By Kimberly D. Farbota, Jennifer K. Roy, and Christopher Garrett
CEQA Case Report: Understanding the Judicial Landscape for Development[i]
In an unpublished opinion issued August 28, 2018, Forest Preservation Society v. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Case. No. SCUK-CVPT-15-66284, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment and upheld the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (Cal Fire’s or Department’s) approval of a Timber Harvest Plan (THP 80) proposed by real party in interest Mendocino Redwood Company (MRC). Petitioner Forest Preservation Society (Petitioner) requested for writ of mandate, arguing that the Department:
- Used an improper baseline for evaluating the impacts of THP 80 on climate change
- Showed no substantial evidence to support its finding that THP 80 would not significantly impact climate change
- Failed to fulfill its duty to create an enforceable mitigation and monitoring plan to alleviate the impacts on climate change
The trial court rejected these arguments and denied the petition, and the Court of Appeal upheld the denial. In summary, the Court of Appeal determined:
- The Department did not abuse its discretion by relying on the California Air Resources Board’s Climate Change Scoping Plan — rather than the state’s 2020 and 2050 greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets — as the threshold of significance for evaluating the cumulative impacts on climate change resulting from project-related GHG emissions.
- Substantial evidence, in the form of analyses showing that growth was scheduled to outpace logging across MRC’s ownership, supported the Department’s finding that the project’s cumulative impacts on global warming would be insignificant.
- The Department does not have a duty to enforce mitigation and monitoring of potential impacts on climate change if there are no significant cumulative impacts. Additionally, THP 80 requires that all future MRC timber-harvesting plans and projects be subject to environmental review.