Nelson v. County of Kern
118 Cal. Rptr. 3d 736
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- CEQA challenge to Kern County's environmental analysis for Carlton's proposed 40-acre surface mining on federal land and reclamation plan under SMARA.
- BLM conducted NEPA review (FONSI) and approved mining; County reviewed reclamation plan only.
- County relied on MOU with federal agencies to limit County CEQA review to reclamation plan; proceeded after BLM approval.
- Carlton's plans described 30-year mining period with calcite marble, extraction on federal land, reclamation thereafter.
- County adopted mitigated negative declaration for reclamation plan; petitioners sought mandamus to require full project CEQA review and EIR.
- Court reversed, holding County as lead agency must evaluate the entire mining project (mining and reclamation) under CEQA/SMARA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County failed to review the entire project under CEQA/SMARA | Nelson argues County must analyze mining plus reclamation | Kern relies on MOU and BLM NEPA to limit review to reclamation | Yes; County erred by limiting to reclamation only. |
| Whether the MOU absolves County of CEQA/SMARA duties | MOU should not excuse full environmental review | MOU allows coordination but not waiver of lead agency duties | MOU does not relieve County of CEQA/SMARA responsibilities. |
| Whether CEQA/Nepa interplay requires joint or dual review | CEQA must apply to entire project despite NEPA review | CEQA may accept NEPA documents if compliant | CEQA must be satisfied for full project; NEPA does not preempt. |
| Whether an EIR is required based on fair argument | Record supports potentially significant impacts from full project | Review limited to reclamation shows no significant effects | Yes; substantial evidence supports fair argument for significant impacts; EIR required. |
Key Cases Cited
- El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado, 122 Cal.App.4th 1591 (Cal. App. 4th 2004) (distinguishable, vested rights pre-SMARA context)
- City of Ukiah v. County of Mendocino, 196 Cal.App.3d 47 (Cal. App. 3d 1987) (vested rights case; reclamation review limited to reclamation plan)
- Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Sonora, 155 Cal.App.4th 1214 (Cal. App. 4th 2007) (scope of project includes whole action to avoid segmentation)
- City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino, 96 Cal.App.4th 398 (Cal. App. 4th 2002) (initial study must describe the project and cover whole project)
- Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources, 83 Cal.App.4th 892 (Cal. App. 4th 2000) (lead agency duties and CEQA review standards)