|
The The [stet] Campaign to Restore Jackson State Redwood Forest, Dharma Cloud Charitable Foundation Trust, and Forests Forever Foundation ("Appellants") and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection ("Respondents") hereby agree to settle the above-entitled matter, as recited and agreed below. RECITALS Appellants filed a petition in Superior Court for Mendocino County, seeking mandate and other relief. The petition alleged, among other things, that the 2002 updated Management Plan for Jackson Demonstration State Forest (JDSF) was improper and should be invalidated. Appellants also sought preliminary injunctive relief to stop harvesting in JDSF on two timber harvesting plans (THPs), 1-99-483 MEN (483) and 1-99-484 MEN (484). On July 30, 2003, following a hearing on the petition, the superior court, by Judge Richard J. Henderson, issued its Ruling on Petition for Administrative Mandate ("July Ruling"). The Ruling stated, in part, that the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection ("Board") should not have served as California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) responsible agency with respect to the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared on the 2002 Management Plan for JDSF, that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ("CDF") should not have served as the lead agency, and that all timber operations within the meaning of Public Settlement Agreement Page 2 of 6 Resources Code section 4527, other than operations under timber harvesting plans approved prior to November 6, 2002 such as THPs 483 and 484, are enjoined. The Ruling also stated that the Board should rescind its November 6, 2002 approval of the 2002 Management Plan for JDSF. On September 4, 2003, the superior court, by Judge Henderson, issued a Supplemental Ruling on Petition for Administrative Mandamus and Order Setting Hearing on Proposed Judgment/Writ (Supplemental Ruling). In the Supplemental Ruling the court found, among other things, that in invalidating the 2002 plan, it had no proper basis to enjoin forest operations from proceeding under the prior management plan developed in 1983 and adopted in 1984 (commonly referred to as the 1983 Management Plan). The Supplemental Ruling left in place all other aspects of the July Ruling, including its order that the Board rescind its November 6, 2002 approval of the 2002 Management Plan. On September 23, 2003, the court entered judgment and issued a Peremptory Writ of Mandate ordering the Board to set aside its November 6, 2002 approval of the 2002 Management Plan, and to serve as CEQA lead agency respecting the EIR on any updated management plan prior to approving or adopting proposed updates to such plan for JDSF, among other things. On November 12, 2003, Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal announcing their appeal from, among others, that portion of the September 23, 2003 judgment in which the trial court had refused to enjoin logging in JDSF under either the 1983 Management Plan or the 2002 Management Plan. The Board is presently acting as lead agency for the preparation of an EIR respecting the update of the JDSF management plan. CDF is not permitting timber harvesting within JDSF to proceed at this time, including, but not limited to, harvesting provided for in timber harvesting plans 1-99-483 MEN and 1-99-484 MEN, commonly known as THPs 483 and 484. Respondents dispute the substantive and procedural sufficiency of Appellants’ appeal. However, they also seek to avoid the expense of briefing and arguing it. TERMS Therefore, in consideration of mutual covenants and conditions stated below, Appellants and Respondents agree as follows: 1. Respondent CDF will refrain from permitting timber harvesting in JDSF pursuant to Public Resources Code section 4581 until:
2. Appellants will dismiss their appeal in First District Court of Appeal Case No.102911. 3. Neither the dismissal of Appellants’ appeal nor any other aspect of this agreement shall prejudice any right Appellants may have, now or in the future, to (a) challenge THPs 483 and 484 on the grounds that they do not conform to the updated management plan, or that, through the passage of time, they no longer conform to the updated management plan, Forest Practice Act, Forest Practice Rules, or CEQA, and (b) in connection with such challenge, to request any form of relief available, including but not limited to injunctive relief. However, Appellants may not challenge the original approvals of THPs 483 and 484 on any other ground. 4. Neither the dismissal of Appellants’ appeal nor any other aspect of this agreement shall affect Appellants’ right to challenge JDSF THPs other than THPs 483 and 484 on any grounds which would otherwise be available to Appellants in the absence of this agreement. 5. Neither the dismissal of Appellants’ appeal nor any other aspect of this agreement shall affect Appellants’ right to challenge the updated management plan, and/or its EIR, on any grounds which would otherwise be available to Appellants in the absence of this agreement, and to seek any legally-viable form of relief in connection with such challenge, including injunctive relief against THPs 483 and 484. 6. Respondents shall not permit any timber falling, or road building to facilitate timber falling, under THPs 483 or 484 or otherwise, to go forward in JDSF under the 1983 management plan. 7. Upon (1) final resolution of the Appellants’ and Respondents’ disputes concerning the Appellants’ entitlement to attorneys’ fees in Mendocino County Superior Court Action no. SCUK CVPT 0289022, and (2) termination of the continuing jurisdiction of Judge Henderson or his successor over the matter, Appellants shall dismiss Mendocino County Superior Court Action no. SCUK CVPT 0289022 in its entirety. 8. Petitioners and Respondents agree that Petitioners’ claims in this litigation are disputed and that this Agreement is not to be construed as an admission of liability by Respondents. 9. This agreement has been explained to the undersigned by their respective counsel. 10. This agreement may be executed in counterparts and shall be binding and effective immediately upon the execution by all parties of one or more counterparts. Dated: __________, 2004 ____________________________
VINCE TAYLOR
_______________________________
PAUL HUGHES _______________________________
PAUL V. CARROLL Dated: __________, 2004 _______________________________
STAN DIXON
_______________________________
BRUCE REEVES
_______________________________
DALE T. GELDERT [Signed settlement filed with the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District, Division 2 on July 6, 2004 by Paul Carroll] |
