JOY ROAD AREA FOREST AND WATERSHED ASSOCIATION v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY & FIRE PROTECTION

Filed 8/30/06

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

JOY ROAD AREA FOREST AND WATERSHED ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY & FIRE PROTECTION,

Defendant and Appellant,

HARMONY FOREST & LAND COMPANY, LLC.,

Real Party in Interest.

A105421

(Sonoma County

Super. Ct. No. SCV 229850)

I. INTRODUCTION

The California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CDF) approved Timber Harvest Plan 219 (THP 219). Joy Road Area Forest and Watershed Association (the Association[1]) filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to reverse approval of THP 219. The superior court granted the Association's petition. We modify the lower court's judgment in two respects, but otherwise affirm.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

THP 219 pertains to a heavily forested, 13-acre area located approximately two and one-half miles southwest of Occidental in Sonoma County, on a ridge top adjacent to Joy Road (the THP area). Ninety-five percent of the trees in the THP area are second-growth redwoods which are approximately 100 years old. The THP area is owned by real party in interest, Harmony Forest & Land Company, LLC (Harmony). The THP was prepared for Harmony by Scott R. Butler, a Registered Professional Forester (RPF), and was submitted to CDF on June 21, 2001.

On or about June 28, 2001, CDF returned THP 219 to Butler for the stated reason that it was incomplete and failed to comply with relevant regulations governing preparation of a THP. CDF identified 35 items that Butler needed to address in the THP before it would be accepted for filing.[2] On July 2, 2001, Butler re-submitted a new THP 219.

After THP 219 was resubmitted, a â€

Description	Trial court correctly found that Department of Forestry & Fire Protection abused its discretion by approving a timber harvest plan where plan's cumulative impact analysis with regard to the issue of fog drip lacked any facts, statistics, reports, or studies supporting contention that decrease in fog drip from trees would not result in a decrease in the water supply; plan lacked cumulative impact analysis addressing impact of future housing development in harvest area, but housing development was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of proposed harvest; additional information about northern spotted owl that was added to plan during review process was sufficiently significant to merit notice and recirculation; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had not approved project as required by department's own regulation.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.

JOY ROAD AREA FOREST AND WATERSHED ASSn.v. CA DEPT. OF FORE. PART -I

Filed 8/30/06