In Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, Pacific Lumber Company refused to provide information regarding the presence of old-growth-dependent wildlife species within the old-growth forest covered by proposed timber harvesting plans submitted for approval to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (Id. at p. 1219.) The California Supreme Court concluded that the State Board of Forestry abused its discretion "when it evaluated and approved Pacific Lumber Company's timber harvesting plans on the basis of a record which lacked information regarding the presence in the subject areas of some old-growth-dependent species, information which both the Departments of Forestry and Fire Protection and Fish and Game had determined was necessary." (Id. at p. 1220.) The court stated: "By approving the plans without the necessary information regarding those species the board failed to comply with the obligation imposed on it by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.)" and another statute. (Ibid.) The Supreme Court concluded that "the failure of the board to proceed as required by law was prejudicial." (Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1236.) It explained that "the absence of any information regarding the presence of the four old-growth-dependent species on the site" "made any meaningful assessment of the potentially significant environment impacts of timber harvesting and the development of site-specific mitigation measures impossible." (Id. at pp. 1236-1237.)