Logging Foes Win Right to Fight State Forestry Policies

In a ruling hailed by environmental lawyers, a California appellate court on Friday cleared the way for logging foes to contest state forestry policies they say fail to adequately consider the long-term effects of timber harvesting.

The three-member 1st District Court of Appeal panel unanimously reinstated a lawsuit brought against the state Department of Forestry by opponents of a plan to clear-cut 78 acres of scattered, old-growth Douglas Fir trees in the Mattole River watershed area in Humboldt and Mendocino Counties.

“This is an incredibly important decision,” said Sharon E. Duggan, a Sacramento lawyer representing Californians for Native Salmon and other environmentalists who brought the suit. “This opens the door for us to look at what the Forestry Department has been doing in failing to analyze cumulative effects of harvesting. . . . We can break up the marriage between the timber industry and the department.”

Duggan said the groups would consider seeking a court order blocking approval of all timber harvesting plans on privately owned lands in California while the case is being tried.

A department official was quoted by United Press International as saying a decision on whether to appeal the ruling would be made by the state attorney general’s office.

In their suit, the logging foes contended the state had “consistently ignored” its duty to assess the cumulative impact of tree-cutting in preparing “timber harvesting plans,” which are similar to the environmental impact reports required in major developments in the state.

As evidence to support the suit, the environmentalists cited 65 such state-issued plans for timber harvesting in other areas they said also failed legal requirements.

Lawyers for the logging opponents said the repeated failure to analyze long-term impact of tree cutting threatened water quality, wildlife habitats and watersheds.

The harvesting proposal under challenge was withdrawn by Eel River Sawmills, the firm that had planned to cut down trees up to 250 years old. Last year, a Humboldt County Superior Court judge dismissed the case, saying there was no longer an actual legal controversy to be decided.

But the appeal court, in an opinion by Appellate Justice Zerne Hanning III, ruled that the plan’s opponents should retain the right to sue to obtain an authoritative decision on the issue.

The panel noted that a previous state appellate decision had “clearly mandated” that a cumulative environmental impact assessment must be included in timber harvesting plans prepared by the Forestry Department.

The court disagreed with contentions by state lawyers that such issues should be litigated on a case-by-case basis. “We cannot agree, especially in this age of overburdened trial courts, that redundant reconsideration in individual settings is preferable,” Hanning wrote.