IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT — DIVISION FIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Nos. A104828 INFORMATION CENTER, a non-profit A105391 California corporation; and SIERRA CLUB, a (Consolidated) non-profit California corporation Petitioners/Respondents vy. | CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF Humboldt County FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION; No. CV990445 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME; and DOES | through 50 Respondents/Appellants PACIFIC LUMBER COMPANY, SCOTIA PACIFIC COMPANY LLC, and SALMON CREEK CORPORATION Real Parties in Interes/Appellants PALCO APPELLANTS’ OPENING BRIEF On Appeal From the Superior Court of California In and for the County of Humboldt Honorable JOHN J. GOLDEN, Presiding Frank Shaw Bacik (#132565) Edgar B. Washburn (#034038) CARTER, BEHNKE, OC Andrew F. Brimmer (#179146) & BACIK STOEL RIVES 11 169 Mason Street, Suite 300 LIL Sutter Stree P.O. Box 720 San Francisco, California 94104 Ukiah, California 95482 ‘ek: (415) 617-8900 Tel: (707) 462-6694 Fax: (415) 676-3000 Fax: (707) 462 for Real Parties in lerest/Appellants THE PACIFIC LUMBER COMPANY, SCOTIA PACIFIC COMPANY LLC and SALMON CREEK CORPORATION (collectively “PALCO”) SanFran-162108,14 009225600005,TABLE OF CONTENTS: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. TABLE OF ACRONYMS INTRODUCTION. STATEMENT OF THE CA‘ 1. Factual and Legal Setting I. The Headwaters Agreement and Related Legislation Il. The Administrative Proceedings ... IV. The State Agencies’ Findings and Approvals... Vv. The Trial Court Proceedings. SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ARGUMENT... 1. The Trial Judge Applied an Erroneous Standard and Scope of Review... A. The Court Had No Authority to Receive and Consider Extra-Record Evidence... B. The Court Never Reviewed the Whole Record. II. The State Agencies Diseretion A. The Sustained Yield Plan... 1. CDF Complied With the Law 2. The Trial Court’s Contrary Findings Were Erroneous ...... B._ The Incidental Take Permit 1. DFG Followed the Law....... Not Prejudicially Abuse Their 2. The Trial Court's Contrary Findings Were Erroneous a. Full Mitigation DF Adequacy of Survey Informatio DEG’s Treatment of Unlisted Species .. Soran. 162404.14 0192236 00005 i Consideration of PALCO’s Economic Objectives. 46 47 48Regulatory Assurance DFG’s Treatment of Northern Spotted Owls The Public Trust Doctrine Adequacy of DFG’s Findings .. ‘The Streambed Alteration Agreement 1. DEG Followed the Law. oFe ms 2. The Trial Court’s Contrary Findings Were Erroneous D. The Environmental Impact Report: The Agencies Complied With CEQA i 1. The Project Description ..... 2. Description of the Environmental Setting............61 3. Evaluation of Significant Environmental Inpacts... ee 62 4, Cumulative Impacts ..ccccnssstnesenassesne 65 5. Alternatives Analysis 66 6. Adoption of Mitigation Measures occu 69 7. Alleged Deferral of Mitigation Measures 70 8. Response to Public Comment 72 9. ‘The CEQA Findings... 15 III. ‘The Remedy... 18 CONCLUSION. 7 ‘SanFraa- 16210814 0092236-00008 ii