United States: Save Cuyama Valley v. County Of Santa Barbara: JMBM Scores Significant Victory In CEQA Ruling On Significance Thresholds And Mitigation Measures

Last Updated: February 25 2013
Article by Scott N. Castro

In a decision published on February 8, 2013, the Second Appellate District ruled in favor of the JMBM client Troesh Materials, LLC in a challenge brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") against the County of Santa Barbara's approval of Troesh's Diamond Rock Sand and Gravel Mine and Processing Facility (the "Diamond Rock Mine"). The decision, Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (Case No. B233318), ruled on several important grounds under CEQA, and is further notable because it upholds the County's approval of an in-stream mining project within the bed of the Cuyama River. Troesh Materials, LLC was represented before the trial court and court of appeal by JMBM partner Scott N. Castro. The underlying County approval effort for Troesh's Diamond Rock Mine was led by JMBM partner Kerry Shapiro, leader of the Firm's land use group in San Francisco and co-chair of the Firm's Building Materials Group.


The Diamond Rock Mine is located in the Cuyama Valley, in the eastern part of Santa Barbara County. The project proposes to mine an average of 500,000 tons per year sand and gravel from the bed of the Cuyama River, a intermittently dry river. The entitlement process for the project began in 2002, and Troesh submitted its formal application one year later. The County conducted six years of review and CEQA analysis for the project, and prepared iterations of the EIR for the project. During the County's review, extensive comments were received from the public and resource agencies, including multiple, detailed comments from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Office of Mine Reclamation, concerning potential effects of the Diamond Rock Mine on the Cuyama River as well as groundwater in the area. In May 2008, the County Planning Commission approved the project. This approval was appealed by appellant Save Cuyama Valley to the County Board of Supervisors, which on September 23, 2008, voted to deny the appeal and approve the project.

The Litigation

Appellant filed an action in superior court challenging the EIR and the County's actions on multiple grounds under CEQA, all of which were rejected by the trial court On appeal, Appellant limited their challenges to the EIR, arguing primarily that the County erred by:

(1) Employing a project-specific significance threshold, rather than the significance thresholds suggested in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines G thresholds, to analyze potential hydraulic impacts on the Cuyama River, and failing to adopt formally that project-specific threshold;

(2) Deferring the ultimate formulation of a mitigation measure designed to reduce potential hydraulic impacts to the Cuyama River; and

(3) Employing the same significance threshold to analyze both project specific and cumulative impacts to groundwater quality.

The Court of Appeal rejected appellant's claims in a January 10, 2013 unpublished decision. Subsequently, several parties, including the California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities, requested that the decision be published. On February 8, 2013, the court ordered the decision to be certified for publication.

The Appellate Court Addresses Several Key Claims Under CEQA

Court Rules There is No Requirement to Employ CEQA Appendix G Thresholds or to Formally Adopt Project-Specific Thresholds

The court's ruling directly addressed the latitude a lead agency enjoys in utilizing project-specific significance threshholds. Appellant asserted that the County erred by failing to employ the significance thresholds identified in CEQA Appendix G for assessing potential impacts to the hydraulics of the Cuyama River. The court rejected this claim, noting that CEQA "grants agencies discretion to develop their own thresholds of significance" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (d)). The court also rejected appellant's alternative claim that the County was required to formally adopt the project-specific significance threshold for assessing hydraulic impacts, noting that CEQA "only requires that a threshold be formally adopted if it is for 'general use'--that is, for use in evaluating significance in all future projects" to be evaluated by the lead agency.

Similarly, the court rejected appellant's claim that the County was required to explain why it did not employ the Appendix G thresholds. As noted by the Court, since the Appendix G thresholds are merely suggested, appellant's claim would "elevate Appendix G from a suggested threshold to the presumptive threshold."

Court Upholds Deferral of Mitigation Measure for Hydraulic Impacts

The court also tackled the issue of deferred mitigation. Appellant claimed that a mitigation measure identified to address potential impacts to the hydraulics and "sediment transport" function of the Cuyama River was improperly deferred. Appellant argued that this mitigation measure, called "W-2," contained an inadequate "performance criteria" to determine when corrective action would need to be taken to mitigate potential impacts.

Typically, deferred formulation of mitigation measures is prohibited under CEQA, but the CEQA Guidelines provide that "measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126, subd. (a)(1)(B).) Construing this, the courts have generally concluded that deferral is allowable where there is a demonstrated need for deferral and (1) the agency commits itself to mitigation and (2) identifies potential mitigation options that would meet specific "performance criteria." See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. v. County of Merced, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at 671; see also Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1029 ("the agency can commit itself to eventually devising measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria articulated at the time of project approval.") However, there is no clear legal test for when a deferred mitigation measure has identified sufficient performance criteria.

The court determined that the deferral of mitigation was appropriate in part because the County had committed itself to mitigation by conditioning the issuance of Troesh's use permit on compliance with the mitigation measure. Addressing appellant's claim that the measure lacked adequate performance criteria, the court noted that the performance criteria was the avoidance of "adverse hydraulic conditions." Appellant claimed this term "adverse hydraulic conditions" was not defined in the mitigation measure, and thus the performance criteria was vague. The court disagreed, determining that the term "adverse hydraulic impacts" was defined elsewhere in the EIR in the analysis of potential hydraulic impacts, and thus use of this term in the mitigation measure incorporated that definition by reference. The court also found this "trigger" legally sufficient because the mitigation measure required compliance with provisions in the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act ("SMARA") regarding in-stream mining activities, which would be overseen by the Office of Mine Reclamation. The court noted that such compliance with environmental regulations "is a common and reasonable mitigating measure." The court further noted and that the EIR's definition of "adverse" hydraulic conditions "closely tracks the regulatory standard of SMARA set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 3710, subdivision (c)."

Finally, the court concluded that there were sufficient criteria to assess the effectiveness of the mitigation measure because it required Troesh to "avoid" adverse hydraulic impacts. Since such impacts were defined elsewhere in the EIR, the court concluded that "avoidance" of these impacts was a "sufficiently definite" performance standard.

Court Upholds Use of Same Significance Threshold for Assessment of Both Project-Specific and Cumulative Impacts

The court also addressed the use of the same significance threshold for assessing both project-specific and cumulative impacts to groundwater. The EIR employed a significance threshold of groundwater usage of 31 acre-feet per year, above which project impacts on groundwater on both a project-specific and cumulative basis would be considered potentially significant. This threshold, and its application for both project-specific and cumulative impact analysis, were taken directly from the County's Groundwater Thresholds Manual.

Appellant claimed that use of the same threshold is impermissible under CEQA because the project could have no significant direct impact, but when considered with other past, existing and planned projects, its incremental impact could be "cumulatively considerable." The Save Cuyama Valley court, however, examined the significance threshold as detailed in the County's Groundwater Thresholds Manual, and noted that it was "derived from an examination of the tolerable impact of an individual project on the amount of water available basin-wide[,]" and thus adequately assesses cumulative impacts on the basin. Notably, while the court concluded that the EIR lacked an "independent examination of the mine's noncumulative impact on water usage[,]" it nonetheless concluded that such analysis was "unnecessary" because the EIR found no significant cumulative impact "under what is an undoubtedly more stringent cumulative-impact threshold."

Court Applies "Harmless Error" Rule to Conclude that Flaw in EIR's Analysis of Potential Impacts on Water Quality is Not Prejudicial Because County Imposed a Condition to Avoid Such Impacts

The court also applied the "harmless error" rule to conclude that a deficiency in the County's environmental analysis was not prejudicial to appellant. The decision is notable because it found harmless error even though the court agreed with appellant that the EIR's conclusion of no significant impact to groundwater quality was not supported by substantial evidence. The EIR states that under most conditions, groundwater would be located below the proposed maximum mining depth of 90 feet, and thus concluded that groundwater would be exposed infrequently and briefly. The court noted, however that this conclusion "is in tension with the data showing that the groundwater in nearby wells is found anywhere between 40 and 110 feet below ground..." Notwithstanding this, the court found that appellant failed to establish that the EIR's "unsupported conclusion" was prejudicial because Condition 64 for the project requires Troesh to ensure that no groundwater is exposed at any depth. The condition thus ensures that the threatened impact will not occur, and thus the EIR's inconsistency on the underlying evidence results in no prejudicial effect on appellant.

Court Rules County Had No Duty to Consider Unauthenticated Evidence

Though not a focal point of the case, the court also offered important guidance regarding unauthenticated evidence submitted by the appellant during the public hearing process. This is another notable point in the case because there is no published CEQA opinion directly addressing the requirements for authenticating documents submitted by the public during the CEQA process. Appellant had presented to the County in a PowerPoint presentation several photographs purporting to show "headcutting," i.e., upstream degradation of the Cuyama River, in the vicinity of an existing mine (the GPS Mine) located downstream of the Diamond Rock Project. Appellant claimed that the County erred by not taking into account this purported evidence of headcutting. The court, however, ruled that the County had no duty to consider these photographs, and that, the County was under no duty to investigate the photographs on its own: "[w]ithout authentication, follow-up would have been exceedingly difficult, if not impossible." The court's handling of this issue provides some needed guidance in the CEQA arena where unauthenticated evidence is frequently submitted and the lead agency's duties regarding the handling of such evidence is unspecified under the statute.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.