Sierra Club v. City of Barstow

Four environmental organizations filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court challenging the City Council for the City of Barstow’s approval of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Barstow International Gateway railyard (BIG Project). Their petition alleged that the BIG Project would be largest rail facility in the country, comprising “a 5,000-acre rail and logistics facility that includes 9 million square feet of transload warehousing, an ancillary rail storage area, a block swap yard, and an intermodal facility.” The organizations alleged that the City’s environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) failed to adequately disclose, analyze, and mitigate environmental impacts, including impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. Regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the organizations alleged that the environmental impact report (EIR) relied on a “fundamentally flawed” analysis of “Truck Miles Traveled” and did not address greenhouse gas emissions impacts resulting directly or indirectly from the increase in processing capacity at BNSF’s other railyards in the region or from new and changed heavy-duty truck traffic across California. The organizations contended that the EIR’s sole greenhouse gas mitigation measure was inadequate. The petition described the mitigation measure as providing that the City prepare a Climate Action Plan to align emissions targets with State law targets while conceding that the City would not achieve the reduction targets. The organizations alleged that the EIR failed to consider all feasible mitigation measures to address greenhouse gas impacts, including zero-emission line-haul locomotives, switcher locomotives, trucks, rubber-tired gantry cranes, and transport refrigeration units. The petition also alleged that the final EIR deleted a battery energy storage system from the project description, which deprived the public of an opportunity to comment on feasible ways to avoid or minimize resulting impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the petition alleged that the final EIR did not provide an explanation for changing the conclusions regarding the significance of greenhouse gas emissions impacts from “Less than Significant” in the draft EIR to “Potentially Significant” in the final EIR.