Abbott & Kindermann Land Use Law Blog : California Land Use, Environmental & Real Estate Lawyer & Attorney : Abbott & Kindermann Law Firm : Sacramento, CA

By Diane Kindermann Henderson and Cori M. Badgley

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a biological opinion (“BO”) by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (“FWS”) authorizing the destruction of critical habitat for three species, where the BO applied a percentage formula to ascertain whether there would be adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. The Ninth Circuit concluded, “The FWS’ determination that critical habitat would be destroyed was not inconsistent with its finding of ‘no adverse modification.’ After all, the project would affect only a very small percentage of the total critical habitat or vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and slender Orcutt grass.” (Butte Environmental Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (9th Cir. 2010) 607 F.3d 570.)

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Leslie Z. Walker

In a case with a curious procedural posture, the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, ruled that the Department of Water Resources is a “Person” for the purposes of Fish and Game Code section 2080 and thus is prohibited from taking an endangered or threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & Game Code, § 2050 et seq.) Kern County Water Agency v. Watershed Enforcers (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 969.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update

Reserve your seat for one of three seminars taking place in 2010!

In January and February 2010 Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will present its annual complimentary educational program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real estate issues affecting commercial and residential development, real estate acquisition, easements, leasing and property acquisition, and mining.  In addition, the following hot topics for 2010 will be discussed:

• Global Warming: CEQA Guidelines, Mandatory Reporting
• Water Supply Legislation
• CEQA Litigation: Alternative Analysis & Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
• Subdivision Map Extension
• Interpreting Development Agreements
• Endangered Species Act

Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will be presenting its annual program at three California locations: Sacramento, Modesto and Redding. Details for the seminars are below. We hope you can join us and look forward to seeing you there.

Modesto Conference

• Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010
• Location: Double Tree Hotel Modesto, 1150 Ninth Street
• Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
• Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Redding Conference 

• Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010
• Location: Hilton Garden Inn Redding , 5050 Bechelli Lane
• Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
• Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Sacramento Conference

• Date: Friday, February 12, 2010
• Location: Sacramento Hilton Arden West, 2200 Harvard Street
• Registration: 8:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. with continental breakfast
• Program: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon

There is no charge for the programs and MCLE and AICP CM credits are available.

An RSVP will be required as space is limited. To reserve a spot, call our office at (916) 456-9595. When calling, please specify which conference you will be attending.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Katherine Hart

Senate Bill 448 sponsored by Fran Pavley was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on October 11, 2009. The bill establishes the California State Safe Harbor Agreement Program Act (the “Act”) and adds provisions to the California Fish and Game Code. It will become effective on January 1, 2010.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Leslie Walker and Nathan Jones

A recent case published by the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District has struck down a decision by the California Fish and Game Commission (“Commission”) to deny listing the California tiger salamander (“salamander”) as a candidate species for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”). In Center for Biological Diversity v. California Fish and Game Commission (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 597, the court ruled that the Commission must accept a listing petition of a candidate species if the information would “lead a reasonable person to conclude there is a substantial possibility” that the species could be listed. Placing a species on the candidate list triggers a review by the Department of Fish and Game (“DFG”) to determine whether permanent listing under the CESA is required.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By William W. Abbott and Nathan Jones

While green energy is on the rise, there are casualties of even the most well-intentioned projects. In Center for Biological Diversity v. FPL Group, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1349, the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District upheld the dismissal of a public trust enforcement action against the owners and operators of wind turbines in the Altamont Pass area (the “Operators”). According to the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”), the turbines injure and kill raptors and other birds. Ultimately, CBD was successful in clarifying that the birds are a public trust resource of all the people of the state. However, the appellate court held that the proper party to bring an action against is the public agency with permitting authority, rather than the Operators.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By William W. Abbott and Janell M. Bogue

As development continues to occur in areas outside of urbanized areas, developers are encountering more threatened or endangered species issues in their environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). A fundamental question which must be addressed is whether there are threatened or endangered species present in the project area and whether the project will affect those species. This is not always a simple question to answer, as it is not clear what studies are necessary in order to adequately analyze biological resources under CEQA. What standards are appropriate to measure the significance of the effects on endangered species? Furthermore, once threatened or endangered species are determined to be affected by the project and potentially significant impacts to biological resources are identified, how does one provide for adequate mitigation in order to mitigate those impacts to a less than significant level? This article discusses several CEQA cases dealing with these questions and provides insight on how to address endangered species concerns in order to comply with CEQA.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Janell M. Bogue

In the case of Coos County Board of County Commissioners v. Kempthorne (June 26, 2008) 2008 U.S.App.Lexis 13475, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reiterated that the appropriate way for a species to be removed from the protections of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) is via a petition for delisting. The court held that there is no mandatory duty imposed upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) to delist species through the five year review process. (See 16 U.S.C. § 1533(c)(2).) Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Cori Badgley

On April 16, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an opinion in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. Gutierrez (Case No. 1:06-cv-00245) that invalidated portions of the 2004 biological opinion (“BiOp”) issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) for the Long-Term Central Valley Project and State Water Project Operations Criteria Plan (“2004 OCAP”). The Central Valley Project (“CVP”) supplies water to approximately 30 million people in 200 water districts. The State Water Project “is the largest State-built water project in the country.” Both projects share resources and facilities. The good news is that water suppliers will enjoy the status quo while a new biological opinion is drafted and approved.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Cori Badgley

In the recent case of California Forestry Association v. California Fish & Game Commission (2007) 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1896, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District wrestled with the treatment of subspecies and species range in the California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”). 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Janell M. Bogue

Recently, the Third Appellate District held that the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (“HCP”) was properly certified by the City of Sacramento and Sutter County (“City and County”) under CEQA and that the Department of Fish and Game (“DFG”) complied with the California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”) in issuing its incidental take permits. The case is Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

By Cori Badgley

The Endangered Species Act ("ESA") is a complex web of provisions that are not always easily interpreted. A recent case decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2006) 450 F.3d 930, illustrates the intricacies of the ESA and provides a warning to all those wishing to claim violations of its provisions - do your homework.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

by William W. Abbott and Janell M. Bogue

As development continues to occur in areas outside of urbanized metropolitan areas developers are encountering more threatened or endangered species issues in their environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). A fundamental question which must be addressed is whether there are threatened or endangered species present in the project area and whether the project will affect those species. This is not always a simple question to answer, as it is not clear what studies are necessary in order to adequately analyze biological resources under CEQA. What standards are appropriate to measure the significance of the effects on endangered species? Furthermore, once threatened or endangered species are determined to be affected by the project and potentially significant impacts to biological resources are identified, how does one provide for adequate mitigation in order to mitigate those impacts to a less than significant level? This paper discusses recent CEQA cases dealing with these questions and provide insight on how to address endangered species concerns in order to comply with CEQA.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link