## Facts

- A timber company submitted two timber harvesting plans (THPs) for logging in virgin old-growth redwood-type forest in the Yager Creek drainage basin in Humboldt County.
- The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, prompted by the Department of Fish and Game, requested additional information and surveys concerning old-growth-dependent wildlife species potentially affected by the logging.
- The timber company refused to provide the requested wildlife information, asserting it was not expressly required by the Board’s forest practice rules.
- The Department denied the THPs as incomplete due to missing information needed to evaluate impacts on old-growth-dependent species.
- On administrative appeal, the State Board of Forestry overturned the denial and approved the THPs, finding there would be no significant adverse effect on old-growth-dependent wildlife species or habitat.
- Environmental groups sought a writ of mandate to set aside the approvals, alleging noncompliance with CEQA and the Forest Practice Act (FPA) due to the lack of information needed to assess environmental effects.
- The trial court upheld the approvals; the Court of Appeal reversed and ordered rescission; the California Supreme Court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether CEQA and the FPA permit approval of THPs when the administrative record lacks information identified by responsible agencies as necessary to assess potentially significant effects on old-growth-dependent wildlife.
2. Whether the Board abused its discretion by approving the THPs and making a no-significant-impact finding without obtaining the requested wildlife data.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal and required the Board to rescind its approvals of both THPs.
- The court held the Board abused its discretion by approving the THPs on a record lacking necessary information to make an informed assessment of environmental impacts on old-growth-dependent species.
- The Board’s “no significant adverse effect” finding lacked substantial evidentiary support because it was made in the absence of the data identified as necessary by the reviewing and resource agencies.
- The remedy was rescission of approval so the THPs could be reconsidered consistent with CEQA and the FPA on an adequate informational record.

## Legal Principles

- Under CEQA, an agency abuses its discretion if it fails to proceed in the manner required by law or if its decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
- Environmental review must be meaningful; agencies must obtain and consider reasonably available information needed to evaluate whether a project may have significant environmental effects, including effects on wildlife.
- A lead agency may not lawfully support a no-significant-impact determination with speculation when responsible agencies have identified missing information necessary to evaluate the impact.
- The FPA’s timber plan review process and forest practice rules operate in conjunction with CEQA; the absence of an express checklist requirement for a particular study does not excuse the failure to obtain information needed for informed decisionmaking.
- Judicial deference to agency technical judgment depends on the agency having gathered and evaluated relevant information; deference does not justify approvals resting on an acknowledged information gap.

## Conclusion

The court required rescission of the THP approvals because the Board could not validly determine that logging would have no significant adverse effect on old-growth-dependent wildlife without first obtaining the information necessary to evaluate those potential impacts under CEQA and the FPA.


Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry, 7 Cal. 4th 1215 (Cal. 1994)