Fifth District Rejects CEQA Challenge to Fresno County Aggregate Mine Project EIR In Partially Published Decision, Clarifies State Mining Board’s Smara Powers and CEQA’s Farmland Loss Mitigation Rules

by Miller Starr Regalia

In a lengthy, 65-page opinion filed December 8, 2014 (of which fully two-thirds was unpublished), the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Fresno County Superior Court’s judgment upholding the EIR, Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and reclamation plan approvals for the Carmelita Mine and Reclamation Project, an aggregate mining and processing operation proposed to be located at a 1,500-acre site 15 miles east of Fresno. Friends of the Kings River v. County of Fresno (Colony Land Company, L.P., and Carmelita Resources, LLC, RPI) (5th Dist. 2014) ____ Cal.App.4th ____, 2014 WL 6966984. The project contemplates extraction of 1.25 million tons of aggregate per year, from 22 individual mining cells of about 40 acres each, over a period of up to 100 years, with mining and subsequent reclamation activities to proceed on a cell-by-cell basis.

The published portions of the opinion dealt with: (1) the State Mining and Geology Board’s (SMGB) legal powers in dealing with administrative appeals (known as “designation appeals”) of  local agency reclamation plan approvals under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (“SMARA”); and (2) CEQA’s rules governing mitigation of a project’s direct farmland loss impacts. Key points from the published portions of the decision include:

  • SMARA (Pub. Resources Code §§ 2710, et seq.) is a “home rule” statutory scheme reposing primary responsibility for enforcing the law’s requirements – including approvals of the surface mining reclamation plans and financial assurances that lie at the heart of SMARA – in local lead agencies (such as the County of Fresno in this case).
  • While the SMGB is statutorily authorized to hear designation appeals from permits to conduct surface mining activities in an area of statewide or regional significance, and may review such local lead agency decisions under the substantial evidence standard, if it finds the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, its only statutory authority is to remand the appeal back to the lead agency for a new public hearing and reconsideration – the SMGB may not invalidate or set aside the challenged permit or reclamation plan approval. (Also, under certain circumstances where a lead agency fails to fulfill its SMARA duties, the SMGB may step in and take over as the lead agency, although this power does not extend to permitting authority and was not exercised in this case.)
  • As relevant to the instant case, these SMARA rules meant that petitioner’s successful designation appeal to the SMGB during the pendency of its writ of mandate litigation challenging the County’s CEQA review of the project did not have the effect of invaliding the challenged reclamation plan or rendering the CEQA action moot. Administrative agencies have only such powers as expressly or impliedly conferred on them by constitution or statute; here, the SMGB’s statutory authority extended only to requiring a remand and reconsideration of approvals it found unsupported by substantial evidence, not to setting aside or nullifying those approvals.
  • Turning to the CEQA issues, the Court upheld the EIR’s findings and mitigation measures with respect to the Project’s impacts involving permanent loss of almost 600 acres of farmland that would occur over the course of the next 100 years. The County adopted three mitigation measures recommended in the EIR for the project’s farmland conversion impacts, found that “conversion of farmland to another land use remains a significant and unavoidable impact” even after the mitigation, and declined to require the project proponent to mitigate by means of permanent agricultural conservation easements (ACEs) at preservation ratios of between 1:1 and 2:1, as some EIR commenters urged it to do.
  • The County’s adopted mitigation measures (which were upheld by the Court as constituting an adequate mitigation effort under CEQA, notwithstanding the lack of required ACEs) were: (1) the project site’s current agricultural use would continue until the land is prepared for mining; (2) 602 acres within the project site outside disturbed areas would continue to be maintained as an agricultural buffer for the life of the CUP; and (3) the applicant would reclaim the mine cells to farmland as adequate soil materials are generated to fill the empty cells. The EIR thus included specific measures that were feasible to mitigate or compensate for the loss of farmland caused by the Project – albeit only partially and not to the extent of reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level. While, as required by CEQA, County evaluated ACEs as a possible mitigation measure, along with the ultimately required measures, it was not required to do more.
  • Petitioner’s contrary position misplaced reliance on Masonite Corp. v. County of Mendocino (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 230, 238. (For a prior post on that case, see “First District Publishes Significant CEQA Decision On Legal Feasibility Of Mitigation For Prime Farmland Losses In Masonite Corporation v. County of Mendocino,” by Arthur F. Coon, posted August 2, 2013). Masonite held “ACEs may appropriately mitigate the direct loss of farmland when a project converts agricultural land to a nonagricultural use” and “that the lead agency in that case erred by failing to consider ACEs as a potential mitigation measure for [such] direct loss.” As further explained by the Fifth District Court of Appeal: “We do not read Masonite… to stand for the proposition that CEQA requires the use of ACEs as a mitigation measure in every case where ACEs are economically feasible and the project causes the loss of farmland. In Masonite, the lead agency did not believe ACEs were applicable and apparently did not adopt any mitigation measures to address the loss of farmland caused by the project. Here, in contrast, [Fresno] County did not “categorically exclude ACEs as a means to mitigate the conversion of farmland”…. Rather, County considered the use of ACEs along with other mitigation measures and selected the three mitigation measures recommended in the DEIR. We decline to hold that County was required to adopt ACEs as a mitigation measure instead of the mitigation measures it did adopt.” (The Court went on to reject Petitioner’s argument that County failed to provide reasoned responses to comments on the same topic.)

The published potion of the Court’s decision provides useful guidance and clarification of relevant provisions of SMARA and CEQA case law in the context of surface mining and quarry projects involving the conversion of agricultural lands – a common scenario. It clarifies the powers the SMGB does – and does not – have with regard to administratively appealed approvals. Significantly, it also makes clear that while CEQA requires that ACEs must be “evaluated” as possible mitigation for direct farmland losses, they are not a required (or even necessarily preferred) form of mitigation even if they would not be economically infeasible for the project proponent to obtain or provide. Rather, the lead agency retains discretion to select mitigation measures it deems most appropriate, after fully considering and evaluating all available options. This remains true in the not-uncommon context where direct farmland loss impacts will remain significant and unavoidable regardless of the type of mitigation required.

Written by:

Miller Starr Regalia

Miller Starr Regalia on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.