BOF Suit
Home ] Up ] Settlement ] [ BOF Suit ] Prelim Injunction ] TRO ] Brandon Gulch Suit ] Initial filing ]


 New lawsuit filed against the Board of Forestry.

January 3, 2002, Ukiah. The Campaign filed a new lawsuit in Mendocino County Superior Court against the California Board of Forestry.  The new lawsuit follows a suit filed in June 2000 that resulted in a preliminary injunction that halted logging in Jackson State Forest.

The new lawsuit alleges that a July 11, 2001 revision of Board policies governing state forests  was done in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The revision in policy eliminated 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 Jackson State could go forward.

In August, the court initiated settlement negotiations and the parties verbally agreed to a settlement that would have preserved the key demand of the Campaign's suit: that no further logging take place until a new management plan and Environmental Impact Report are approved. Despite concerted efforts of the Campaign's lawyer, details of the agreement could not be agreed upon by the end of 2001.

The Campaign had no choice but to file the new lawsuit against the Board of Forestry, because the time for filing allowed by statute of limitations was about to run out. If the Board's policy revision was allowed to stand, the initial lawsuit would have been mooted and the injunction dissolved.

In commenting on the new suit, Vince Taylor, Executive Director of the Campaign said, "We filed the new suit reluctantly. We tried our best to translate the general agreement among the parties, reached last August, into a written agreement. Frankly, as time passed, CDF and Board seemed increasingly reluctant to negotiate in good faith, introducing new, unrelated, and unacceptable terms into the agreement. 

"In August, CDF was confident that it would complete a new management plan in time to begin logging at the start of the 2002 logging season. I surmise that CDF now realizes that preparing a legally acceptable management plan and Environmental Impact Report will require much longer than it then thought; thus it is no longer motivated to reach a settlement.

"Our lawyer is 100% confident that the Board violated CEQA and that we will prevail in our new lawsuit.  CDF and the Board are simply wasting taxpayer's money by refusing to settle the earlier suit on the agreed terms."

See the Campaign's Petition to the Court