Case 2:22-cv-02800-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 1 of 59 Page ID #:1
`
`
`MATTHEW T. SUMMERS, State Bar No. 280496
`MSummers@chwlaw.us
`CARMEN A. BROCK, State Bar No. 162592
`CBrock@chwlaw.us
`COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
`790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
`Pasadena, California 91101-2109
`Telephone: (213) 542-5700
`Facsimile: (213) 542-5710
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`City of Ojai
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DISTRICT
`
`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
`
`
`
`790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
`
`Pasadena, California 91101-2109
`
`Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
`
`
`
`280583.5
`281253.v1
`
`CITY OF OJAI,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` 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.
`
`
` CASE NO.: ____________
`
`Assigned to the Hon. Judge
`
`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)
`
`
`
`
`
`Filing Date:
`Trial Date:
`
`Discovery Cut-off:
`Motion Cut-off:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
`1.
`(federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (United States as a defendant), and 5 U.S.C. §§
`
`
`
`1
`____________
`CITY OF OJAI’S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`Case 2:22-cv-02800-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 2 of 59 Page ID #:2
`
`
`701-706 (Administrative Procedure Act). The federal statutes and rules at issue in this
`
`
`case include the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-
`4370h), the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”; 16 U.S.C. § 1536), the Healthy Forest
`Restoration Act (“HFRA”; 16 U.S.C. §§ 6591b & 6591d), the Roadless Area
`Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”; Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule, 66 Fed.
`Reg. 3,244 (Jan. 12, 2001) (to be codified in 36 C.F.R. pt. 294),1 and the National Forest
`Management Act (“NFMA”; 16 U.S.C. § 1604). This Court has authority to grant the
`requested relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 (declaratory and injunctive relief)
`and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (Administrative Procedure Act).
`Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) because the
`2.
`City is located in this District, Defendants reside in this District, and a substantial part
`of the events or omissions giving rise to the City’s claims occurred in this District. The
`City is located in Ventura County, California, and this case challenges approval of a
`logging project located in Ventura County, California.
`INTRODUCTION
`The City challenges the United States Forest Service’s authorization of the
`3.
`Reyes Peak Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project (“Reyes Peak Project” or
`“Project”) located on Pine Mountain in the Los Padres National Forest. The Project will
`involve logging and mastication of more than 750 acres of public land, including in the
`Sespe-Frazier Inventoried Roadless Area (“IRA”). The Forest Service intends to log
`thousands of trees in the Project area, including an unlimited number of old-growth
`trees as large as sixty-four inches in diameter. Furthermore, the agency plans to
`masticate old-growth chaparral, a shrub dominated ecosystem that is native to the area
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
`
`Pasadena, California 91101-2109
`
`Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
`
`
`
`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.
`
`2
`____________
`CITY OF OJAI’S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`281253.v1
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Case 2:22-cv-02800-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 3 of 59 Page ID #:3
`
`
`and is important for wildlife. Mastication means a tractor-like machine is used to chop
`
`
`the chaparral into small chips.
`Reyes Peak is one of the most biologically-diverse hotspots in the Los
`4.
`Padres National Forest. Pine Mountain hosts the greatest diversity of coniferous tree
`species in Ventura County, which occur next to large expanses of rare old-growth
`chaparral. Moreover, Reyes Peak contains the only “sky island” near Santa Barbara or
`Los Angeles, meaning it provides unique habitat to higher-elevation species that cannot
`survive in the nearby lowland regions. The Reyes Peak and Pine Mountain ridgeline
`form the northern rim of the Sespe watershed, at over 7,000 feet elevation. The ridge is
`home to over 400 species of native plants, including dozens that are rare or sensitive. It
`is also home to an abundance of wildlife including the endangered California condor,
`California spotted owl, northern goshawk, and several sensitive bat species.
`The Reyes Peak Project is also located entirely within ancestral lands of
`5.
`the Chumash people, and Pine Mountain (known by its traditional name of “Opnow”),
`is a sacred peak that is significant to the spiritual and religious beliefs of the Chumash.
`The Project area contains culturally significant sites, as well as items like grinding
`bowls and medicinal plants that could be destroyed by the Project. Tribal members also
`visit Pine Mountain and Reyes Peak for prayer and ceremony, and the Project would
`permanently alter the landscape where they pray.
`The Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act
`6.
`(“NEPA”) when approving the Reyes Peak Project. The agency wrongly relied on
`categorical exclusions (“CEs”) instead of conducting an environmental assessment
`(“EA”) or environmental impact statement (“EIS”), thereby short-circuiting public
`involvement and the consideration of alternatives. This matters because alternatives to
`the Project could have avoided harm to the wild character of the Project area and the
`cultural sites it contains.
`7. Moreover, the Forest Service ignored the requirements of the categorical
`exclusions that were relied upon. All Forest Service “categorical exclusions,” which are
`
`
`790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
`
`Pasadena, California 91101-2109
`
`Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
`
`
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`____________
`CITY OF OJAI’S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`281253.v1
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Case 2:22-cv-02800-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 4 of 59 Page ID #:4
`
`
`found at 36 C.F.R. § 220.6 (2020), require what is called “scoping.” 36 C.F.R.
`
`
`§ 220.4(e) (2020); 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(c) (2020). Scoping is how the Forest Service
`ensures that the public is provided notice of, and the ability to comment on, any Forest
`Service project. Here, the Forest Service did not state in its scoping letter that the agency
`intended to rely upon the categorical exclusion found at 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(e)(6) (2020),
`and consequently the public was not properly notified that the agency would be using
`that particular CE. The Forest Service is therefore in violation of its own regulations
`and cannot proceed under 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(e)(6) (2020).
`Furthermore, 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(e)(6) (2020) cannot be used for this
`8.
`Project because 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(e)(6) (2020) does not authorize commercial thinning.
`It also does not authorize the logging of large trees that contain dwarf mistletoe, or the
`removal of snags or downed wood.
`The Forest Service likewise ignored the requirements of the other
`9.
`categorical exclusions it relied upon—16 U.S.C. §§ 6591b, 6591d. In order for the
`Forest Service to utilize these HFRA statutory CEs, the agency must maximize the
`retention of old-growth and large trees, consider the best available scientific
`information, and develop and implement the Project using a collaborative process. Here,
`the Forest Service wrongly authorized the logging of old-growth and large trees, ignored
`the best available science with respect to maintaining the integrity of the area’s forest
`and chaparral ecosystem, failed to collaborate with local Native American tribes and
`other community stakeholders when developing the Project, and violated the terms of
`the Los Padres National Forest’s Land Management Plan.
`10. An EA or EIS is also required here because NEPA regulations preclude
`the use of CEs when there are “extroardinary circumstances” present. 36 C.F.R.
`§ 220.6(b), (c) (2020). “Extraordinary circumstances” exist here because the Project
`may cause serious harm to local “resource conditions” including Native American
`religious and cultural sites, rare wildlife, and a proposed wilderness area and the Sespe-
`Frazier IRA. Id. To the degree that there is uncertainty regarding impacts to these
`
`
`790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
`
`Pasadena, California 91101-2109
`
`Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
`
`
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`____________
`CITY OF OJAI’S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`281253.v1
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Case 2:22-cv-02800-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 5 of 59 Page ID #:5
`
`
`resources, further analysis is required under NEPA. Forest Service Handbook
`
`
`1909.15.31.2 (“If the degree of potential effect raises uncertainty over its significance,
`then an extraordinary circumstance exists, precluding use of a categorical exclusion.”).
`11. Wildlife impacts were also wrongly ignored under the ESA. The Project
`area is home to the endangered California condor, which uses large trees for roosting.
`The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”), when concluding that the Project
`would “not likely adversely affect” condors or their critical habitat, asserted that “[o]ne
`of the project goals is to retain larger trees throughout the project area.” FWS ESA
`Section 7 Consultation Concurrence Letter (“FWS Concurrence”) at 5. The Project, as
`approved, however, allows large trees (up to sixty-four inches in diameter) that contain
`dwarf mistletoe to be logged, and places no limit on the amount of such trees that can
`be cut and removed. It was therefore not possible for the FWS to ensure that the Project
`would not adversely affect important condor roosting trees.
`In addition, the Sespe-Frazier IRA is protected by the Roadless Rule. This
`12.
`Rule forbids logging in any IRA except in very limited circumstances, such as the
`logging of small diameter trees. 36 C.F.R. § 294.13 (2005). Here, the Forest Service
`violated the Roadless Rule by authorizing the unlimited logging of trees up to sixty-
`four inches in diameter in the Sespe-Frazier IRA, thereby failing to protect the IRA’s
`wild character.
`13. Moreover, the Project violates NFMA, which requires that projects in
`National Forests be consistent with the Forest’s Land Management Plan (“Forest Plan”).
`16 U.S.C. § 1604(i). The Reyes Peak Project contravenes the Forest Plan for the Los
`Padres National Forest because the removal of trees and shrubs from the Project area
`fails to protect the area’s “High Scenic Integrity” and its “undeveloped character and
`natural appearance.” See e.g., Los Padres National Forest Plan, Part 3, Standards 9 and
`10. In addition, the Project does not adhere to the Forest Plan’s findings regarding
`safeguarding communities from wildfire because the Project is not located within the
`defense zone or threat zone of the wildland urban interface (“WUI”). See e.g., Los
`
`
`790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
`
`Pasadena, California 91101-2109
`
`Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
`
`
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`____________
`CITY OF OJAI’S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`281253.v1
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Case 2:22-cv-02800-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 6 of 59 Page ID #:6
`
`
`Padres National Forest Plan, Part 3, Standard 7.
`
`
`14. Finally, the HFRA provisions at issue in this case (16 U.S.C. §§ 6591b,
`6591d), in order to ensure agency accountability, require annual reports containing “a
`description of all acres (or other appropriate unit) treated through projects carried out
`under [these CEs].” 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(g). As far as the City is aware, not a single
`annual report has yet been prepared or submitted as HFRA requires.
`15. The City’s present and future interests in and use of the Reyes Peak Project
`area are and will be directly and adversely affected by the challenged decision. Those
`adverse effects include but are not limited to: (1) impacts to native plants and wildlife
`and their habitats within and around the Project area; (2) reduction and impairment of
`recreational opportunities; (3) impaired aesthetic value of forest lands, trails, and
`landscapes; and (4) loss of scientific study and viewing opportunities. In addition, the
`City has an interest in ensuring that Defendants comply with all applicable laws,
`regulations, and procedures pertaining to the management of national forest lands.
`16. Because Defendants’ actions approving the Project violate the law, a
`declaration of rights and appropriate injunctive remedy issued by this Court will redress
`the actual and imminent injury to the City.
`17. The City brings this case seeking the Court’s declaration that: the Forest
`Service violated, separately, or collectively, NEPA, the Roadless Area Conservation
`Rule, NFMA, HFRA, and the APA when approving the Reyes Peak Project; the FWS
`violated the ESA and APA when it concluded the Project is not likely to adversely affect
`California condors or their critical habitat; and the Forest Service and Tom Vilsack,
`Secretary of Agriculture, violated the HFRA and the APA by failing to issue annual
`reports pertaining to the use of CEs as required by HFRA. The City seeks to have this
`Court declare unlawful, vacate, and set aside the Forest Service’s Decision approving
`the Reyes Peak Project and the FWS’s decision that the Reyes Peak Project is not likely
`to adversely affect California condors or their critical habitat. The City also seeks
`injunctive relief as a provisional and permanent remedy Defendants’ violations.
`
`
`790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
`
`Pasadena, California 91101-2109
`
`Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
`
`
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`____________
`CITY OF OJAI’S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`281253.v1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02800-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 7 of 59 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`PARTIES
`
`18. The City is a general law city organized under the Constitution and laws
`of the State of California and is located in Ventura County, California.
`19. Defendant UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE is a federal government
`agency within the Department of Agriculture, which holds the National Forests in trust
`for the American people and is responsible for actions in the Reyes Peak Project area.
`20. Defendant KARINA MEDINA is a District Ranger for the Los Padres
`National Forest and signed the Decision Memo approving the Reyes Peak Project on
`September 30, 2021. She is included in this action in her official capacity.
`21. Defendant TOM VILSACK is the Secretary of Agriculture within the
`United States Department of Agriculture and is charged with responsibilities under
`HFRA. He is included in this action in his official capacity.
`22. Defendant UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE is the
`federal agency within the Department of Interior charged with responsibility for
`conserving endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, for
`enforcing and implementing the ESA, and for complying with the APA in connection
`with the Service’s ESA actions.
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT (“APA”)
`23. The APA allows persons and organizations to challenge final agency
`actions in the federal courts. 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704.
`24. The APA declares that a court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency
`actions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
`accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
`THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (“NEPA”)
`25. Congress enacted NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370h, to, among other
`things, “encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his
`environment” and to promote government efforts “that will prevent or eliminate damage
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
`
`Pasadena, California 91101-2109
`
`Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`____________
`CITY OF OJAI’S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`281253.v1
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`Case 2:22-cv-02800-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 8 of 59 Page ID #:8
`
`
`to the environment.” Id. § 4321. NEPA requires federal agencies to analyze and disclose
`
`
`to the public the environmental impacts of their actions. Id. § 4332(2)(C).
`26. To this end, the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) has
`promulgated regulations implementing NEPA. Among other things, the regulations are
`intended to “tell federal agencies what they must do to comply with the procedures and
`achieve the goal of [NEPA],” to “insure that environmental information is available to
`public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken,”
`and to ensure “better decisions” and “foster excellent action.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(a)-(c)
`(1978).2 Moreover, “[a]ccurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public
`scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.” Id.
`27. NEPA and its implementing regulations promulgated by the CEQ require
`federal agencies to prepare an EIS for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the
`quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C).
`If an agency is unsure whether a proposed action may have significant
`28.
`environmental effects, it may prepare a shorter document called an “environmental
`assessment” (“EA”) to determine if the proposed action will have significant
`environmental effects and whether an EIS is necessary. 40 C.F.R. §1501.4(c) (1978).
`29. When conducting environmental analysis pursuant to an EA or EIS, an
`agency must consider alternatives to the proposed action. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. §
`1508.9(b) (1978).
`In narrow situations, neither an EA nor an EIS is required, and federal
`30.
`agencies may invoke a “categorical exclusion” (“CE”) from NEPA. 40 C.F.R.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
`
`Pasadena, California 91101-2109
`
`Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
`
`
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`2 Scoping for the Reyes Peak Project began on May 27, 2020. On July 16, 2020, the
`Council on Environmental Quality issued new NEPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part
`1500, replacing previous regulations from 1978. See 85 Fed. Reg. 43304 (July 16,
`2020) (available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/16/2020-
`15179/update-to-the-regulations-implementing-the-procedural-provisions-of-the-
`national-environmental). The new NEPA regulations specifically provide that they
`“apply to any NEPA processes begun after September 14, 2020.” 40 C.F.R. § 1506.13.
`Because the NEPA process for this matter began before September 14, 2020, and
`because the agency relied on the 1978 regulations when approving the Project, the
`
`1978 regulations apply here.
`
`
`8
`____________
`CITY OF OJAI’S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`281253.v1
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Case 2:22-cv-02800-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 9 of 59 Page ID #:9
`
`
`§1501.4(a) (1978).
`
`
`31. A “categorical exclusion” is defined as “a category of actions that the
`agency has determined, in its agency NEPA procedures (§1507.3 of this chapter),
`normally do not have a significant effect on the human environment.” 40 C.F.R.
`§1508.4 (1978). The Forest Service’s established CEs can be found at 36 C.F.R. § 220.6
`(2020).
`32. Here, the Forest Service relies in part on 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(e)(6) (2020),
`which applies to “[t]imber stand … improvement activities that do not include the use
`of herbicides or do not require more than 1 mile of low standard road construction.” 36
`C.F.R. § 220.6(e)(6) (2020). “Examples include but are not limited to: (i) Girdling trees
`to create snags; (ii) Thinning or brush control to improve growth or to reduce fire hazard
`including the opening of an existing road to a dense timber stand; (iii) Prescribed
`burning to control understory hardwoods in stands of southern pine; and (iv) Prescribed
`burning to reduce natural fuel build-up and improve plant vigor.” Id. “Timber stand
`improvement” is defined in the Forest Service Manual to only include the following
`practices: “1. Release and weeding. 2. Precommercial thinning. 3. Pruning. 4. Control
`of understory vegetation. 5. Fertilization. 6. Animal damage control.” Forest Service
`Manual, Chapter 2470.
`If a project appropriately falls under an adopted CE, the agency generally
`33.
`need not prepare further analysis. California v. Norton, 311 F.3d 1162, 1175 (9th Cir.
`2002). However, an agency adopting a categorical exclusion must “provide
`for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a
`significant environmental effect.” 40 C.F.R. 1508.4 (1978). If extraordinary
`circumstances are present, use of a categorical exclusion is improper. Norton, 311 F.3d
`at 1175.
`34. The Forest Service’s regulations include a list of seven resource conditions
`that must be considered in determining whether “extraordinary circumstances” related
`to a proposed action make the use of a categorical exclusion inappropriate, and include
`
`
`790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
`
`Pasadena, California 91101-2109
`
`Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
`
`
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`____________
`CITY OF OJAI’S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`281253.v1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02800-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 10 of 59 Page ID #:10
`
`
`the following:
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`(i) Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical
`habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest
`Service sensitive species;
`(ii) Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds;
`(iii) Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study
`areas, or national recreation areas;
`(iv) Inventoried roadless area or potential wilderness area;
`(v) Research natural areas;
`(vi) American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites; and
`(vii) Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas.
`
`36 C.F.R. § 220.6(b).
`
`If a “cause-effect” relationship between the proposed action and these
`35.
`resource conditions exists, it is the “degree of the potential effect of a proposed action
`on these resource conditions that determines whether extraordinary circumstances
`exist.” 36 C.F.R. § 220.6.
`36. The Forest Service’s Handbook provides: “If the degree of potential effect
`raises uncertainty over its significance, then an extraordinary circumstance exists,
`precluding use of a categorical exclusion.” Forest Service Handbook 1909.15.31.2.
`If there is substantial evidence in the record that exceptions “may apply,”
`37.
`use of the categorical exclusion is prohibited. Norton, 311 F.3d at 1177.
`In addition, Forest Service regulations identify classes of actions that
`38.
`“normally” require preparation of an EIS, and these include “[p]roposals that would
`substantially alter the undeveloped character of an inventoried roadless area.” 36 C.F.R.
`§ 220.5(a)(2) (2020).
`39. The Forest Service’s categorical exclusion regulations require “scoping”
`prior to the use of a CE. See 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(c) (2020) (determination of potential for
`significant effects must be “based on scoping”); 36 C.F.R. § 220.4 (2020) (“Scoping is
`required for all Forest Service proposed actions, including those that would appear to
`be categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an EA or an EIS
`(§ 220.6).)”
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
`
`Pasadena, California 91101-2109
`
`Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`____________
`CITY OF OJAI’S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`281253.v1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02800-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 11 of 59 Page ID #:11
`
`
`40.
`“Scoping” is the “early and open process for determining the scope of
`
`
`issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed
`action.” 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7 (1978); see also 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(c) (2020). As discussed
`in the Forest Service Handbook, “scoping is important to discover information that
`could point to the need for an EA or EIS versus a CE.” Forest Service Handbook
`§1909.15, Section 31.3.
`If, “based on scoping, it is uncertain whether the proposed action may have
`41.
`a significant effect on the environment,” the agency “must prepare an EA.” 36 C.F.R. §
`220.6(c) (2020). If “the proposed action may have a significant environmental effect,”
`then the agency “must prepare an EIS.” 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(c) (2020).
`In addition to the Forest Service’s regulatory CEs, Congress has created
`42.
`statutory NEPA “categorical exclusions” that the Forest Service may use. For purposes
`of this case, the statutory “categorical exclusions” can be found in HFRA at 16 U.S.C.
`§§ 6591b and 6591d.
`43. When using 16 U.S.C. § 6591b or 16 U.S.C. § 6591d, the Forest Service
`must “maximize the retention of old-growth and large trees, as appropriate for the forest
`type, to the extent that the trees promote stands that are resilient to insects and disease,”
`must “consider the best available scientific information to maintain or restore the
`[forest’s] ecological integrity, including maintaining or restoring structure, function,
`composition, and connectivity,” the project must be “developed and implemented
`through a collaborative process that includes multiple interested persons representing
`diverse interests and is transparent and nonexclusive, and the project must “be
`consistent with the land and resource management plan.” 16 U.S.C. § 6591b; 16 U.S.C.
`§ 6591d. Even if a project falls within a statutory CE, the presence of “extraordinary
`circumstances” can preclude use of the CE. 16 U.S.C. § 6591d(c)(4).
`44. HFRA’s statutory CEs also require “an annual report on the use of
`categorical exclusions under [6591b and 6591d] that includes a description of all acres
`(or other appropriate unit) treated through projects carried out under [these sections].”
`
`
`790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
`
`Pasadena, California 91101-2109
`
`Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`____________
`CITY OF OJAI’S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`281253.v1
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`Case 2:22-cv-02800-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 12 of 59 Page ID #:12
`
`
`16 U.S.C. § 6591b(g); 16 U.S.C. § 6591d(g). To fulfill the legislature’s oversight
`
`
`authority, HFRA requires the Forest Service to submit these annual reports to various
`Congressional committees as well as the Government Accountability Office. 16 U.S.C.
`§ 6591b(g)(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
`
`
`
`THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (“ESA”)
`45. Section 7 of the ESA requires each federal agency, in consultation with the
`FWS, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not
`likely to (1) jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species
`or (2) result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such
`species. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).
`If listed or proposed species may be present in the project area, the federal
`46.
`agency must prepare a “biological assessment” to determine whether the listed species
`may be affected by the proposed action. 50 C.F.R. § 402.12 (1986) .
`If the agency determines that its proposed action may affect any listed
`47.
`species or critical habitat, the agency must normally engage in “formal consultation”
`with the FWS. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14 (2019). However, an agency need not initiate formal
`consultation if, as a result of the preparation of a biological assessment or as a result of
`informal consultation with the FWS, the agency determines, with the written
`concurrence of the FWS, that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any
`listed species or critical habitat. Id.
`If the FWS concludes that the proposed action “will jeopardize the
`48.
`continued existence” of a listed species, a “biological opinion” must outline “reasonable
`and prudent alternatives.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)(A). If the biological opinion
`concludes that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed
`species, and will not result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat,
`the FWS must provide an “incidental take statement,” specifying the amount or extent
`of such incidental taking on the species, any “reasonable and prudent measures” that
`the FWS considers necessary or appropriate to minimize such impact, and setting forth
`
`
`790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
`
`Pasadena, California 91101-2109
`
`Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`____________
`CITY OF OJAI’S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`281253.v1
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Case 2:22-cv-02800-SVW-AFM Document 1 Filed 04/27/22 Page 13 of 59 Page ID #:13
`
`
`the “terms and conditions” that must be complied with by the agency to implement
`
`
`those measures. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14 (i) (2019).
`In fulfilling its obligation to ensure that its actions do not jeopardize the
`49.
`continued existence of any endangered species or destroy or adversely modify its
`critical habitat, the federal agency is required to use the best scientific and commercial
`data available. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`THE ROADLESS AREA CONSERVATION RULE (“ROADLESS RULE”)
`
`Inventoried roadless areas “comprise only 2% of the land base in the
`50.
`continental United States,” but “provide many social and ecological benefits.” 66 Fed.
`Reg. at 3,245. For example, these remnant undeveloped areas “provide clean drinking
`water and function as biological strongholds for populations of threatened and
`endangered species, . . . provide large, relatively undisturbed landscapes that are
`important to biological diversity and the long-term survival of many at-risk species . . .
`[and] provide opportunities for dispersed outdoor recreation, opportunities that diminish
`as open space and natural settings are developed elsewhere.” Id.
`In 2001, in order “to protect and conserve inventoried roadless areas on
`51.
`National Forest System lands,” the Forest Service establishe