Opinion ID: 2632447
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Recirculation of the Draft EIR for Comment on the Cosumnes River Salmon Impacts

Text: Section 21092.1 provides that when a lead agency adds significant new information to an EIR after completion of consultation with other agencies and the public (see §§ 21104, 21153) but before certifying the EIR, the lead agency must pursue an additional round of consultation. In Laurel Heights II, supra, 6 Cal.4th at page 1129, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 231, 864 P.2d 502, we held that new information is significant, within the meaning of section 21092.1, only if as a result of the additional information the EIR 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 avoid such an effect. (Accord, CEQA Guidelines, Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15088.5, subd. (a).) Recirculation is not mandated under section 21092.1 when the new information merely clarifies or amplifies the previously circulated draft EIR, but is required when it reveals, for example, a new substantial impact or a substantially increased impact on the environment. ( Laurel Heights II, at pp. 1129-1130, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 231, 864 P.2d 502.) We further held the lead agency's determination that a newly disclosed impact is not significant so as to warrant recirculation is reviewed only for support by substantial evidence. ( Id. at p. 1135, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 231, 864 P.2d 502.) In this case, the Draft EIR contained no discussion of the impact the planned groundwater extraction at the Well Field would have on water flows and habitats in the Cosumnes River. When several agencies and private organizations commenting on the Draft EIR raised concerns regarding such effects and the resulting impacts on salmon migration, County staff responded in the FEIR that, due to restrictions on the amount of water to be pumped from the Well Field and the limited hydrological connections between the Cosumnes River and the aquifer from which water would be taken, the impact on Cosumnes River flows would be small and insignificant. The County adopted that conclusion in its findings approving the project. Plaintiffs contend, and we agree, that the County's finding is not supported by substantial evidence because the FEIR discloses a potentially significant impact of reduced river flows on aquatic species, including migrating salmon. [17] While concluding the effect of further groundwater withdrawals was likely to be small and therefore generally insignificant, the FEIR authors included this proviso: The potential exception could be during periods of very low flow. During such periods of low flow, these depletions could change the timing and areal extent of the dewatering of the stream invert, potentially impacting aquatic and riparian-dependent species and habitat. Though phrased as a limited exception to the conclusion of insignificance, this reservation appears instead to identify a substantial, or at least potentially substantial, new impact. That is because periods of very low flow are precisely those in which, according to comments on the Draft EIR by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Nature Conservancy, migratory fish, waiting in the fall for streamflows to rise to sufficient levels, are likely to be adversely affected by further dewatering. The potential adverse change identified by the FEIR in the timing and areal extent of the [Cosumnes's] dewatering is impossible to distinguish from the barrier to migration caused, according to the Nature Conservancy's comment, when the Cosumnes River ceases flowing earlier in the year, stays dry longer into the Fall, and dries over an increasingly long reach.... Moreover, the area of the Cosumnes River in which the FEIR projects potential loss of flow overlaps with the river's migratory reach. The Fish and Wildlife Service comment identifies the migratory reach as from the tidal zone to LaTrobe Rd., a reach that includes both of the areas identified by the FEIR as having a hydrologieal connection to the lower aquifer (to the east of Dillard Road and to the west of Twin Cities Road).' [18] Thus, in response to comments raising the issue of an impact on salmon migration in the Cosumnes River, the FEIR states, in effect, that loss of flow to that river is likely to be small and therefore insignificant except that the river might remain drier longer in the yearincluding when the salmon would be migratingand over a longer reachincluding where the salmon would be migrating. We do not consider this response substantial evidence that the loss of stream flows would have no substantial effect on salmon migration. Especially given the sensitivity and listed status of the resident salmon species, the County's failure to address loss of Cosumnes River stream flows in the Draft EIR `deprived the public ... of meaningful participation' ( Laurel Heights II, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1131, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 231, 864 P.2d 502) in the CEQA discussion. (See CEQA Guidelines, Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15065, subd. (a)(1) [potential substantial impact on endangered, rare or threatened species is per se significant].) Real parties and Rancho Cordova point out that the FEIR contemplated additional environmental review of the Cosumnes River issue in the then-pending Zone 40 master plan EIR. But as we explained in part I above, analysis of the project's impacts could not be deferred in this manner. An EIR cannot be tiered from another EIR if the latter is not yet complete. The burden of revising and recirculating the Draft EIR, we note, is limited by the narrowness of the issue on which we determine it is required. If the revision is limited to a few chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency need only recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified. (CEQA Guidelines, Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15088.5, subd. (c).)