This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Environmental Law
National Environmental Policy Act

Mountain Communities for Fire Safety, Los Padres Forestwatch, Earth Justice Institute v. Kevin Elliott, in his official capacity as the Forest Supervisor of the Los Padres National Forest and the United States Forest Service

Published: Jul. 17, 2020 | Result Date: May 26, 2020 | Filing Date: Jul. 29, 2019 |

Case number: 2:19-cv-06539-CAS-AFM Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Christina A. Snyder

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Michelle N. Black
(Chatten-Brown, Carstens & Minteer, LLP)

Douglas P. Carstens
(Carstens Black & Minteer LLP)

Rene P. Voss
(Rene P. Voss, Attorney at Law)


Defendant

Erika D. Norman
(U.S. Dept. of Justice)


Facts

Los Padres Forestwatch was an organization geared towards restoring public lands, particularly in the Los Padres National Forest. After the approval of the Cuddy Valley Project, a vegetation treatment program for surrounding areas including the Los Padres Forrest, the LPFW and other similar organizations sought further environmental analysis from the Los Padres Forest Supervisor to ensure the project's compliance with applicable regulations.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended defendants' approval of the Cuddy Valley Project was not categorically excluded from further environmental review because it intended to thin trees of all sizes in violation of applicable environmental law. Plaintiffs also contended that the manner in which defendants intended to thin the surrounding forest area was not protected by a categorical exception under the National Environmental Policy Act. Plaintiffs also contended that defendants failed to consider the aesthetic effect and deviation from desired area plans the Cuddy Valley Project presented in violation of the National Forest Management Act.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied the contentions and contended that the Cuddy Valley Project was categorically exempt under the National Environmental Policy Act. Defendants further contended that all relevant and necessary factors were considered in the initial environmental report in compliance with the National Forest Management Act and were therefore entitled to summary judgment against plaintiffs.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Other Information

Plaintiffs have appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.


#135056

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390