Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection

Summary

The California Supreme Court reviewed challenges to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's approval of three timber harvest plans for private Sierra Nevada lands. The court held that the plans adequately analyzed cumulative impacts on the California spotted owl and Pacific fisher under the Forest Practice Act, its regulations, and CEQA, and that the agency did not violate the required analytical procedures. The opinion also addressed the treatment of potential herbicide use in the plans.

Holdings

1. The timber harvest plans complied with the Forest Practice Rules and Technical Rule Addendum No. 2 even though they formally designated the same state planning watershed for all biological resources. The plans expressly analyzed cumulative impacts on the spotted owl and Pacific fisher over broader geographic areas, including Sierra Pacific's Sierra Nevada forestlands.
2. When herbicide use is reasonably foreseeable in general terms, a timber harvest plan must include a general discussion of the activity and its possible environmental effects, although it need not analyze precise future applications that cannot reasonably be predicted when the plan is prepared.
3. The Department of Pesticide Regulation's registration and regulatory program does not excuse CDF from independently assessing the environmental effects of foreseeable herbicide use in a timber harvest plan.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the timber harvest plans and CDF's approval complied with the Forest Practice Rules and Technical Rule Addendum No. 2 in selecting and analyzing the geographic scope of cumulative impacts on California spotted owl and Pacific fisher habitat.
2. Whether potential future herbicide use was reasonably foreseeable and therefore required environmental analysis in the timber harvest plans.
3. Whether the Department of Pesticide Regulation's registration and regulation of herbicides excused CDF from independently analyzing herbicide use under CEQA and the Forest Practice Act.
4. Whether the plans provided an adequate level of detail concerning the environmental effects, mitigation measures, and alternatives associated with future herbicide use.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded