Case 2:22-cv-02781 Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 1 of 51 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`
`
`Margaret Hall (Bar No. 293699)
`Email: mhall@environmentaldefensecenter.org
`Alicia Roessler (Bar No. 219623)
`Email: aroessler@environmentaldefensecenter.org
`Environmental Defense Center
`906 Garden Street
`Santa Barbara, California 93101
`Telephone: (805) 963-1622
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Los Padres ForestWatch, Keep Sespe Wild, American Alpine
`Club, and Earth Island Institute
`
`Justin Augustine (Bar No. 235561)
`Email: jaugustine@biologicaldiversity.org
`Center for Biological Diversity
`1212 Broadway, Suite 800
`Oakland, CA 94612
`Telephone: (503) 910-9214
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Patagonia Works, and
`California Chaparral Institute
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-2781
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`(National Environmental Policy Act,
`42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.;
`Administrative Procedure Act, 5
`U.S.C. § 551 et seq.; Endangered
`Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et
`seq.; National Forest Management
`Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1604; Healthy
`Forest Restoration Act, 16 U.S.C.
`§§ 6591b & 6591d; and The
`Roadless Area Conservation Rule, 36
`C.F.R. §§ 294.12 & 294.13)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`
`
`LOS PADRES FORESTWATCH; KEEP
`SESPE WILD COMMITTEE; EARTH
`ISLAND INSTITUTE; AMERICAN
`ALPINE CLUB; CENTER FOR
`BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY;
`PATAGONIA WORKS; AND
`CALIFORNIA CHAPARRAL
`INSTITUTE,
` Plaintiffs,
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE;
`KARINA MEDINA, District Ranger,
`United States Forest Service; TOM
`VILSACK, Secretary of Agriculture,
`United States Department of Agriculture;
`and UNITED STATES FISH AND
`WILDLIFE SERVICE,
`
` Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02781 Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 2 of 51 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
`
`3
`
`(federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (United States as a defendant), and 5 U.S.C. §§
`
`4
`
`701-706 (Administrative Procedure Act, “APA”). The federal statutes and rules at issue
`
`5
`
`in this case include the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”; 42 U.S.C.
`
`6
`
`§§ 4321-4370h), the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”; 16 U.S.C. § 1536), the Healthy
`
`7
`
`Forest Restoration Act (“HFRA”; 16 U.S.C. §§ 6591b & 6591d), the Roadless Area
`
`8
`
`Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”; Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule, 66 Fed.
`
`9
`
`Reg. 3,244 (Jan. 12, 2001) (to be codified in 36 C.F.R. pt. 294)),1 and the National
`
`10
`
`Forest Management Act (“NFMA”; 16 U.S.C. § 1604). This Court has authority to grant
`
`11
`
`the requested relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 (declaratory and injunctive
`
`12
`
`relief) and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (APA).
`
`13
`
`2.
`
`Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) because
`
`14
`
`Plaintiffs Los Padres ForestWatch and Keep Sespe Wild Committee are located and
`
`15
`
`reside in this District, Defendants reside in this District, and a substantial part of the
`
`16
`
`events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District. Plaintiff
`
`17
`
`Los Padres ForestWatch’s office is located in Santa Barbara, California. Keep Sespe
`
`18
`
`Wild Committee is based in Ojai, California. Patagonia Works is headquartered in
`
`19
`
`Ventura, California. This case challenges approval of a logging project located in
`
`20
`
`Ventura County, California.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The Roadless Rule appears in the 2001-2004 editions of the Code of Federal
`Regulations, at 36 C.F.R. §§ 294.10-14. In 2005, it was replaced by the State Petitions
`Rule. 70 Fed. Reg. 25,654 (May 13, 2005). When that replacement was set aside the
`following year, the Roadless Rule was reinstated. California ex rel. Lockyer v. USDA,
`459 F. Supp. 2d 874 (N.D. Cal. 2006), aff’d, 575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009)). However,
`the General Printing Office has thus far not conformed the current published Code
`accordingly. This complaint includes citations to 36 C.F.R. part 294.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02781 Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 3 of 51 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs challenge the United States Forest Service’s authorization of the
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`3
`
`Reyes Peak Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project (“Reyes Peak Project” or
`
`4
`
`“Project”) located on Pine Mountain in Los Padres National Forest. The Project will
`
`5
`
`involve logging and mastication of more than 750 acres of public land, including in the
`
`6
`
`Sespe-Frazier Inventoried Roadless Area (“IRA”). Plaintiffs regularly use the Reyes
`
`7
`
`Peak area for cultural, educational, scientific, aesthetic, and recreational purposes, and
`
`8
`
`seek to prevent the area’s wild character from being harmed by the Project. The Forest
`
`9
`
`Service intends to log thousands of trees in the Project area, including an unlimited
`
`10
`
`number of old-growth trees as large as sixty-four inches in diameter. Furthermore, the
`
`11
`
`agency plans to masticate old-growth chaparral, a shrub dominated ecosystem that is
`
`12
`
`native to the area and is important for wildlife. Mastication means a tractor-like machine
`
`13
`
`is used to chop the chaparral into small chips.
`
`14
`
`4.
`
`Reyes Peak is one of the most biologically-diverse hotspots in Los Padres
`
`15
`
`National Forest. Pine Mountain hosts the greatest diversity of coniferous tree species in
`
`16
`
`Ventura County, which occur next to large expanses of rare old-growth chaparral.
`
`17
`
`Moreover, Reyes Peak contains the only “sky island” near Santa Barbara or Los
`
`18
`
`Angeles, meaning it provides unique habitat to higher-elevation species that cannot
`
`19
`
`survive in the nearby lowland regions. The Reyes Peak and Pine Mountain ridgeline
`
`20
`
`form the northern rim of the Sespe watershed, at over 7,000 feet elevation. The ridge is
`
`21
`
`home to over 400 species of native plants, including dozens that are rare or sensitive. It
`
`22
`
`is also home to an abundance of wildlife including the endangered California condor,
`
`23
`
`California spotted owl, northern goshawk, and several sensitive bat species.
`
`24
`
`5.
`
`The Reyes Peak Project is also located entirely within ancestral lands of the
`
`25
`
`Chumash people, and Pine Mountain (known by its traditional name of “Opnow”) is a
`
`26
`
`sacred peak that is significant to the spiritual and religious beliefs of the Chumash. The
`
`27
`
`Project area contains culturally significant sites, as well as items like grinding bowls and
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02781 Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 4 of 51 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`1
`
`medicinal plants that could be destroyed by the Project. Tribal members also visit Pine
`
`2
`
`Mountain and Reyes Peak for prayer and ceremony, and the Project would permanently
`
`3
`
`alter the landscape where they pray.
`
`4
`
`6.
`
`The Forest Service violated NEPA when approving the Reyes Peak Project.
`
`5
`
`The agency wrongly relied on categorical exclusions (“CEs”) instead of conducting an
`
`6
`
`environmental assessment (“EA”) or environmental impact statement (“EIS”), thereby
`
`7
`
`short-circuiting public involvement and the consideration of alternatives. This matters
`
`8
`
`because alternatives to the Project could have avoided harm to the wild character of the
`
`9
`
`Project area and the cultural sites it contains.
`
`10
`
`7. Moreover, the Forest Service ignored the requirements of the CEs that were
`
`11
`
`relied upon. All Forest Service CEs, which are found at 36 C.F.R. § 220.6, require what
`
`12
`
`is called “scoping.” 36 C.F.R. § 220.4(e) (2008); 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(c) (2008). Scoping is
`
`13
`
`how the Forest Service ensures that the public is provided notice of, and the ability to
`
`14
`
`comment on, any Forest Service project. Here, the Forest Service did not state in its
`
`15
`
`scoping letter that the agency intended to rely upon the CE found at 36 C.F.R.
`
`16
`
`§ 220.6(e)(6) (1992), and consequently the public was not properly notified that the
`
`17
`
`agency would be using that particular CE. The Forest Service is therefore in violation of
`
`18
`
`its own regulations and cannot proceed under 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(e)(6) (1992).
`
`19
`
`8.
`
`Furthermore, 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(e)(6) (1992) cannot be used for this Project
`
`20
`
`because 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(e)(6) does not authorize commercial thinning. It also does not
`
`21
`
`authorize the logging of large trees that contain dwarf mistletoe, or the removal of snags
`
`22
`
`or downed wood.
`
`23
`
`9.
`
`The Forest Service likewise ignored the requirements of the other CEs it
`
`24
`
`relied upon—16 U.S.C. §§ 6591b, 6591d. In order for the Forest Service to utilize these
`
`25
`
`HFRA statutory CEs, the agency must maximize the retention of old-growth and large
`
`26
`
`trees, consider the best available scientific information, and develop and implement the
`
`27
`
`project using a collaborative process. Here, the Forest Service wrongly authorized the
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02781 Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 5 of 51 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`1
`
`logging of old-growth and large trees, ignored the best available science with respect to
`
`2
`
`maintaining the integrity of the area’s forest and chaparral ecosystem, failed to
`
`3
`
`collaborate with local Native American tribes and other community stakeholders when
`
`4
`
`developing the Project, and violated the terms of Los Padres National Forest’s Land and
`
`5
`
`Resource Management Plan (“Forest Plan”).
`
`6
`
`10. An EA or EIS is also required because NEPA regulations preclude the use
`
`7
`
`of CEs when there are “extroardinary circumstances” present. 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(b), (c)
`
`8
`
`(2008). “Extraordinary circumstances” exist here because the Project may cause serious
`
`9
`
`harm to local “resource conditions” including Native American religious and cultural
`
`10
`
`sites, rare wildlife, and a proposed wilderness area and the Sespe-Frazier IRA. Id. To the
`
`11
`
`degree that there is uncertainty regarding impacts to these resources, further analysis is
`
`12
`
`required under NEPA. See Forest Service Handbook 1909.15.31.2 (“If the degree of
`
`13
`
`potential effect raises uncertainty over its significance, then an extraordinary
`
`14
`
`circumstance exists, precluding use of a categorical exclusion.”).
`
`15
`
`11. Wildlife impacts were also wrongly ignored under the ESA. The Project
`
`16
`
`area is home to the endangered California condor, which uses large trees for roosting.
`
`17
`
`The United States Fish and Wildife Service (“FWS”), when concluding that the Project
`
`18
`
`would “not likely adversely affect” condors or their critical habitat, asserted that “[o]ne
`
`19
`
`of the project goals is to retain larger trees throughout the project area.” FWS ESA
`
`20
`
`Section 7 Consultation Concurrence Letter (“FWS Concurrence”) at 5. The Project, as
`
`21
`
`approved, however, allows large trees (up to sixty-four inches in diameter) that contain
`
`22
`
`dwarf mistletoe to be logged, and places no limit on the amount of such trees that can be
`
`23
`
`cut and removed. It was therefore not possible for the FWS to ensure that the Project
`
`24
`
`would not adversely affect important condor roosting trees.
`
`25
`
`12.
`
`In addition, the Sespe-Frazier IRA is protected by the Roadless Rule. This
`
`26
`
`Rule forbids logging in any IRA except in very limited circumstances, such as the
`
`27
`
`logging of small diameter trees. 36 C.F.R. § 294.13 (2001). Here, the Forest Service
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02781 Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 6 of 51 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`1
`
`violated the Roadless Rule by authorizing the unlimited logging of trees up to sixty-four
`
`2
`
`inches in diameter in the Sespe-Frazier IRA, thereby failing to protect the IRA’s wild
`
`3
`
`character.
`
`4
`
`13. Moreover, the Project violates NFMA, which requires that projects in
`
`5
`
`National Forests be consistent with the Forest’s Forest Plan. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i). The
`
`6
`
`Reyes Peak Project contravenes the Forest Plan for Los Padres National Forest because
`
`7
`
`the removal of trees and shrubs from the Project area fails to protect the area’s “High
`
`8
`
`Scenic Integrity” and its “undeveloped character and natural appearance.” See e.g., Los
`
`9
`
`Padres National Forest Plan, Part 3, Standards 9 and 10. In addition, the Project does not
`
`10
`
`adhere to the Forest Plan’s findings regarding safeguarding communities from wildfire
`
`11
`
`because the Project is not located within the defense zone or threat zone of the wildland
`
`12
`
`urban interface (“WUI”). See e.g., Los Padres National Forest Plan, Part 3, Standard 7.
`
`13
`
`14. Finally, the HFRA provisions at issue in this case (16 U.S.C. §§ 6591b,
`
`14
`
`6591d), in order to ensure agency accountability, require annual reports containing “a
`
`15
`
`description of all acres (or other appropriate unit) treated through projects carried out
`
`16
`
`under [these CEs].” 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(g). As far as Plaintiffs are aware, not a single
`
`17
`
`annual report has yet been prepared or submitted as HFRA requires.
`
`18
`
`15. Plaintiffs bring this case seeking declaratory relief that: the Forest Service
`
`19
`
`violated NEPA, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, NFMA, HFRA, and the APA in
`
`20
`
`approving the Reyes Peak Project; the FWS violated the ESA and APA in concluding
`
`21
`
`that the Project is not likely to adversely affect California condors or their critical
`
`22
`
`habitat; and the Forest Service and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack violated the
`
`23
`
`HFRA and the APA in failing to issue annual reports pertaining to the use of CEs as
`
`24
`
`required by HFRA. Plaintiffs seek to have this Court declare unlawful, vacate, and set
`
`25
`
`aside the Forest Service’s Decision approving the Reyes Peak Project and the FWS’s
`
`26
`
`decision that the Reyes Peak Project is not likely to adversely affect California condors
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02781 Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 7 of 51 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`1
`
`or their critical habitat. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief to remedy Defendants’
`
`2
`
`violations.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`16. Plaintiffs’ members have used and enjoyed the tracts of forest and lands
`
`PARTIES
`
`5
`
`where the Reyes Peak Project is set to occur and have specific plans to return. They will
`
`6
`
`be directly harmed by this Project. A favorable ruling from this Court would redress
`
`7
`
`those harms.
`
`8
`
`17. Plaintiff LOS PADRES FORESTWATCH (“ForestWatch”) is a nonprofit
`
`9
`
`corporation headquartered in Santa Barbara, California. The organization’s primary
`
`10
`
`purpose is to protect and restore the natural and cultural heritage of Los Padres National
`
`11
`
`Forest and its surrounding public lands using law, science, education, and community
`
`12
`
`involvement. To further its mission and protect the interests of its members and
`
`13
`
`supporters in preserving public lands, ForestWatch monitors forest conditions and
`
`14
`
`activities in Los Padres National Forest and reviews and comments on proposed Forest
`
`15
`
`Service projects. ForestWatch also organizes habitat restoration and forest stewardship
`
`16
`
`projects using crews of volunteers, making the forest a better place for all to enjoy and
`
`17
`
`visit. In addition, ForestWatch programs seek to engage underserved youth by providing
`
`18
`
`them with opportunities to explore nature and foster an appreciation of the outdoors.
`
`19
`
`18. ForestWatch’s members include individuals who regularly use the Reyes
`
`20
`
`Peak Project area for educational efforts, Native American cultural purposes, scientific
`
`21
`
`study, recreational enjoyment, aesthetic beauty, and nature photography. These
`
`22
`
`members’ interests will be irreparably harmed by the planned logging, as they will no
`
`23
`
`longer be able to, for example, take nature photographs of the area in its pre-logging
`
`24
`
`state, utilize and honor sacred cultural sites, or enjoy the aesthetic beauty of the
`
`25
`
`unlogged forest habitat and its inhabitants.
`
`26
`
`19. Plaintiff KEEP SESPE WILD COMMITTEE (“KSWC”) is a volunteer
`
`27
`
`non-profit watershed protection organization, focused on Sespe Creek and its watershed
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02781 Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 8 of 51 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`1
`
`in Los Padres National Forest in Ventura County. Founded in 1989, KSWC helped pass
`
`2
`
`the 1992 federal Wilderness and Wild & Scenic River protections that cover a majority
`
`3
`
`of the Sespe watershed. It also supports current legislation before Congress that would
`
`4
`
`substantially increase these protected areas. The organization has roughly 1,500
`
`5
`
`members. KSWC monitors all environmental issues concerning this area, including
`
`6
`
`endangered species, exotic invasive species, project proposals that might threaten the
`
`7
`
`natural values of the watershed, and restoration projects. For three decades it has
`
`8
`
`engaged in the removal of invasive exotic tamarisk plants in Sespe Creek, as well as in
`
`9
`
`monthly trash collection along four miles of State Highway 33 adjacent to Sespe Creek’s
`
`10
`
`upper reaches, with volunteer assistance.
`
`11
`
`20. KSWC’s members use the Project area for camping, hiking, bird watching,
`
`12
`
`photography, plant walks, bouldering, and other recreation activities. The Project area is
`
`13
`
`especially important to KSWC’s members because of its high elevation conifers along
`
`14
`
`this ridgeline, which are a rare example of ancient “sky island” habitats that are
`
`15
`
`threatened by climate change, and because of the road that allows easy access to the
`
`16
`
`visiting public.
`
`17
`
`21. Plaintiff THE AMERICAN ALPINE CLUB (“AAC”) is a 501(c)(3) non-
`
`18
`
`profit organization based in Golden, Colorado with over 25,000 members nationally. It
`
`19
`
`was founded in 1902 to support the research and exploration of mountainous regions.
`
`20
`
`The AAC remains committed to supporting the climbing and human-powered outdoor
`
`21
`
`recreation communities. Grounded in community and place, the AAC’s mission is to
`
`22
`
`share and support our passion for climbing and respect for the places we climb. Through
`
`23
`
`education, community gatherings, stewardship, policy, advocacy, and scientific research,
`
`24
`
`the AAC strives to build a united community of competent climbers and healthy
`
`25
`
`climbing landscapes. To further its’ mission, the AAC Policy Department strives to grow
`
`26
`
`and convene the community of civically active climbers, empower them with
`
`27
`
`information, and partner with them in advocacy.
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02781 Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 9 of 51 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`1
`
`22. The AAC’s members include individuals that regularly use the Reyes Peak
`
`2
`
`Project area for outdoor recreation activities including climbing, hiking, biking, and
`
`3
`
`camping. These members’ experiences will be adversely affected by the planned logging
`
`4
`
`project which will permanently alter the primitive and remote setting which
`
`5
`
`characterizes the aesthetic value of Pine Mountain.
`
`6
`
`23. Plaintiff EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE (“EII”) is a nonprofit corporation
`
`7
`
`organized under the laws of the State of California. EII is headquartered in Berkeley,
`
`8
`
`California. EII’s mission is to develop and support projects that counteract threats to the
`
`9
`
`biological and cultural diversity that sustains the environment. Through education and
`
`10
`
`activism, these projects promote the conservation, preservation and restoration of the
`
`11
`
`earth. One of these projects is the John Muir Project—whose mission is to protect all
`
`12
`
`federal public forestlands from exploitation that undermines and compromises science-
`
`13
`
`based ecological management. John Muir Project offices are in San Bernardino County,
`
`14
`
`California. EII is a membership organization with over 15,000 members in the U.S., over
`
`15
`
`3,000 of whom use and enjoy the National Forests of California for recreational,
`
`16
`
`educational, aesthetic, spiritual, and other purposes. EII through its John Muir Project
`
`17
`
`has a longstanding interest in protection of national forests. EII’s John Muir Project and
`
`18
`
`EII members actively participate in governmental decision-making processes with
`
`19
`
`respect to national forest lands in California and rely on information provided through
`
`20
`
`the NEPA processes to increase the effectiveness of their participation.
`
`21
`
`24. EII’s members include individuals who regularly use the Reyes Peak
`
`22
`
`Project area for scientific study, recreational enjoyment, aesthetic beauty, and nature
`
`23
`
`photography. These members’ interests will be irreparably harmed by the planned
`
`24
`
`logging, as they will, for example, no longer be able to scientifically study these areas in
`
`25
`
`their pre-logging state, take nature photographs of the area in its pre-logging state, or
`
`26
`
`enjoy the aesthetic beauty of the unlogged forest habitat and its inhabitants.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02781 Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 10 of 51 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`1
`
`25. Plaintiff PATAGONIA WORKS (“Patagonia”) is a private, closely held,
`
`2
`
`outdoor apparel company with its headquarters in Ventura, California where 750 of its
`
`3
`
`employees and their families live and recreate, in and around the Project area that will be
`
`4
`
`negatively impacted by logging. Patagonia has a 40-year history of environmental
`
`5
`
`activism and has funded more than $100 million in grants to thousands of grassroots
`
`6
`
`environmental organizations. Protecting and preserving the environment is a core
`
`7
`
`business tenet and, in 2012, Patagonia became a California benefit corporation,
`
`8
`
`enshrining its blended goals of business and environmental conservation into its Articles
`
`9
`
`of Incorporation. Cal. Corp. Code §§ 14600-14631. Patagonia’s mission statement is
`
`10
`
`“We’re in business to save our home planet.” Patagonia also has a business interest in
`
`11
`
`protecting and preserving the natural environment because the outdoor recreation
`
`12
`
`industry depends on a healthy and sustainable environment in which customers can
`
`13
`
`recreate, including the opportunity to see wild places in their native conditions.
`
`14
`
`26. For Patagonia, this project hits close to home. Pine Mountain is a well
`
`15
`
`known and loved recreation area close to Patagonia’s headquarters in Ventura, CA.
`
`16
`
`Patagonia’s employees at its Ventura headquarters come to work at Patagonia in part
`
`17
`
`because of their love for the outdoors and for the recreational opportunities that Los
`
`18
`
`Padres National Forest has to offer. Patagonia’s employees include individuals who
`
`19
`
`regularly use the Project area for recreational enjoyment, aesthetic beauty, and nature
`
`20
`
`photography. These employees’ interests will be irreparably harmed by the planned
`
`21
`
`logging, as they will, for example, no longer be able to enjoy the Project area in its pre-
`
`22
`
`logging state, take nature photographs of the area in its pre-logging state, or enjoy the
`
`23
`
`aesthetic beauty of the unlogged forest habitat and its inhabitants. In addition, protecting
`
`24
`
`old forests like those on Pine Mountain is important to Patagonia and its employees
`
`25
`
`because such forests store large amounts of carbon and are therefore critical in the fight
`
`26
`
`against climate change. Moreover, over thirty percent of the Project would occur within
`
`27
`
`two proposed additions to the Sespe Wilderness approved by the House of
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02781 Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 11 of 51 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`1
`
`Representatives with the passage of the Central Coast Heritage Protection Act. Patagonia
`
`2
`
`has advocated for the Central Coast Heritage Protection Act since it was first introduced
`
`3
`
`by Representative Salud Carbajal (D-CA) and Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA). The bill
`
`4
`
`was recently passed in the House and is awaiting a vote in the Senate. Patagonia’s
`
`5
`
`employees feel strongly that it makes no sense to permanently damage an old-growth
`
`6
`
`forest that the House has already voted to designate as Wilderness.
`
`7
`
`27. Plaintiff CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (“the Center”) is a
`
`8
`
`non-profit corporation with offices in Oakland, Los Angeles, and Joshua Tree,
`
`9
`
`California. The Center is actively involved in species and habitat protection issues
`
`10
`
`throughout North America and has about 69,000 members, including many members
`
`11
`
`who reside and recreate in California. One of the Center’s primary missions is to protect
`
`12
`
`and restore habitat and populations of imperiled species, including from the impacts of
`
`13
`
`logging.
`
`14
`
`28. The Center’s members and staff include individuals who regularly use and
`
`15
`
`intend to continue to use Los Padres National Forest, including the lands that are now
`
`16
`
`planned for logging as part of the Reyes Peak Project. These members and staff use the
`
`17
`
`area for observation, cultural appreciation and practices, aesthetic enjoyment, and other
`
`18
`
`recreational, scientific, spiritual, and educational activities. Many of the Center’s staff
`
`19
`
`and members use the area to enjoy its wild character and to observe the forest and
`
`20
`
`wildlife in the Project area. These members’ interests will be irreparably harmed by the
`
`21
`
`planned logging in the Project area, as they will no longer be able to visit and enjoy this
`
`22
`
`area in its unlogged state any longer.
`
`23
`
`29. Plaintiff CALIFORNIA CHAPARRAL INSTITUTE (“CCI”) is a 501(c)(3)
`
`24
`
`nonprofit corporation headquartered in Escondido, California. Its members provide
`
`25
`
`donations to CCI in the form of direct funding and in-kind contributions such as efforts
`
`26
`
`to preserve and research California’s native shrublands. CCI’s purpose is to ensure
`
`27
`
`native California shrublands, especially the chaparral, remain intact and to promote an
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02781 Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 12 of 51 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`1
`
`understanding and appreciation of these unique ecosystems through educational
`
`2
`
`programs. Chaparral is a semi-arid, shrub-dominated association of woody shrubs, that is
`
`3
`
`extremely sensitive to disturbance such as increased fire frequencies, vegetation
`
`4
`
`“treatments,” and climate change. It is at risk of being destroyed in certain parts of
`
`5
`
`California, where it is often viewed more as “fuel” than a living community, for the
`
`6
`
`purported purpose of fire risk reduction, as well as landscape management and
`
`7
`
`development. To further its purpose, CCI conducts and facilitates research about
`
`8
`
`California native shrublands, educates the public about the importance of chaparral, and
`
`9
`
`advocates for policies and projects that will protect and preserve chaparral for the benefit
`
`10
`
`of future generations. Its members are scientists, firefighters, naturalists, educators, and
`
`11
`
`community members who value chaparral as a unique ecosystem, want to see it
`
`12
`
`preserved, and rely on CCI to help them achieve that goal.
`
`13
`
`30. CCI’s members include individuals who enjoy the Reyes Peak Project area
`
`14
`
`for ecological research, emotional renewal, recreation, aesthetic beauty, and nature
`
`15
`
`photography. These members’ interests will be irreparably harmed by the proposed
`
`16
`
`clearance of intact chaparral habitat and planned logging, as such activity will destroy
`
`17
`
`the naturally dense composition of the Project’s chaparral plant communities, creating a
`
`18
`
`disturbed environment that will no longer be suitable for ecological research,
`
`19
`
`photography of a natural setting, or enjoyment of the aesthetic beauty of the undisturbed
`
`20
`
`native shrubland habitat and its inhabitants.
`
`21
`
`31. Plaintiffs and their members’/employees’ present and future interests in and
`
`22
`
`use of the Reyes Peak Project area are and will be directly and adversely affected by the
`
`23
`
`challenged decision. Those adverse effects include but are not limited to: (1) impacts to
`
`24
`
`native plants and wildlife and their habitats within and around the Project area; (2) harm
`
`25
`
`to ancestral lands of the Chumash people and culturally sensitive and/or sacred
`
`26
`
`resources; (3) impaired aesthetic value of forest lands, trails, and landscapes; (4) loss of
`
`27
`
`scientific study and viewing opportunities; and (5) reduction and impairment of
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02781 Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 13 of 51 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`1
`
`recreational opportunities. In addition, Plaintiffs and their members and staff have an
`
`2
`
`interest in ensuring that Defendants comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and
`
`3
`
`procedures pertaining to the management of national forest lands.
`
`4
`
`32. Because Defendants’ actions approving the Project violate the law, a
`
`5
`
`favorable decision by this Court will redress the actual and imminent injury to Plaintiffs.
`
`6
`
`For example, if the Forest Service had complied with its legal duties, it would have
`
`7
`
`collaborated with Plaintiffs’ organizations when developing the Project, and provided
`
`8
`
`more opportunity for Plaintiffs, the public, and other agencies to engage and comment,
`
`9
`
`providing information that the Forest Service would have been required to consider prior
`
`10
`
`to making a decision. For example, during an EA or EIS process, there is an opportunity
`
`11
`
`to review, comment on, and rebut the Forest Service’s analysis and conclusions
`
`12
`
`contained in the agency’s reports, whereas during the Reyes Peak CE process those
`
`13
`
`reports were never made available for comment. In addition, a lawful consultation
`
`14
`
`process under the ESA would have ensured important safeguards for the endangered
`
`15
`
`California condor and their critical habitat, designed to avoid jeopardizing the species.
`
`16
`
`Had that occurred, many or all of the Project’s harmful impacts could have been avoided
`
`17
`
`or mitigated, thereby minimizing or averting the harm to Plaintiffs’ members that will be
`
`18
`
`caused from the destruction of forest habitat by the Project.
`
`19
`
`33. Defendant UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE is a federal government
`
`20
`
`agency within the Department of Agriculture, which holds the National Forests in trust
`
`21
`
`for the American people and is responsible for actions in the Reyes Peak Project area.
`
`22
`
`34. Defendant KARINA MEDINA is a District Ranger for Los Padres National
`
`23
`
`Forest and signed the Decision Memo approving the Reyes Peak Project on September
`
`24
`
`30, 2021. She is included in this action in her official capacity.
`
`25
`
`35. Defendant TOM VILSACK is the Secretary of Agriculture within the
`
`26
`
`United States Department of Agriculture and is charged with responsibilities under
`
`27
`
`HFRA. He is included in this action in his official capacity.
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02781 Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 14 of 51 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`1
`
`36. Defendant UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE is the
`
`2
`
`federal agency within the Department of Interior charged with responsibility for
`
`3
`
`conserving endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, for
`
`4
`
`enforcing and implementing the ESA, and for complying with the APA in connection
`
`5
`
`with the Service’s ESA actions.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`
`THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
`
`37. The APA allows persons and organizations to challenge final agency
`
`9
`
`actions in the federal courts. 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704.
`
`10
`
`38. The APA declares that a court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency
`
`11
`
`actions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
`
`12
`
`accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
`
`13
`
`14
`
`THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
`
`39. Congress enacted NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370h, to, among other things,
`
`15
`
`“encourage productive and enj