Case 3:22-cv-00317 Document 1 Filed 01/14/22 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`
`STUART G. GROSS (#251019)
`sgross@grosskleinlaw.com
`GEORGE A. CROTON (#323766)
`gcroton@grosskleinlaw.com
`GROSS & KLEIN LLP
`The Embarcadero
`Pier 9, Suite 100
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`t (415) 671-4628
`f (415) 480-6688
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`EUREKA DIVISION
`
`
`FRIENDS OF GUALALA RIVER,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GUALALA REDWOOD TIMBER, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`
`PIER 9, SUITE 100
`THE EMBARCADERO
`GROSS & KLEIN LLP
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00317 Document 1 Filed 01/14/22 Page 2 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................. I
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
`
`PARTIES ......................................................................................................................................... 5
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiff ................................................................................................................................. 5
`
`II. Defendant ............................................................................................................................. 6
`
`JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................................... 6
`
`VENUE ............................................................................................................................................ 7
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................................. 7
`
`LEGAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 7
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 8
`
`I. The Little North Fork of the Gualala River and Its Floodplain ........................................... 8
`
`II. The Logging Project ............................................................................................................. 9
`
`III.
`
`The Gualala Listed Animals Endangered by the Proposed Logging ............................. 12
`
`A. The California Red-Legged Frog ................................................................................... 13
`
`B. Northern California Steelhead ....................................................................................... 15
`
`C. The Central California Coast Coho Salmon .................................................................. 17
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................. 19
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF.................................................................................................... 19
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF .............................................................................................. 21
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................. 26
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................. 30
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`
`PIER 9, SUITE 100
`THE EMBARCADERO
`GROSS & KLEIN LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00317 Document 1 Filed 01/14/22 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Friends of Gualala River (“FOGR”) hereby brings this action pursuant to § 9 of
`
`the Endangered Species Act (“ESA” or “Act”), and 16 U.S.C. §§ 1533(d), 1538(a)(1)(B) & (G)
`
`against Defendant Gualala Redwood Timber, LLC (“GRT”), and alleges on information and
`
`belief, except as indicated, as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This action seeks to protect members of three endangered or threatened species
`
`who call the Gualala River—including its Little North Fork—and its environs home: California
`
`red-legged frogs (occasionally, “CRLF”); Central California Coast coho salmon (occasionally,
`
`“CCC Coho” or “coho”); Northern California steelhead (occasionally, “NC Steelhead” or
`
`“steelhead”) (collectively, the “Gualala Listed Animals”).
`
`2.
`
`These animals all depend for their survival on the 251 acres of alluvial floodplains
`
`along the Little North Fork of the Gualala River (the “Little North Fork”), where GRT intends to
`
`engage in major logging operations. As shown below, the location to be logged consists of non-
`
`contiguous logging area on alluvial flats primarily on the Little North Fork of the Gualala River.
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`
`PIER 9, SUITE 100
`THE EMBARCADERO
`GROSS & KLEIN LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00317 Document 1 Filed 01/14/22 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Located in Mendocino County, just hours from the Bay Area, the Little North Fork
`
`is an oasis for the Gualala Listed Animals and numerous other animals, insects, and plants.
`
`4.
`
`The Little North Fork and associated tributaries of the Gualala River contain
`
`extensive alluvial floodplains with mature redwood and other riparian ecosystems. This type of
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`
`PIER 9, SUITE 100
`THE EMBARCADERO
`GROSS & KLEIN LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00317 Document 1 Filed 01/14/22 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`forest is exceedingly rare in the area and more generally. It is also essential habitat for the Gualala
`
`Listed Animals.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Accordingly, GRT’s plan to log this ecologically important forest is reasonably
`
`certain to kill, harm, and/or harass the Gualala Listed Animals that inhabit the area. GRT intends
`
`to cut mature 100-year-old stands of trees in the floodplain, thereby modifying and degrading the
`
`habitat for the Gualala Listed Animals, and thus will directly harm and/or harass them. The
`
`impacts of the proposed logging operations are, moreover, reasonably certain to continue to kill,
`
`harm, and/or harass the Gualala Listed Animals in the future. To prevent these consequences, the
`
`proposed logging operations must be enjoined and, in the event that the operations are not
`
`enjoined, GRT must be ordered to take affirmative mitigation measures, in order to prevent
`
`further impacts from the proposed logging that will otherwise continue after the planned logging
`
`operations are completed, and that are reasonably certain to continue to kill, harm, and/or harass
`
`the Gualala Listed Animals in the future.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`
`PIER 9, SUITE 100
`THE EMBARCADERO
`GROSS & KLEIN LLP
`
`

`

`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 3:22-cv-00317 Document 1 Filed 01/14/22 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`
`6.
`
`In ESA § 9 parlance, GRT’s proposed logging is reasonably certain to result in the
`
`“take” of these animals. GRT is reasonably certain to cause direct take through such means as the
`
`crushing of California red-legged frogs that inhabit the forest floor over which GRT’s heavy
`
`equipment will operate and onto which GRT will land enormous felled trees. GRT is also
`
`reasonably certain to cause indirect take through habitat modification that significantly impairs
`
`essential behavioral patterns—including breeding, spawning, incubating, rearing, migrating,
`
`feeding, or sheltering—through means such as the increased sedimentation in spawning and
`
`incubation gravels that steelhead and coho need for their survival.
`
`7.
`
`GRT is aware of these facts, which have been brought to its attention numerous
`
`times. However, GRT has not sought an incidental take permit from National Marine Fisheries
`
`Service (“NMFS”)—which has jurisdiction over the steelhead and coho—or from the United
`
`States Fish & Wildlife Service (“USFWS”)—which has jurisdiction over the California red-
`
`legged frogs.
`
`8.
`
`Any such incidental take permit would have required that GRT adopt measures for
`
`minimizing the take of these animals to the greatest extent practicable, as well as develop a plan
`
`that would help facilitate their recovery.
`
`9.
`
` GRT’s proposed logging operations violate the ESA. Unless and until GRT
`
`applies for and receives an incidental take permit for each of the Gualala Listed Animals, any
`
`logging operations in areas adjacent to the Little North Fork of the Gualala River floodplain are
`
`illegal and must be enjoined to prevent the threatened and endangered animals from being killed,
`
`harmed, harassed, and otherwise “taken” in violation of the ESA.
`
`10.
`
`Unless this Court grants the relief request herein, take of the Gualala Listed
`
`Animals is reasonably certain to occur.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff alleges herein all violations which will occur prior to trial, but for which
`
`data may not have been available to Plaintiff prior to the filing of this Complaint.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an injunction requiring GRT to
`
`prevent and/or mitigate the detriment that it will cause to the Gualala Listed Animals through
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`
`PIER 9, SUITE 100
`THE EMBARCADERO
`GROSS & KLEIN LLP
`
`

`

`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 3:22-cv-00317 Document 1 Filed 01/14/22 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`
`direct harm and the future destruction of their critical habitat, and to protect these imperiled
`
`animals in accordance with ESA.
`
`PARTIES
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff FRIENDS OF GUALALA RIVER (“FoGR”) is a non-profit, public
`
`interest corporation formed to protect the Gualala River Watershed and the species that rely on it.
`
`FoGR was formed in 1992 by a group of local residents in response to timber harvesting near a
`
`popular, heavily wooded campground on the north bank of the river. Since then, the organization
`
`has provided concerned citizens a forum to share common concerns and research regarding the
`
`welfare of the Gualala River, its estuary, its watershed, and habitat. FoGR’s members and staff
`
`include individuals with educational, scientific, spiritual, recreational, and other interests in the
`
`protection of natural resources and species that inhabit the Gualala River and its environs,
`
`including the Gualala Listed Animals. FoGR’s members and staff visit the Gualala River and its
`
`environs and enjoy the biological, recreational, and aesthetic values of the area—where the
`
`California red-legged frog, Northern California steelhead, and Central California coho salmon
`
`live—and FoGR’s members and staff plan to visit and enjoy the Gualala River and its environs in
`
`future. A critical component of the aesthetic, recreational, and spiritual enjoyment that FoGR’s
`
`members and staff gain from visiting the Gualala River and its environs is viewing, listening,
`
`searching for, and communing with the threatened and endangered animals that make the area
`
`home, including the Gualala Listed Animals. That aesthetic, recreational, and spiritual enjoyment
`
`will be diminished by GRT’s planned logging activities, which will cause those same animals to
`
`be harmed, killed, harassed, or their habitat modified in a way that harms their essential
`
`behaviors. FoGR’s members and staff have participated for years in efforts to protect and
`
`preserve the habitat in the Gualala River watershed that is essential to the continued survival of
`
`these species.
`
`14.
`
`FoGR brings this action on its own behalf and on behalf of its adversely affected
`
`members and staff. It sues on behalf of itself and its members who have concrete interests in the
`
`aesthetic, recreational, and spiritual enjoyment and protection of California’s wild areas,
`COMPLAINT
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`
`PIER 9, SUITE 100
`THE EMBARCADERO
`GROSS & KLEIN LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00317 Document 1 Filed 01/14/22 Page 8 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`including the Gualala River and its environs, and fish and wildlife species at self-perpetuating
`
`population levels, in the protection of our environment, and in the protection of water and air
`
`quality.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff complied with all procedural requirements, including the sending of a
`
`Notice of Intent to Sue, on November 15, 2021, to GRT, NMFS, USFWS, the U.S. Secretary of
`
`the Interior, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, the California Department of Forestry and Fire
`
`Protection (“CalFire”), and the State of California. The Notice of Intent to Sue detailed the
`
`violations of the ESA detailed herein and invited GRT to confer with Plaintiff regarding them.
`
`GRT did not take action on that invitation.
`
`II.
`
`Defendant
`
`16.
`
`Defendant GUALALA REDWOOD TIMBER, LLC (“GRT”) is a California
`
`limited liability company with its principal place of business in Santa Clara County, California.
`
`GRT owns the timber and timberland that is being logged.
`
`17.
`
`GRT filed a Timber Harvesting Plan, No. 1-18-095 MEN (“Little THP”) for the
`
`proposed logging along the Little North Fork of the Gualala River. CalFire approved the Little
`
`THP on September 23, 2021. In the Little THP, GRT states that a licensed timber operator
`
`(“LTO”), which will actually carry out the logging on behalf of GRT, is responsible for erosion
`
`control until the work completion report has been approved by the director. After that occurs,
`
`GRT will be responsible for erosion control.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`18.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the ESA citizen-suit
`
`provision, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g), which also empowers the Court to enjoin Defendant from further
`
`violations of the ESA and its implementing regulations, id. § 1540(g)(1)(A). The logging
`
`operations proposed in the Little THP are reasonably certain to create various impacts that will
`
`cause immediate and future illegal take of the endangered and threatened species in violation of
`
`Section 9 of the ESA.
`
`19.
`
`As required by 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(A)(i), Plaintiff provided Defendant with
`
`formal notice of the violations embodied in this complaint. FoGR submitted a notice of intent to
`COMPLAINT
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`
`PIER 9, SUITE 100
`THE EMBARCADERO
`GROSS & KLEIN LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00317 Document 1 Filed 01/14/22 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`sue by letter dated November 15, 2021 to GRT’s owner, managing agents, registered agent, and
`
`the appropriate heads of agencies.
`
`VENUE
`
`20.
`
`Venue in this district is proper under 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(3)(A) and 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1391(b)(2).
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`21.
`
`This action substantially arises out of actions planned to be taken in the county of
`
`Mendocino. Thus, under Civil L.R. 3-2(d) this action is to be assigned to the Eureka Division.
`
`LEGAL BACKGROUND
`
`22.
`
`Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the “take” of endangered or threatened species.
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B). The term “take” is defined in the “broadest possible manner to include
`
`every conceivable way” in which a person could harm or kill fish or wildlife. S. Rep. No. 307,
`
`93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1, reprinted in 1973 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 2989, 2995.
`
`Accordingly, the ESA defines “take” as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
`
`capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532 (19).
`
`23.
`
`NMFS has further defined the term “harm” to include “significant habitat
`
`modification or degradation which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly
`
`impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding
`
`or sheltering.” 50 C.F.R. § 222.102; see also Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for
`
`a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687, 701 (1995) (upholding functionally indistinguishable USFWS
`
`regulatory definition).
`
`24. While NMFS has not promulgated a regulatory definition of “harass,” USFWS
`
`regulations define “harass” as “an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the
`
`likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal
`
`behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering.” 50
`
`C.F.R. § 17.3.
`
`25.
`
`ESA sections 9(a)(1)(B) and (G) prohibit any “take” of listed species that is not
`
`authorized by an incidental take permit (issued under section 10 of the Act) or an incidental take
`COMPLAINT
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`
`PIER 9, SUITE 100
`THE EMBARCADERO
`GROSS & KLEIN LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00317 Document 1 Filed 01/14/22 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`statement (issued under section 7 of the Act) issued by NMFS or USFWS. See 16 U.S.C. § 1539;
`
`50 C.F.R. Parts 13, 17, & 222. Unauthorized activities that significantly degrade habitat in ways
`
`that impair the spawning, rearing, migrating, sheltering, feeding, or other essential behavioral
`
`patterns of the listed species are therefore illegal.
`
`26.
`
`To avoid liability under the ESA, one may obtain an incidental take permit under
`
`ESA section 10. 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(1)(B). To receive a permit to take any of the Listed Species
`
`pursuant to an ITP, one must, among other requirements, adopt measures for minimizing the take
`
`to the greatest extent practicable, as well as develop a plan that “conserv[es]” – i.e., helps
`
`facilitate the recovery of – the Listed Species. Id. §§ 1539(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(A); Sierra Club v. U.S.
`
`Fish and Wildlife Serv., 245 F.3d 434, 441-42 (5th Cir. 2001) (“‘[c]onservation’ is a much
`
`broader concept than mere survival” because the “ESA’s definition of ‘conservation’ speaks to
`
`the recovery of a threatened or endangered species”) (emphasis added). This plan, called a
`
`Habitat Conservation Plan must delineate “the impact which will likely result from such taking”
`
`and the “steps [you] will take to minimize and mitigate such impacts ….” 16 U.S.C. §
`
`1539(a)(2)(A).
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`The Little North Fork of the Gualala River and Its Floodplain
`
`27.
`
`The Gualala River enters the Pacific Ocean approximately 100 miles north of San
`
`Francisco, marking the border of Mendocino and Sonoma Counties. The Gualala River watershed
`
`encompasses a 740-mile stream network that flows through 191,000 acres of woodlands,
`
`grasslands, and wetlands.
`
`28.
`
`The main stem of the Gualala River is designated as a Wild and Scenic River by
`
`the State of California for its natural beauty and recreational value. The Gualala River is
`
`characterized by its anadromous salmonids and its extensive freshwater habitat. The Gualala
`
`River has been designated as “Critical Habitat” under the ESA for the threatened Northern
`
`California steelhead, and is also home to the endangered Central California Coast coho salmon.
`
`29.
`
`The Little THP is located along the Little North Fork of the Gualala River, which
`
`lies upslope and northeast of the main stem of the river and occupies a northwest trending rift
`COMPLAINT
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`
`PIER 9, SUITE 100
`THE EMBARCADERO
`GROSS & KLEIN LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00317 Document 1 Filed 01/14/22 Page 11 of 34
`
`
`
`valley of the active San Andreas fault. The broad floodplain of the Little North Fork of the
`
`Gualala River is home to a mature redwood ecosystem that includes ancient old-growth
`
`redwoods, as well as giant redwoods and Douglas-firs that tower over the river and its floodplain.
`
`It is the latter trees that GRT intends to cut under the Little THP.
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`The Logging Project
`
`30.
`
`GRT plans to log areas within and adjacent to the floodplain of the Little North
`
`Fork of the Gualala River located in Mendocino County, California near the town of Gualala.
`
`31.
`
`Specifically, GRT plans to log 199 non-contiguous acres, and to conduct timber
`
`operations in an additional 52 acres, within and adjacent to alluvial flats of the Little North Fork
`
`of the Gualala River. The area that GRT intends to log is near latitude 38.7910214°, longitude
`
`123.5100091°.
`
`32.
`
`The location of the logging operations is identified further in the Little THP,
`
`approved by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection on September 23, 2021.
`
`Timber operations will occur in six Sections located in Township 11N and Range R15W, all
`
`located within Mendocino County. THP § I, p. 3. The logging operations will take place in two
`
`planning watersheds: Doty, and Robinson Creek. Id. at 3.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`
`PIER 9, SUITE 100
`THE EMBARCADERO
`GROSS & KLEIN LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00317 Document 1 Filed 01/14/22 Page 12 of 34
`
`
`
`33.
`
`The location of the logging operations contains a mature redwood forest ecosystem
`
`along the Little North Fork of the Gualala River. The location of the logging operations contains
`
`some of the last remaining mature floodplain redwood forest in the area.
`
`34.
`
`Elevations within the location of the logging operations range from 40 feet to 440
`
`feet, and most of the location of the logging operations is considered a flood-prone area. Seasonal
`
`wetlands occur in poorly drained flats, swales, relict overflow channels, and in old skid road track
`
`depressions in the floodplain where logging is planned.
`
`35.
`
`Due to its location in an alluvial floodplain along the Little North Fork of the
`
`Gualala River and its tributaries, the location of the logging operations contains extensive riparian
`
`ecosystems. Most of the ground in this area is wet or moist during most or all of the year. The
`
`Little North Fork of the Gualala River ecosystem and the Gualala Listed Animals that use the
`
`location of the logging operations have suffered from over a century of extractive resource use.
`
`Extensive logging and road-building practices since the 1860s have produced significant erosion,
`
`producing a legacy of increased sediment loads severely impacting aquatic habitat in the Gualala
`
`River and its tributaries.
`
`36.
`
`The forested floodplain along the Little North Fork of the Gualala River that
`
`contains the location of the proposed logging operations was mostly clear cut at the turn of the
`
`20th century. Portions of the area have been harvested since then.
`
`37.
`
`In 1993, the USEPA listed the Gualala River watershed on the Clean Water Act
`
`§303(d) list of impaired water bodies due to declines in anadromous salmonids from excessive
`
`sedimentation. The §303(d) listing was updated in 2003, and water temperatures in much of the
`
`basin are now impaired as well, with exception of Little North Fork. Cold freshwater habitat is
`
`essential for fish migration and spawning, making the Little North Fork a critical refugia as well
`
`as cold water source for downstream portions of the watershed. Logging operations have removed
`
`large streamside trees that previously provided temperature reducing shade, and reduced the
`
`amount of large woody debris that previously created deep pools of cool, low-velocity water
`
`which are essential components of steelhead and coho habitat.
`
`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
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`
`PIER 9, SUITE 100
`THE EMBARCADERO
`GROSS & KLEIN LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00317 Document 1 Filed 01/14/22 Page 13 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`38.
`
`The area that GRT will log is within the riparian zone of the Little North Fork of
`
`the Gualala River, which has already been listed under §303(d) for high sediment. Felling and
`
`yarding trees involving heavy equipment are proposed to occur on the floodplain in close
`
`proximity and potentially directly within floodplain wetland and riparian habitats known to be of
`
`importance for these listed species. Logging roads used to haul the felled timber are adjacent to,
`
`cross, and are hydrologically connected with floodplain wetlands and streams at various
`
`locations.
`
`39.
`
`Past timber operations along the Little North Fork of the Gualala River have
`
`caused substantial, long-term, persistent, and effectively irreversible direct and indirect impacts to
`
`the ecosystem, including to the sensitive riparian redwood understory vegetation present at the
`
`location of the proposed logging. The proposed logging operations will likewise cause continuing
`
`substantial, long-term, persistent, and effectively irreversible direct and indirect impacts to the
`
`ecosystem. The recovery time required by shade-adapted understory vegetation following logging
`
`disturbances is reasonably certain to take many decades and lag behind the regeneration of mature
`
`redwood forest overstory structure.
`
`40.
`
`Despite GRT’s characterization of the proposed logging operations as a “very light
`
`harvest” (THP § IV, p. 126, 154), it will involve cutting and felling large trees; the use of heavy
`
`equipment in floodplain areas; skidding harvested trees; hauling harvested trees; slash removal
`
`and stockpiling; drafting 10,000 gallons of water per day from four locations in the Little North
`
`Fork, North Fork, and South Fork watersheds of the Gualala River; and road reconstruction and
`
`maintenance. These logging activities will cause immediate and ongoing disturbances to the
`
`biotic and abiotic elements of the location of the logging operations and nearby areas.
`
`41.
`
`Ongoing disturbances that will persist after the proposed logging operations
`
`include the removal of mature redwood trees, thereby altering forest structures; compaction and
`
`erosion of alluvial soils; damage to sensitive understory vegetation; impairment of waterways in
`
`the Little North Fork and lower Gualala River watershed, including, without limitation, by
`
`increasing water temperature and sedimentation; and the short- and long-term disruption of
`
`species migration and prey availability.
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`
`PIER 9, SUITE 100
`THE EMBARCADERO
`GROSS & KLEIN LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00317 Document 1 Filed 01/14/22 Page 14 of 34
`
`
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`This rare ecosystem provides essential habitat for the Gualala Listed Animals.
`
`As described herein, GRT’s proposed logging operations will impose significant
`
`impacts on the Gualala Listed Animals. These impacts will both directly take these animals
`
`through logging activities and indirectly take them through substantial modification of their
`
`habitat that impairs the spawning, incubating, rearing, migrating, sheltering, feeding, and/or other
`
`essential behavioral patterns. If the logging is allowed, these impacts will continue to occur far
`
`into the future absent affirmative exceptional efforts to mitigate the harm caused by the logging
`
`operations.
`
`III. The Gualala Listed Animals Endangered by the Proposed Logging
`
`44.
`
`The Gualala River, itself, and its tributaries, including the Little North Fork,
`
`provide irreplaceable habitat for numerous fishes, birds, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and
`
`mammals, including each of the Gualala Listed Animals.
`
`45.
`
`GRT has not applied for or received an incidental take permit with regards to the
`
`Little THP for any of the Gualala Listed Animals.
`
`46.
`
`If the proposed logging operations are allowed to proceed without an incidental
`
`take permit, GRT is reasonably certain to cause direct and indirect take of each of the Gualala
`
`Listed Animals.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`
`PIER 9, SUITE 100
`THE EMBARCADERO
`GROSS & KLEIN LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00317 Document 1 Filed 01/14/22 Page 15 of 34
`
`
`
`A.
`
`47.
`
`The California Red-Legged Frog
`
`USFWS listed the California red-legged frog (“CRLF”) as a threatened species
`
`under the ESA in 1996. 61 Fed. Reg. 25813 (May 23, 1996). A species qualifies as “threatened”
`
`if it is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future through all or a
`
`significant portion of its range.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532 (20).
`
`48.
`
`The range of the CRLF includes Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, and thus the
`
`alluvial floodplains in the Gualala River watershed, including the Little North Fork of the Gualala
`
`River. See 75 Fed. Reg. 12815.
`
`49.
`
`eDNA sampling conducted in December 2020 detected CRLF DNA in three
`
`locations in the locations in the Gualala River, including at the mouth of the North Fork of the
`
`Gualala River, into which the Little North Fork flows.
`
`50.
`
`CRLFs are known to live in the floodplain and upland habitat near the location of
`
`the proposed logging. And the THP for the proposed logging acknowledges the presence of the
`
`CRLF “adjacent” to the area of the proposed logging.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`
`PIER 9, SUITE 100
`THE EMBARCADERO
`GROSS & KLEIN LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00317 Document 1 Filed 01/14/22 Page 16 of 34
`
`
`
`51.
`
`According to the USFWS’ 2002 Recovery Plan for the species, CRLF “requires a
`
`variety of habitat elements with aquatic breeding areas embedded within a matrix of riparian and
`
`upland dispersal habitats . . . [including] pools and backwaters within streams and creeks, ponds,
`
`marshes, springs, sag ponds, dune ponds and lagoons.”
`
`52.
`
`CRLFs mate and lay eggs in waterways or nearby riparian areas, including
`
`ephemeral drainages or wetlands; and mature frogs forage and disperse in both riparian and
`
`upland habitats.
`
`53.
`
`CRLF have a variety of migration patterns. Some CRLFs move along well-
`
`established corridors that provide specific sensory cues to guide movement. Many other long-
`
`distance migrating CRLF travel to and from breeding sites during the rainy season and move
`
`overland in relatively straight lines toward target sites.
`
`54.
`
`CRLF leave breeding habitat at various times throughout the rainy season. In one
`
`radio-telemetry study in Marin County, 66 percent of female frogs and 25 percent of male frogs
`
`moved to non-breeding areas even when the breeding site retained water.
`
`55.
`
`CRLF also leave breeding sites in the dry season to aestivate in upland refugia. For
`
`example, in Alameda Creek in September a radio-tagged male frog spent three weeks in a burrow
`
`433 feet away from the water before returning to the stream channel.
`
`56.
`
`CRLF terrestrial habitats include mammal burrows, leaf litter, and under shrubs.
`
`CRLFs are, thus, susceptible to the harms of vegetation removal and physical disturbance to the
`
`landscape, compaction of soils, and loss of underground burrow networks.
`
`57.
`
`Diet analyses indicate the importance to CRLF of terrestrially derived prey. Stable
`
`carbon isotopes in frog tissue confirmed that dominant prey items include a mix of terrestrial
`
`carnivores (e.g., spiders, beetles, wasps) and detritivores (e.g., worms, ants). Small frogs are
`
`largely insectivorous, and although large adult frogs can consume aquatic vertebrates in the wet
`
`season, they consume terrestrial vertebrates