1. Petitioner Campaign to Restore Jackson State Redwood Forest is an
association of persons, most of whom reside in Mendocino County, that is
dedicated to restoring publicly owned Jackson Demonstration State Forest
(JDSF) in order to protect salmon and other wildlife, and for recreational,
scientific, and educational public use.
2. Dharma Cloud Charitable Foundation Trust is a nonprofit corporation.
It conducts charitable activities for the coastal communities of Mendocino
County, including long-range planning for JDSF, preservation of and public
access to coastal lands, development of a community plan for the community
of Caspar, and support of Buddhist religious activities.
3. The personal, aesthetic, and environmental interests of Petitioners
and the persons associated with them will be severely injured, if
Respondent California Board of Forestry’s (Board) June 12, 2001, change in
policy relating to state forests is allowed to be implemented in the
absence of environmental review as required by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Petitioners are within the class of persons
beneficially interested in and aggrieved by the Board’s policy change.
4. Respondent Board is an agency of the State of California.
5. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or
otherwise, of DOES I through X are unknown to Petitioner, who therefore
sues said Respondents by such fictitious names. Petitioner will seek leave
to amend this petition when they have been ascertained.
6. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to California Code of
Civil Procedure 1085; California Public Resources Code, sections 21167 and
7. Petitioners have performed all conditions precedent to the filing of
8. At all times mentioned herein, the Board has been able to deny the
approval of the modification to Board policy. Despite such ability, the
Board has failed and continues to fail to perform its duty to deny the
approval of the modification.
9. As of July 12, 2001, Board policy relating to state forests provided
in part: "Management plans shall be prepared and maintained current for the
Jackson…State Forests. All operations on the forests shall conform to the
10. On May 18, 2001, this Court issued a preliminary injunction in
Campaign to Restore Jackson State Redwood Forest v. CDF (Super. Ct.
Mendocino County, No. 0083611) (Campaign to Restore I), prohibiting
CDF from going forward with two timber harvest plans in JDSF, because CDF
was not managing JDSF in accordance with a current management plan.
11. In response to the preliminary injunction, the Board amended its
policy relating to state forests, in part by deleting the requirement that
management plans be maintained current. As a result of this policy change,
CDF and the Board took the position that the preliminary injunction and
underlying lawsuit were moot, and that logging in JDSF could go forward.
12. During its approval of the policy change, the Board was advised by
counsel that its action was not subject to CEQA. Accordingly, the Board did
not conduct any environmental review of the policy change and the effects
that it would have on the environment.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
13. The allegations of paragraph 1 through 12 are incorporated as fully
set forth herein.
14. Under CEQA, approval of a discretionary project requires
environmental review. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.) CEQA broadly defines
projects as "activities undertaken by a public agency." (Pub. Res. Code, §
21065; see § 21080.) A project is defined as the "whole of an action, which
has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the
environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment....." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15378(a).)
15. The Board’s June 12, 2001, policy change was a discretionary
activity of a public agency that will unquestionably have an ultimate
impact on the environment. Indeed, the Board and CDF made the change so
that logging in JDSF could go forward. The Board’s action was therefore
subject to CEQA.
16. Contrary to the advice it received from counsel, the Board’s action
was not exempt from CEQA. The Board’s action was not the type of
ministerial, administrative policy-making that has either a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect impact on the environment. (City of
Livermore v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d
17. The Board therefore violated CEQA when it approved the July 12,
2001, policy change, because it failed to analyze the environmental impacts
of its action.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for judgment as follows:
1. For Writ of Mandate ordering the Board to void its June 12, 2001,
approval of the modification to Board policy relating to state forests, and
to conduct environmental review in accordance with CEQA.
2. For an injunction barring the Board from implementing the June 12,
2001, policy change, until that change has been analyzed in accordance with
3. For reasonable attorney’s fees under California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1021.5.
4. For costs of suit.
5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
Dated: January 2, 2002