alternative transfer ratios for Stream Restoration Plan Areas. 

TRPA also revised RPU provisions regarding banked assets

such as development rights in order to strengthen regulation

of their use. In response to comments about development on

recreation-designated lands, TRPA revised the draft RPU to

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 15 of 29
16 SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA

reduce the areas to be re-designated and to require additional

planning and regulatory approvals through Area Plan

conformance review prior to any development on land

designated “Resort Recreation.” In connection with concerns

about exhaust emissions caused by vehicles traveling

additional miles because of additional development, the draft

RPU was revised in several ways, including the establishment

of additional limitations for the future expansion of

community centers.

The California Attorney General had made significant

critical comments about the draft EIS’s reliance onBMPs that

had failed to be effective in the past. The final EIS included

a description of numerous efforts that were to be made to

improve the situation. It concluded that “[b]ased on the

current maintenance requirements and practices, education

efforts, and enforcement requirements . . . , it is valid to

assume that implementation of BMPs would be effective.”

In response to comments about the approval process for

Area Plans, TRPA made some changes to the draft RPU’s

provisions regarding approval of Area Plans. TRPA added an

appeals process for all delegated projects, and it reduced the

maximum size of projects that could be reviewed and

approved by other agencies through an Area Plan.

In summary, in response to negative comments,

particularly from the State of California and Plaintiffs, TRPA

made material revisions to the draft RPU and the draft EIS. 

It retained the prohibition against coverage transfers between

hydrologically related areas. It coordinated the RPU more

closely with the TMDL. It cut back the proposed increases in

maximum allowable coverage for redevelopment projects in

community centers. It added more scenic protections, and it

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 16 of 29
SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA 17

cut back draft RPU provisions regarding development on

recreation-designated land. It strengthened the process for

revising Area Plans. TRPA, specifically in response to

concerns about the concentrated effects of increased runoff,

added the PLRM stormwater modeling simulation to the final

EIS.

TRPA issued the final EIS on October 24, 2012. The

final RPU was adopted by TRPA’s governing board on

December 12, 2012, and took effect on February 9, 2013. 

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in the federal district court on

February11, 2013. The district court granted TRPA’s motion

for summary judgment in April 2014, and these appeals by

plaintiff environmentalist organizations followed.

This court has received amicus briefs in support of

affirming the district court by (1) City of Lake Tahoe, El

Dorado County, Placer County, California, Douglas County,

Carson City and County, and Washoe County, Nevada; and

(2) Lake Tahoe Community College, South Shore Chamber

of Commerce, North Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce,

Sierra Nevada Association of Realtors, Lake Tahoe Visitors

Authority, Tahoe Douglas Visitors Authority, South Tahoe

Alliance of Resorts and Barton Health. Perhaps most

significantly, the California Natural Resources Agency and

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

have filed a joint amicus brief in support of TRPA.

STANDING AND RIPENESS

TRPA contends that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring

this challenge to the impacts from the concentration of

development, and that their claims are unripe, because no

increase in coverage had yet been approved pursuant to any

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 17 of 29
18 SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA

Area Plan. We disagree. Plaintiffs satisfy the injury-in-fact

requirement for standing to challenge the EIS because they

have concrete interests in the Lake Tahoe Region. See W.

Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472, 485 (9th

Cir. 2010). Their challenge is ripe because any violation of

the Compact or applicable environmental laws resulting from

the RPU and EIS has already taken place; Plaintiffs did not

need to wait for Area Plans to be approved before bringing

this suit. See id. at 486.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the district court’s ruling on summary

judgment de novo. Protect Our Cmtys. Found. v. Jewell,

825 F.3d 571, 578 (9th Cir. 2016). Since TRPA is not a

federal agency, the Compact, and not the Administrative

Procedure Act (“APA”), provides the applicable standard of

review of TRPA actions.

Under the Compact, “judicial inquiry shall extend only to

the questions of whether [TRPA’s legislative] act or decision

has been arbitrary, capricious or lacking substantial

evidentiary support or whether the agency has failed to

proceed in a manner required by law.” Compact art. VI(j)(5). 

This standard is similar to review under the APA, which

provides that a federal agency action must be upheld unless

it is “‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

otherwise not in accordance with law.’” San Luis & DeltaMendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 581, 601 (9th Cir.

2014) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct.

948 & 950 (2015); League, 739 F. Supp. 2d at 1267.

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 18 of 29
SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA 19

ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFFS’ CONTENTIONS

I. Localized Effects of Concentrated Development

Plaintiffs contend that the EIS violated Compact article

VII(a)(2)(A) by failing to take a hard look at impacts on soil

conservation and water quality in the localized “community

center” areas where concentrated development is directed. 

We conclude that the EIS’s analysis of the effects of

concentrating development was not arbitrary or capricious,

and sufficiently addressed significant environmental impacts

of the RPU.

TRPA may not amend the Regional Plan unless it finds

that the Plan, “as amended, achieves and maintains the

[threshold standards].” TRPA Code § 4.5; Sierra Club,

916 F. Supp. 2d at 1105. Article VII of the Compact requires

that “when acting upon matters that have a significant effect

on the environment,” TRPA must “[p]repare and consider a

detailed environmental impact statement.” Compact art.

VII(a)(2). This EIS must include, among other things: 

“(A) The significant environmental impacts of the proposed

project; [and] (B) Any significant adverse environmental

effects which cannot be avoided should the project be

implemented.” Compact art. VII(a)(2)(A)–(B). The EIS

required by the Compact is similar to the EIS required by the

National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C.

§ 4332(2)(C), and to the reporting required by the California

Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21100. 

Decisions under NEPA are authoritative. League, 739 F.

Supp. 2d at 1266, 1274; see also Glenbrook Homeowners

Ass’n v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 425 F.3d 611, 615

(9th Cir. 2005) (stating that NEPA does not directly apply to

TRPA). An EIS is a procedural requirement with two

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 19 of 29
20 SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA

purposes: (1) ensuring that agencies carefully consider

information about significant environmental impacts, and

(2) informing the public of relevant information. Idaho Wool

Growers Ass’n v. Vilsack, 816 F.3d 1095, 1102 (9th Cir.

2016); Lands Council v. McNair, 629 F.3d 1070, 1075 (9th

Cir. 2010).

The draft EIS conducted a region-wide analysis of the

impacts of increased coverage (meaning coverage of land

with concrete, asphalt, etc.). The draft EIS stated:

Incentivizing coverage transfers and

redevelopment by allowing up to 70 percent

coverage on high-capacity developed parcels

in [community centers] would increase

coverage in these target areas. However, the

additional coverage allowed on [these lands]

would be directly offset by coverage

transferred from sensitive land or more than

offset on an acre-for-acre basis by transfers

from high-capability land, resulting in an

overall reduction of coverage in the Region

and, importantly, reduction of coverage from

SEZs [Stream Environment Zones] and other

sensitive lands.

The draft EIS concluded that the proposed RPU (“Alternative

3” of the five alternative actions analyzed by TRPA) would

comply with the total allowable coverage for the Region as

determined by the Bailey system and would have a “lessthan-significant impact on coverage in the Region.” The draft

EIS also concluded that Alternative 3 would have a “less than

significant” impact on water quality.

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 20 of 29
SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA 21

In response to comments on the importance of soil

conservation at the local scale, TRPA explained that more

localized analysis would be too speculative at that stage. The

final EIS stated: “The Draft EIS evaluates coverage from a

programmatic policy perspective, with a level of detail and

degree of specificity appropriate to analysis of a Regional

Plan; a parcel-by-parcel analysis would be neither feasible

nor necessary.” TRPA further explained that even subwatershed analysis was infeasible because the agency would

be “forced to speculate where specific future projects would

be proposed and where coverage would be removed.”

As the district court concluded, the RPU’s general shift

from the Bailey system, addressing coverage, to the TMDL

model, aimed at water qualityrestoration, was within TRPA’s

discretion. See Native Ecosystems Council v. Weldon,

697 F.3d 1043, 1051 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding, in a NEPA

case, that a court must be at its most deferential in reviewing

an agency’s scientific determinations).

Plaintiffs contend, however, that the EIS violated

Compact article VII(a)(2)(A)’s requirement of environmental

analysis by addressing only the general region-wide impacts

of coverage changes, and failing to address the effects of

concentrated development on local watersheds in community

centers, where coverage is already high, even though

Plaintiffs, as well as the California Attorney General,

presented extensive evidence of these effects. Plaintiffs argue

that they did not seek study of site-specific project impacts,

but instead sought an analysis of the cumulative impacts of

many projects over larger areas, such as watersheds or subwatersheds. They contend that the public and decision

makers had no opportunity to weigh tradeoffs between

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 21 of 29
22 SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA

cumulative impacts of local soil loss and any environmental

benefits of concentrated development.

We can reject TRPA’s analysis of the effects of

concentrating development in community centers only if it is

arbitrary or capricious. See Compact art. VI(j)(5). It was not. 

The final EIS adequately addressed concerns raised about the

draft EIS. As to water quality, the PLRM stormwater

modeling simulation, which was included in the final EIS,

addressed localized effects on those parts of the lake near

community centers. As described in the final EIS, the PLRM

simulation developed for the TMDL, part of the water quality

restoration plan approved by California, Nevada, and the

EPA, took into account available information. It incorporated

data “on land use types, impervious coverage, and BMP

implementation to generate estimates of fine sediment,

nitrogen, and phosphorus loading and stormwater runoff” in

order to “estimate the relative changes in pollutant loading

that could occur within community centers.” With regard to

water quality, the final EIS addressed effects of concentrated

development on a localized scale similar to the one advocated

by Plaintiffs. The final EIS adequately explained the basis

for its conclusion that concentrating development in

community centers would not result in more concentrated

runoff. The final RPU also maintained the prohibition of

transfers of coverage across watersheds. Under the TRPA

Code and the final RPU, all transferred coverage must come

from the same hydrologically related area. TRPA Code

§ 30.4.3.E.

The final EIS also adequately addressed effects on soil

conservation. In studying the proposed RPU, a region-wide

plan, TRPA was not required to perform site-specific analysis

of impacts on soil conservation. As TRPA stated in response

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 22 of 29
SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA 23

to comments, evaluation of coverage at a more localized scale

would occur, as part of the Area Plan process, prior to

development taking place. See Friends of the Wild Swan v.

Weber, 767 F.3d 936, 943 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating that agency

must balance need for comprehensive analysis against

considerations of practicality); Friends of Yosemite Valley v.

Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 800–01 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that

deferral of site-specific analysis was proper under NEPA for

program-wide EIS), clarified by 366 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2004). 

In addition, as TRPA argues, the PLRM simulation includes

soil conservation components.

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, the draft EIS addressed

cumulative effects on biological resources. With regard to

biological resources, the draft EIS also stated that Alternative

3, the RPU, “would result in increased permeability, reduced

urban runoff, and commensurate improvements in water

quality, soil conditions, and habitat for vegetation and

wildlife.” TRPA acted within its discretion in its choice of

scientific methodology, see Alaska Survival v. Surface

Transp. Bd., 705 F.3d 1073, 1088 (9th Cir. 2013), and its

organization and presentation of information in the EIS, see

Mont. Wilderness Ass’n v. Connell, 725 F.3d 988, 1002 (9th

Cir. 2013). TRPA was not required to conduct additional

scientific studies to determine an environmental threshold for

conservation of soil at a local or watershed level before

analyzing the impacts of region-wide coverage changes. See

N. Plains Res. Council v. Surface Transp. Bd., 668 F.3d 1067,

1085 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that an agency is not required to

address every possible scientific uncertainty). The EIS’s

analysis of the effects of concentrating development was not

arbitrary or capricious, and did not violate Compact article

VII(a)(2)(A) by failing to address significant environmental

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 23 of 29
24 SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA

impacts of the RPU. See Compact art. VI(j)(5); Protect Our

Cmtys. Found., 825 F.3d at 578.

II. Best Management Practices

Plaintiffs contend that TRPA improperly assumed,

without adequate analysis and hence in violation of Compact

article VII(a)(2)(A), that BMPs would reduce water quality

impacts of concentrated development under the RPU even

though TRPA has a poor track record of enforcing BMPs. 

We conclude that the EIS’s assumptions regarding BMPs

were not arbitrary or capricious, and were supported by

substantial evidence. See Compact art. VI(j)(5).

The TRPA Code provides that BMPs “shall be applied to

all public and privately owned lands.” TRPA Code § 60.4.2. 

BMPs are described in the 2012 Handbook of Best

Management Practices, found in volume II of the Lake Tahoe

Basin Water Quality Management Plan. TRPA Code

§ 60.4.2. The RPU requires the installation and maintenance

of BMPs in accordance with the Handbook. The Handbook

states that BMPs are practices “that reduce or prevent the

pollutants of concern identified in the Lake Tahoe Total

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and other pollutants from

entering surface and ground waters.” The TRPA Code

provides for temporary BMPs for construction sites,

permanent BMPs for construction projects (as a condition of

project approval), and retrofit BMPs. TRPA Code §§ 60.4.3,

60.4.4.

The TRPA Code and Handbook have several provisions

relating to maintenance and enforcement. The Code requires

that “BMPs shall be maintained to ensure their continued

effectiveness.” TRPA Code § 60.4.9. The Code provides

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 24 of 29
SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA 25

that TRPA shall enforce BMP project compliance programs,

including the implementation and maintenance of temporary

BMPs on construction sites and the application of permanent

BMPs on projects. TRPA Code § 60.4.3. The Handbook

provides that BMPs “are designed to reduce the impacts of

stormwater pollutants and increased runoff on Lake Tahoe’s

famed clarity. Without regular maintenance, BMPs lose their

effectiveness, resulting in increased runoff and discharge of

pollutants to Lake Tahoe.” The Handbook acknowledges,

however, that maintenance of BMPs is “frequently

neglected.” Accordingly, the Handbook states that building

permits will require a BMP inspection and maintenance plan

as a condition of approval, and land owners and managers

will be required to keep inspection and maintenance logs.

In its analysis of the effects of the RPU on water quality,

the draft EIS concluded that the effects of increased coverage

in community centers would be “less than significant”

because the additional coverage “would be required to meet

existing BMP standards to control potential increases in

stormwater runoff and pollutant loading . . . , including

maintenance requirements.” The draft EIS summarized

existing policies regarding BMP requirements and stated that

34% of land parcels in the Tahoe Region had obtained a BMP

Certificate by installing BMPs that met TRPA requirements.

The reliance on BMPs in the draft EIS drew critical

comments. The California AttorneyGeneral commented that

the EIS “should disclose [the Region’s] history of neglected

BMP maintenance and disclose the impacts of its alternatives

assuming that past patterns of neglect continue into the

future.” Plaintiffs commented that for “longer term impacts

related to increased coverage – more runoff and the increased

pollutant loads from new construction – the alternatives that

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 25 of 29
26 SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA

allow more coverage need to have increased regulatory

authority (and stable funding) for inspections and

enforcement of coverage and BMP maintenance and

operation requirements for . . . new projects.”

The final EIS responded that steps had been taken to

improve the situation and went on to explain what they were. 

The final EIS stated: “Based on the current maintenance

requirements and practices, education efforts, and

enforcement requirements summarized below, it is valid to

assume that implementation of BMPs would be effective.” 

The final EIS then listed TRPA Code § 60.4.9, BMP

Handbook Chapter 6, a Home Landscaping Guide for Lake

Tahoe and Vicinity, and a contractor’s manual that is

included in the curriculum of an annual BMP contractors

workshop conducted byTRPA. The final EIS also stated that

TRPA had received grant funding for BMP inspection, TRPA

inspectors enforce temporary BMP maintenance during

construction projects, TRPA had received grant funding for

a residential BMP maintenance video, TRPA had received

grant funding for the sending of BMP maintenance

reminders, and there were pending grant proposals related to

the enhancement of maintenance tracking. The final EIS

further explained that the RPU encouraged the use of areawide water quality treatment facilities, which could “lead to

more efficient maintenance practices relative to conducting

maintenance activities on many smaller and widely

distributed parcels and sites.”

TRPA thus contends on appeal that the EIS properly

relied on BMPs and their effective implementation in support

of its conclusion that concentrated development would have

a less than significant impact on water quality. As TRPA

points out, the 2012 BMP Handbook acknowledges past

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 26 of 29
SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA 27

failures in maintenance and incorporates that experience into

updated BMP guidelines. For example, according to the

Handbook, project permits require a BMP inspection and

maintenance plan, and land owners and managers are

required to keep inspection and maintenance logs. TRPA

also cites the public outreach programs listed in the final EIS

as part of the agency’s efforts to improve BMP maintenance. 

See San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coal. v. U.S. Dep’t

of Def., 817 F.3d 653, 660 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that courts

may consider responses to comments for confirmation that an

agency has taken a “hard look” at an issue). We must

conclude that TRPA did not act arbitrarily and capriciously

in relying on its plan to better implement and maintain BMPs. 

See Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 451 F.3d

1005, 1015–16 (9th Cir. 2006) (upholding an environmental

assessment for a timber sale under NEPA); Forest Guardians

v. U.S. Forest Serv., 329 F.3d 1089, 1099–1100 (9th Cir.

2003) (upholding a planned monitoring program for grazing

under the National Forest Management Act because it was

rational for the Forest Service to conclude that despite past

failures, monitoring should continue).

Plaintiffs cite statistics regarding the relative lack of past

success of TRPA’s BMP retrofit program. As TRPA argues,

however, the RPU provides incentives for redevelopment and

thus is designed to move properties from TRPA’s retrofit

program into its mandatory permitting program for new

development, which requires BMP maintenance plans and

logs. TRPA reasonably relied on data in the record in

concluding that despite the agency’s imperfect past

enforcement of BMP maintenance, the RPU would have a

less-than-significant effect on water quality. See Lands

Council, 629 F.3d at 1076–77 (upholding a forest plan under

the National Forest Management Act). Plaintiffs cite Friends

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 27 of 29
28 SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA

of Back Bay v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 681 F.3d 581, 589

(4th Cir. 2012), where the court invalidated an environmental

assessment under NEPA because a boat speed limit that an

agency had not enforced was insufficient assurance that a

project’s boating impacts on wildlife would be mitigated. In

this case, TRPA provided significant assurances of future

enforcement. TRPA’s assumptions regarding BMPs were

supported by substantial evidence and are entitled to

deference. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of

Land Mgmt., No. 14-15836, 2016 WL4269899 at *9 (9th Cir.

Aug. 15, 2016).

III. Costs

The district court awarded costs pursuant to TRPA Rule

10.6.2, which provides that any agency costs in the

preparation of the administrative record for a legal action be

borne by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs contend that the rule

unfairly makes them responsible for such costs even if they

prevail. Plaintiffs, however, did not prevail before the district

court, nor have they prevailed on appeal. Accordingly, we do

not need to address whether TRPA Rule 10.6.2 is a

statutorily-authorized exception to the general rule, set forth

in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), that costs should

be allowed to the prevailing party. Whether Rule 10.6.2 was

authorized byCompact art. VIIIis a question for another day. 

Because we affirm the district court’s decision in favor of

TRPA, the district court did not err in imposing costs, nor did

it abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs reimbursement for

certain costs. See Kalitta Air L.L.C. v. Cent. Tex. Airborne

Sys. Inc., 741 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam).

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 28 of 29
SIERRA CLUB V. TRPA 29

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-15998, 11/02/2016, ID: 10182678, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 29 of 29