throbber
Case 1:21-cv-00781-CL Document 1 Filed 05/21/21 Page 1 of 29
`
`Meriel L. Darzen, OSB # 113645
`(503) 525-2725  meriel@crag.org
`Oliver J. H. Stiefel, OSB # 135436
`(503) 227-2212  oliver@crag.org
`CRAG LAW CENTER
`3141 E. Burnside St.
`Portland, Oregon 97214
`Fax: (503) 296-5454
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Klamath Forest Alliance
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF OREGON
`
`MEDFORD DIVISION
`
`KLAMATH FOREST ALLIANCE, a
`California non-profit corporation;
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SCOTT J. BLOWER, in his official capacity
`as Wild Rivers District Ranger; MERV
`GEORGE JR., in his official capacity as
`Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest
`Supervisor; and the UNITED STATES
`FOREST SERVICE,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 1:21-cv-00781
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`(5 U.S.C. § 706(2))
`
`(Environmental Matters –
`Endangered Species Act, National Forest
`Management Act, National Environmental
`Policy Act, and Administrative Procedure
`Act)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00781-CL Document 1 Filed 05/21/21 Page 2 of 29
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`Plaintiff Klamath Forest Alliance (“KFA”) brings this challenge under the
`
`1.
`
`Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706, to the final administrative actions
`
`of Scott J. Blower, Merv George Jr., and the United States Forest Service (collectively “Forest
`
`Service” or “Defendants”). In approving the Decision Memorandum (“DM”) for the Slater Fire
`
`Safe Re-entry Project (“Slater Roadside Project” or “Project”) on the Rogue River-Siskiyou
`
`National Forest (“Forest” or “RRSNF”), Defendants acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary
`
`to the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4370h, the National
`
`Forest Management Act (“NFMA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600–1614, and the Endangered Species Act
`
`(“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1544.
`
`2.
`
`The DM authorizes the felling of “danger” trees (also called “hazard” trees)
`
`affected by the 2020 Slater Fire along approximately 146 miles of identified travel corridors, and
`
`the restoration and rehabilitation of site conditions through site-specific seeding and planting of
`
`native grasses, shrubs, and trees in identified roadsides and other areas affected by high intensity
`
`burn.
`
`3.
`
`Under NEPA, the Forest Service did not prepare an Environmental Impact
`
`Statement (“EIS”) or even a less intensive Environmental Assessment (“EA”), and instead
`
`approved the Project pursuant to two Categorical Exclusions (“CE”). CEs apply to categories of
`
`actions that the Forest Service has determined pose no significant environmental effects, either
`
`individually or cumulatively. The Forest Service approved the roadside tree felling portions of
`
`the Project pursuant to a CE applicable to “repair and maintenance” of roads. 36 C.F.R.
`
`§ 220.6(d)(4). The Forest Service approved the restoration and rehabilitation portions of the
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF—2
`
`
`
`Crag Law Center
`3141 E Burnside St.
`Portland, OR 97214
`Tel. (503) 227-2212
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00781-CL Document 1 Filed 05/21/21 Page 3 of 29
`
`Project pursuant to a CE applicable to “post-fire rehabilitation activities.” Id. § 220.6(e)(11).
`
`KFA does not challenge the restoration and rehabilitation portions of the Project.
`
`4.
`
`KFA challenges the application of the “road repair and maintenance” CE to a
`
`project of this magnitude. Along 85 miles of road—covering approximately 4,106 acres—trees
`
`would be felled if they are (1) within 200 feet of the roadway, and (2) pose some hazard risk in
`
`the next five years. Most of these felled trees would be removed pursuant to commercial timber
`
`sale contracts, producing an estimated 30 million board feet of timber. The Forest Service has
`
`failed to articulate a rational explanation as to why such a major “salvage” logging project
`
`constitutes “road repair and maintenance” such that the Forest Service may avoid preparation of
`
`an EIS or even an EA.
`
`5.
`
`KFA acknowledges that felling of some danger trees along some travel corridors
`
`is necessary for the safety of the public and agency personnel, and the Forest already has
`
`conducted operations to address specific danger trees that pose immediate threats to human life
`
`and property pursuant to an emergency response. Now, however, the Forest Service has planned
`
`and authorized a major logging project targeting tens of thousands of trees posing no immediate
`
`hazard risk. Before approving a project of this magnitude, the Forest Service is obligated to
`
`prepare an EIS or EA.
`
`6.
`
`Proper review under an EIS or EA would force the Forest Service to take a “hard
`
`look” at the Project’s environmental impacts, including impacts to ESA-listed northern spotted
`
`owls and important habitat classified as “Late Successional Reserves.” In fact, the Forest Service
`
`concedes that the Project is “likely to adversely affect” owls, but failed to inform the public and
`
`decisionmaker of the scope and magnitude of the impacts or consider any alternatives that would
`
`lessen such impacts. Nor did the Forest Service engage in required consultation with the expert
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF—3
`
`
`
`Crag Law Center
`3141 E Burnside St.
`Portland, OR 97214
`Tel. (503) 227-2212
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00781-CL Document 1 Filed 05/21/21 Page 4 of 29
`
`wildlife agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. And the
`
`Forest Service did not evaluate the Project’s impacts to Late Successional Reserves at all.
`
`7.
`
`KFA respectfully requests this Court to vacate the DM and remand to the Forest
`
`Service for preparation of an EIS or EA for a full and fair analysis of the Project’s impacts.
`
`8.
`
`If necessary, KFA intends to seek narrowly tailored injunctive relief during the
`
`pendency of this litigation to protect sensitive species and their habitats but which would still
`
`permit the felling of any remaining hazardous trees posing an imminent risk along essential
`
`public travel corridors.
`
`9.
`
`Should it prevail, KFA will seek attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Equal
`
`Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(4), and/or any other
`
`applicable authorities.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims present a federal question. A present, actual, and justiciable controversy exists
`
`between the parties. The requested relief for a declaratory judgment is proper under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 2201, and the requested injunctive relief is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2202.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff exhausted its administrative remedies by submitting scoping comments.
`
`The challenged agency action is subject to this Court’s review under 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704, and
`
`706. Defendants have waived sovereign immunity in this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702.
`
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the Project
`
`area is located within this judicial district. Defendants maintain an office in this judicial district.
`
`13.
`
`This case is properly filed in the Medford Division pursuant to Local Rule 3-2
`
`because a substantial part of the Project area, and Defendants’ office where the decision was
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF—4
`
`
`
`Crag Law Center
`3141 E Burnside St.
`Portland, OR 97214
`Tel. (503) 227-2212
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00781-CL Document 1 Filed 05/21/21 Page 5 of 29
`
`signed, are located in Josephine County. A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise
`
`to this claim occurred and the property that is subject to this action is situated in the Medford
`
`Division.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`PARTIES
`
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff KLAMATH FOREST ALLIANCE (“KFA”) is a non-profit community
`
`organization founded in 1989, based in Orleans, California. KFA has 500 members and
`
`supporters. Its mission is to promote sustainable ecosystems and sustainable communities of the
`
`Klamath-Siskiyou Mountain region. KFA participates in forest planning through agency
`
`engagement, substantive comments, and collaboration. KFA uses law, science, place-based
`
`knowledge and conservation advocacy to defend the biodiversity, wildlife, waters, and mature
`
`forests of the Klamath-Siskiyou bioregion. KFA’s members and supporters use and enjoy the
`
`Project area and would be irreparably harmed if the Project moves forward.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff’s members and supporters regularly visit and enjoy the Forest, including
`
`the Project area, and intend to do so again in the near future. The members and supporters
`
`appreciate the aesthetics of the Forest, including its waters and wildlife, and use the area to
`
`engage in recreational, scientific, and spiritual activities, such as hunting, hiking, camping,
`
`fishing, photography, watershed research, and observing wildlife.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff has organizational interests in the proper and lawful management of the
`
`Forest. Plaintiff and its members and supporters have participated extensively in relevant
`
`administrative actions and have actively participated in the Project’s administrative process.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff, its members, supporters, and staff would sustain injury to aesthetic,
`
`educational, recreational, spiritual, and scientific interests if the Project proceeds as authorized.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF—5
`
`
`
`Crag Law Center
`3141 E Burnside St.
`Portland, OR 97214
`Tel. (503) 227-2212
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00781-CL Document 1 Filed 05/21/21 Page 6 of 29
`
`Plaintiff, its members, supporters, and staff have concrete plans to return to the area where the
`
`Project is proposed. Unless this Court grants the requested relief, Plaintiff, its members,
`
`supporters, and staff will be adversely and irreparably harmed by the Project.
`
`Defendants
`
`18.
`
`Defendant SCOTT J. BLOWER is the Wild Rivers District Ranger for the Forest.
`
`Mr. Blower is the Responsible Official for the Project, and he signed the Decision Memorandum,
`
`constituting the final administrative action. As Wild Rivers District Ranger, Mr. Blower has the
`
`responsibility to ensure that the Project is consistent with applicable laws and regulations.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action against Mr. Blower in his official capacity.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant MERV GEORGE JR. is the Forest Supervisor for the Forest. Upon
`
`information and belief, Mr. George authorized Mr. Blower to sign the Decision Memorandum.
`
`As Forest Supervisor, Mr. George has the responsibility to ensure that all projects on the Forest
`
`are consistent with applicable laws and regulations. Plaintiff brings this action against Mr.
`
`George in his official capacity.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant the UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE is an agency within the
`
`United States Department of Agriculture entrusted with the management of our national forests.
`
`The Forest Service is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and it has nine regions across the
`
`country. The national forests of Oregon are in Region 6. All or a significant portion of the
`
`actions and omissions alleged in this Complaint occurred in Region 6.
`
`
`
`National Environmental Policy Act
`
`
`LEGAL BACKGROUND
`
`21.
`
`Congress enacted NEPA to “declare a national policy which will encourage
`
`productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF—6
`
`
`
`Crag Law Center
`3141 E Burnside St.
`Portland, OR 97214
`Tel. (503) 227-2212
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00781-CL Document 1 Filed 05/21/21 Page 7 of 29
`
`will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and
`
`welfare of man; [and] to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources
`
`important to the Nation.” 42 U.S.C. § 4321.
`
`22.
`
`To accomplish these purposes, NEPA requires all agencies of the federal
`
`government to prepare a “detailed statement” for all “major federal actions significantly affecting
`
`the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). Commonly known as the
`
`Environmental Impact Statement or EIS, the detailed statement must describe, inter alia, the
`
`adverse environmental impact of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. Id.
`
`23.
`
`NEPA further requires federal agencies to “study, develop, and describe
`
`appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves
`
`unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” Id. § 4332(2)(E).
`
`24.
`
`The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) promulgated regulations
`
`implementing NEPA and elaborating on the requirements of an EIS. 42 U.S.C. § 4342
`
`(establishing CEQ); 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500–1508 (2019) (CEQ’s NEPA regulations). CEQ modified
`
`the NEPA regulations by final rule on July 16, 2020. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500–1508 (2020).
`
`25.
`
`On his first day of office, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990:
`
`Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate
`
`Crisis.1 The policy statement of EO 13990 provides that the policy of the Biden Administration
`
`is to, inter alia, listen to the science and to improve public health and protect our environment.
`
`EO 13990 directs the heads of all agencies to immediately review all existing regulations, orders,
`
`
`1 Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-
`actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-
`science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF—7
`
`
`
`Crag Law Center
`3141 E Burnside St.
`Portland, OR 97214
`Tel. (503) 227-2212
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00781-CL Document 1 Filed 05/21/21 Page 8 of 29
`
`guidance documents, policies, and any similar agency actions promulgated, issued, or adopted
`
`between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021 that are inconsistent with the policy statement.
`
`26.
`
`The Biden Administration provided a non-exclusive list of agency actions that the
`
`heads of relevant agencies will review in accordance with EO 13990. See Fact Sheet: List of
`
`Agency Actions for Review.2 The modification to the CEQ regulations is on the list.
`
`27.
`
`The heads of some executive agencies and departments already have taken action
`
`pursuant to EO 13990. See, e.g., Secretary of the Interior Order (“SO”) No. 3399: Department-
`
`Wide Approach to the Climate Crisis and Restoring Transparency and Integrity to the Decision-
`
`Making Process.3 SO 3399 provides that “Bureaus/Offices will not apply the 2020 Rule in a
`
`manner that would change the application or level of NEPA that would have been applied to a
`
`proposed action before the 2020 Rule went into effect on September 14, 2020.” A similar
`
`directive applicable to the Forest Service/U.S. Department of Agriculture may be forthcoming.
`
`28.
`
`Under the 2020 NEPA regulations, agencies are to determine the appropriate level
`
`of NEPA review for a given project. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.3 (2020). Agencies must determine
`
`whether the proposed action: (1) Normally does not have significant effects and is categorically
`
`excluded; (2) is not likely to have significant effects or the significance of the effects is unknown
`
`and is therefore appropriate for an environmental assessment (“EA”); or (3) is likely to have
`
`significant effects and is therefore appropriate for an EIS. Id.
`
`29.
`
`CEQ regulations direct federal agencies to identify in their NEPA procedures
`
`certain categories of actions that normally do not require preparation of an EA or EIS. See 40
`
`C.F.R. § 1501.4(a) (2020); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4 (2019). The Forest Service promulgated a series
`
`
`2 Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
`releases/2021/01/20/fact-sheet-list-of-agency-actions-for-review/
`3 Available at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3399-508_0.pdf
`Crag Law Center
`3141 E Burnside St.
`Portland, OR 97214
`Tel. (503) 227-2212
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF—8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00781-CL Document 1 Filed 05/21/21 Page 9 of 29
`
`of categorical exclusions pursuant to the previous version of the CEQ regulations, which defined
`
`“categorical exclusion” as a “category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have
`
`a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect
`
`by a federal agency in implementation of these regulations. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4 (2019); 57 Fed.
`
`Reg. 43,180 (Sept. 18, 1992) (establishing categories); 73 Fed. Reg. 43,084 (July 24, 2008)
`
`(placing established categories under Forest Service NEPA regulations at 36 C.F.R. Part 220).
`
`30.
`
`36 C.F.R. § 220.6(a) provides that a proposed action may be categorically
`
`excluded from further analysis and documentation in an EIS or EA only if there are no
`
`extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action and if it is within one of the
`
`categories established by the Secretary or it is within a category listed in Section 220.6(d) and
`
`(e).
`
`31.
`
`36 C.F.R. § 220.6(b) lists the resource conditions that should be considered in
`
`determining whether extraordinary circumstances related to a proposed action warrant further
`
`analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS, including “Federally listed threatened or
`
`endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or
`
`proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species.” Id. § 220.6(b)(1)(i). According to
`
`36 C.F.R. § 220.6(b)(2), the “mere presence of one or more of the resource conditions does not
`
`preclude use of a categorical exclusion; it is the existence of a cause-effect relationship between
`
`a proposed action and the potential effect on these resource conditions, and if such a relationship
`
`exists, the degree of potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions that
`
`determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist.”
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF—9
`
`
`
`Crag Law Center
`3141 E Burnside St.
`Portland, OR 97214
`Tel. (503) 227-2212
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00781-CL Document 1 Filed 05/21/21 Page 10 of 29
`
`32.
`
`36 C.F.R. § 220.6(d) lists the categories of actions for which a project or case file
`
`and decision memo are not required. One such category is the repair and maintenance of roads,
`
`trails, and landline boundaries. Id. § 220.6(d)(4). Examples include, but are not limited to:
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`(i)
`
`(i)
`
`(i)
`
`Authorizing a user to grade, resurface, and clean the culverts of an
`established National Forest System road;
`
`Grading a road and clearing the roadside of brush without the use of
`herbicides;
`
`Resurfacing a road to its original condition;
`
`Pruning vegetation and cleaning culverts along a trail and grooming the
`surface of the trail; and
`
`Surveying, painting, and posting landline boundaries.
`
`
`
`33.
`
`36 C.F.R. § 220.6(e) lists the categories of actions for which a project or case file
`
`and decision memo are required. One such category is post-fire rehabilitation activities, not to
`
`exceed 4,200 acres (such as tree planting, fence replacement, habitat restoration, heritage site
`
`restoration, repair of roads and trails, and repair of damage to minor facilities such as
`
`campgrounds). Id. § 220.6(e)(11).
`
`34.
`
`Another such category is salvage of dead and/or dying trees not to exceed 250
`
`acres, requiring no more than ½ mile of temporary road construction. 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(e)(13).
`
`Examples include, but are not limited to:
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`35.
`
`Harvest of a portion of a stand damaged by a wind or ice event and construction
`of a short temporary road to access the damaged trees; and
`
`Harvest of fire-damaged trees.
`
`Forest Service regulations require “scoping” for all Forest Service proposed
`
`actions, including those that would be categorically excluded from further analysis and
`
`documentation in an EA or EIS. 36 C.F.R. § 220.4(e)(1). “If the responsible official determines,
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF—10
`
`
`
`Crag Law Center
`3141 E Burnside St.
`Portland, OR 97214
`Tel. (503) 227-2212
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00781-CL Document 1 Filed 05/21/21 Page 11 of 29
`
`based on scoping, that it is uncertain whether the proposed action may have a significant effect
`
`on the environment,” the Forest Service must prepare an EA. 36 C.F.R. § 220.4(e)(2). “If the
`
`responsible official determines, based on scoping, that the proposed action may have a
`
`significant environmental effect,” the Forest Service must prepare an EIS. Id.
`
`National Forest Management Act (NFMA)
`
`36.
`
`The Forest is part of the National Forest System and is therefore subject to NFMA
`
`and its planning regulations.
`
`37.
`
`Pursuant to NFMA, management of National Forests occurs at two levels: forest
`
`and project. At the forest level, NFMA requires the Secretary of Agriculture to “develop,
`
`maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land and resource management plans for units of the
`
`National Forest System.” 16 U.S.C. 1604(a).
`
`38.
`
`The Forest Service, which manages the National Forest System, uses these plans,
`
`called “forest plans,” to guide all natural resource management activities, including use of the
`
`land for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness. 36
`
`C.F.R. § 219.1 (2000); 16 U.S.C. § 1604(e)(1). A forest plan is a broad, long-term programmatic
`
`planning document for the entire forest, containing goals and objectives for individual units of
`
`the forest and providing standards and guidelines for management of forest resources.
`
`39.
`
`At the project level, once a forest plan is in place, site-specific actions or
`
`“projects” are planned and evaluated by the Forest Service. Each site-specific project must be
`
`consistent with the governing forest plan. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i).
`
`40.
`
`In 1989 and 1990, the Forest Service adopted the Siskiyou and Rogue National
`
`Forest Land and Resource Management Plans, respectively (collectively “Forest Plan”), which
`
`provides standards and guidelines for project-level planning within the Forest.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF—11
`
`
`
`Crag Law Center
`3141 E Burnside St.
`Portland, OR 97214
`Tel. (503) 227-2212
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00781-CL Document 1 Filed 05/21/21 Page 12 of 29
`
`41.
`
`In 1994, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management adopted the
`
`Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan (“NWFP”). The NWFP established
`
`management requirements for all Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land within
`
`the range of the northern spotted owl. The NWFP contains mandatory standards relating to the
`
`protection of northern spotted owls.
`
`42.
`
`The Forest is within the range of the northern spotted owl; the Forest Plan has
`
`been amended to include the management direction included in the NWFP.
`
`43.
`
`All management activities, actions, and projects on the Forest must comply with
`
`the Forest Plan and NWFP. In the event that there are differences in management direction
`
`between the two documents, the more restrictive of the two documents governs.
`
`Endangered Species Act
`
`
`44.
`
`Congress enacted the ESA “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon
`
`which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved” and to “provide a
`
`program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take
`
`such steps as may be appropriate.” 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b).
`
`45.
`
`To achieve these purposes, the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior are
`
`responsible for administering and enforcing the ESA. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(15). The Secretaries of
`
`Commerce and the Interior delegated this responsibility to the National Marine Fisheries Service
`
`(“NMFS”) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) (collectively, the “Services”),
`
`respectively. 50 C.F.R. § 402.02(b). FWS administers the ESA as to terrestrial and freshwater
`
`species, and NFMS administers the ESA as to marine species.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF—12
`
`
`
`Crag Law Center
`3141 E Burnside St.
`Portland, OR 97214
`Tel. (503) 227-2212
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00781-CL Document 1 Filed 05/21/21 Page 13 of 29
`
`46.
`
`The ESA makes it unlawful to “take” any “endangered” species and certain
`
`“threatened” species for which protective regulations have been promulgated. 16 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1538(a)(1), 1533(d).
`
`47.
`
`Take means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or
`
`attempt to engage in any such conduct” with a listed species. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19). Harm means
`
`“an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat
`
`modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing
`
`essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.3.
`
`48.
`
`An “endangered species” is “any species which is in danger of extinction
`
`throughout all or a significant portion of its range . . . .” 16 U.S.C. §1532(6). A “threatened
`
`species” is “any species which is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
`
`throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” 16 U.S.C. §1532(20).
`
`49.
`
`Section 7 of the ESA imposes substantive and procedural obligations on federal
`
`agencies like the Forest Service. Substantively, Section 7 provides that federal agencies must
`
`“insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency * * * is not likely to
`
`jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in
`
`the adverse modification of habitat of such species * * * determined * * * to be critical.” 16
`
`U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).
`
`50.
`
`Procedurally, Section 7 requires federal agencies (the “action agency”) to engage
`
`in consultation with the applicable Service before undertaking a discretionary action that may
`
`affect listed species or critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).
`
`51.
`
`Section 7 consultation is either informal or formal. Informal consultation is a
`
`process designed to help the action agency determine whether to engage in formal consultation.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF—13
`
`
`
`Crag Law Center
`3141 E Burnside St.
`Portland, OR 97214
`Tel. (503) 227-2212
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00781-CL Document 1 Filed 05/21/21 Page 14 of 29
`
`40 C.F.R. § 402.13. If the action agency determines that the proposed action may affect, but is
`
`“not likely to adversely affect” (“NLAA”) listed species or critical habitat, and the appropriate
`
`Service concurs in writing, formal consultation is not required. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(b)(1).
`
`52.
`
`If the action agency decides that the action may affect, and is likely to adversely
`
`affect (“LAA”) a listed species, the action agency must engage in formal consultation with the
`
`appropriate Service. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). Formal consultation also is required if the consulting
`
`agency does not concur in writing with the action agency’s NLAA determination. 50 C.F.R.
`
`§ 402.14(b).
`
`53.
`
`During formal consultation, the appropriate Service must “formulate its biological
`
`opinion as to whether the action, taken together with cumulative effects, is likely to jeopardize
`
`the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
`
`critical habitat.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(4). The biological opinion (“BiOp”) must be based on the
`
`best available science and commercial data. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).
`
`54.
`
`The BiOp must include: A summary of the information on which the BiOp is
`
`based; a detailed discussion of the environmental baseline of the listed species and critical
`
`habitat; a detailed discussion of the effects of the action on listed species and critical habitat; and
`
`the Service’s “jeopardy” opinion. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(h)(1).
`
`55.
`
`In formulating its “jeopardy” opinion, the Service must, inter alia, add the effects
`
`of the action and cumulative effects to the environmental baseline. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g).
`
`56.
`
`If the Service determines that the action is “likely to jeopardize the continued
`
`existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
`
`habitat,” the BiOp must include reasonable and prudent alternatives. Id. § 402.14(h)(1)(2).
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF—14
`
`
`
`Crag Law Center
`3141 E Burnside St.
`Portland, OR 97214
`Tel. (503) 227-2212
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00781-CL Document 1 Filed 05/21/21 Page 15 of 29
`
`57.
`
`The Service must issue an incidental take statement to the action agency if after
`
`formal consultation, the Service concludes that the proposed action will result in take but is not
`
`likely to jeopardize a listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4).
`
`The incidental take statement must specify: The impact, i.e., the amount or extent, of the
`
`incidental taking on the species; reasonable and prudent measures necessary or appropriate to
`
`minimize the impact; and terms and conditions that must be complied with by the action agency
`
`to implement the specified measures. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4)(C); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i).
`
`58.
`
`If the level of incidental take authorized by the incidental take permit is exceeded,
`
`either the action agency or the Service must reinitiate formal consultation. 50 C.F.R. § 402.16.
`
`59. Where emergency circumstances mandate the need to consult in an expedited
`
`manner, consultation may be conducted informally through alternative procedures. 50 C.F.R.
`
`§ 402.05(a). This provision applies to situations involving acts of God, disasters, casualties,
`
`national defense, or security emergencies, etc. Id.
`
`60.
`
`Formal consultation must be initiated as soon as practicable after the emergency is
`
`under control. Id. § 402.05(b).
`
`61.
`
`After the initiation of consultation, the action agency shall not make any
`
`irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources which has the effect of foreclosing the
`
`formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(d).
`
`Administrative Procedure Act
`
`
`62.
`
`The APA confers a right of judicial review on any person adversely affected by
`
`agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute. 5 U.S.C. § 702. Agency action made
`
`reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in
`
`court are subject to judicial review. 5 U.S.C. § 704.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF—15
`
`
`
`Crag Law Center
`3141 E Burnside St.
`Portland, OR 97214
`Tel. (503) 227-2212
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00781-CL Document 1 Filed 05/21/21 Page 16 of 29
`
`63.
`
`Upon review under the APA, a court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency
`
`action * * * found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
`
`accordance with law * * *.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). Furthermore, when an agency has taken action
`
`without observance of the procedure required by law, that action will be set aside. 5 U.S.C.
`
`§ 706(2)(D).
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is located in Southern Oregon and
`
`64.
`
`Northern California and ranges from the crest of the Cascade Range west into the Siskiyou
`
`Mountains, covering almost 1.8 million acres. The name “Rogue River” commemorates the
`
`Takelma tribe, whose defense of their homeland led early French-Canadian trappers to call them
`
`les Coquins, meaning “the Rogues.”
`
`65.
`
`The Siskiyou Forest Reserve was established by President Theodore Roosevelt in
`
`1905, and the Reserve was designated as the Siskiyou National Forest in 1907. The name
`
`“Siskiyou” is a Cree word for “bob-tailed horse” (bestowed in 1828 by French Canadians
`
`working for the Hudson Bay Company). The formerly separate Rogue River and Siskiyou
`
`National Forests were administratively combined in 2004.
`
`66.
`
`The varied geological substrate and the climatic extremes of the Siskiyou
`
`Mountains provide a range of niches for a rich diversity of geologic material. The Siskiyou
`
`Mountains present a biological treasure trove of varied and unique species. There are 28 different
`
`coniferous species, and numerous rare and endemic plants found in the Siskiyous.
`
`67.
`
`The Forest is home to numerous fish and wildlife species, including coastal
`
`marten, coho salmon, and northern spotted owl.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF—16
`
`
`
`Crag Law Center
`3141 E Burnside St.
`Portland, OR 97214
`Tel. (503) 227-2212
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00781-CL Document 1 Fil

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket