THPs as EIRs

According to recent case law, THPs are to perform as "functional equivalents" of environmental impact reports:

... other cases have addressed questions concerning the applicability of CEQA's public response and judicial review provisions to THPs. For instance, in Gallegos v. State Board of Forestry, 76 the Court of Appeal set aside the approval of a THP because the Board of Forestry provided an insufficient response to the public's concerns regarding the plan's impact on their water supply and increased fire danger. The court found that the official response was necessary for a THP to qualify as the "functional equivalent" of an environmental impact report under CEQA, and interpreted CEQA as requiring the response to "evince a good faith and reasoned analysis why specific comments and objections were not accepted." 77 At the same time, the court noted that the CDF "need not respond to every comment raised in the course of the review and consultation process, but it must specifically respond to the most significant environmental questions raised in opposition to the project." 78

The standards for the CDF's official response set forth in Gallegos were followed in Libeu v. Johnson, 79 in which the court set aside the approval of two Louisiana-Pacific Corp. THPs for logging of second-growth redwood and Douglas fir in Sonoma County. In Libeu, members of the public and other state agencies had raised significant questions regarding the cumulative effect of past, present and future logging on coastal watersheds in the covered areas. 80 Applying the criteria in Gallegos, the court found that the CDF's response to these concerns "[was] confusing, contradictory, and [provided] little hard data or clear information for the benefit of the public." 81 The court noted that in the absence of a complete response, CEQA's goal of providing the public with oversight over environmental decisions would be thwarted and the THP would not function as the equivalent of an environmental impact report. 82...

[76. 76 Cal. App. 3d 945 (1st Dist. 1978).
77. Id. at 953-54.
78. Id. at 954.
79. 195 Cal. App. 3d 517, 240 Cal. Rptr.
776 (1st Dist. 1987).
80. 195 Cal. App. 3d 517, 240 Cal. Rptr. at 778.
81. 195 Cal. App. 3d 517, 240 Cal. Rptr. at 781.
82. 195 Cal. App. 3d 517, 240 Cal. Rptr. at 779-780. ]

[AN ANALYSIS OF CASE LAW, Ariela Freed, PUBLIC LAW RESEARCH INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW]