Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49055763/Woodpecker-Lawsuit
Timestamp: 2013-05-18 21:22:16
Document Index: 370767128

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4321', '§1600', '§ 501', '§ 1331', '§ 2201', '§ 705', '§ 1391']

Rachel M. Fazio (CA Bar No. 187580)P.O. Box 697Cedar Ridge, CA 95924(530) 273-9290rfazio@nccn.net Sarah Uhlemann (WA Bar No. 41164)Center for Biological DiversityP.O. Box 31001Seattle, WA 98103-9998(206) 327-2344suhlemann@biologicaldiversity.org *Application of pro hac vice
admission pendingJustin Augustine (CA Bar No. 235561)Center for Biological Diversity351 California St., Suite 600San Francisco, CA 94104(415) 436-9682Fax: (415) 436-9683 jaugustine@biologicaldiversity.org
EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE andCENTER FOR BIOLOGICALDIVERSITY,Plaintiffs,v.TERRI MARCERON, in her official capacityas Forest Supervisor for the Lake TahoeBasin Management Unit, and UNITEDSTATES FOREST SERVICE, an agency of the Department of Agriculture,Defendants.Case No.
Case 2:11-at-00190 Document 1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 1 of 18
1. Through this action, Plaintiffs Earth Island Institute and Center for Biological Diversitychallenge the Angora Fire Restoration Project (“Angora Project”) in the Lake Tahoe Basin ManagementUnit (“LTBMU”) of the United States Forest Service. The Angora Project proposes to log 1,398 acresof rare “snag forest habitat” (dense mature and old forest that has experienced moderate to high-intensitywildland fire) on national forest lands near the south side of Lake Tahoe in California and will includethe construction of 7.7 miles of roads and 23 new “landing areas” or forest openings.2. In 2007, the Angora fire burned the Project area at varying intensities. Burned forestprovides essential habitat for many fire-dependent species, including the declining black-backedwoodpecker. This species requires moderately to severely burned forest habitat, including a very highdensity of large “snags” or dead trees, for nesting and foraging. The Angora Project will eliminate about70% of the last remaining black-backed woodpecker suitable habitat currently available in the LakeTahoe Basin Management Unit. According to the Forest Service’s overestimate, this leaves sufficienthabitat for about 23 pairs of black-backed woodpeckers (EA, pp. 3.6-65 through 3.6-66); though thescientific studies cited in the Angora EA on this issue show the remaining habitat would support farfewer pairs than this—as few as 2 to 4 pairs. Yet, whether 23 pairs or 4 pairs would remain after theplanned logging, the Forest Service has never determined the minimum viable population of black-backed woodpeckers on the LTBMU or whether the Angora project would push black-backedwoodpecker populations below this critical threshold and threaten the populations’ viability across theLTBMU.3. In addition, and unlike most salvage logging projects that send wood to mills for lumber,most of the large snags that would be logged in the Angora Project, which currently provide extremelyrare and important habitat, would be sent to biomass facilities and burned to generate energy.Greenhouse gas emissions from the Angora Project would be substantial. In addition to the greenhousegases released during logging from soil disturbance, burning of unwanted materials on-site, equipmentuse, and transportation of the biomass, burning wood to produce biomass energy emits substantialamounts of greenhouse gases – as much as burning coal. The Forest Service failed to fully consider all
Case 2:11-at-00190 Document 1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 2 of 18
greenhouse gas emissions from the Angora Project along with their potential impacts and writes off these emissions as insignificant.4. This action arises under, and alleges violation of, the National Environmental Policy Act(“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321
; the National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”), 16 U.S.C. §§1600
; and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 501
; and the statutes’implementing regulations. Specifically, this action challenges the Angora Fire Restoration ProjectDecision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) issued by Terri Marceron, ForestSupervisor for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, and the United States Forest Service (referred tocollectively as “Defendants” or “Forest Service”). Plaintiffs may seek temporary, preliminary, orpermanent injunctions against all or portions of the federally approved activities challenged herein toforestall irreparable injury to the environment and to Plaintiffs’ interests, and any other such relief as theCourt deems appropriate.
5. Jurisdiction over this action is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question), 2201(declaratory relief), and 2202 (injunctive relief). This cause of action arises under the laws of the UnitedStates, including NEPA, NFMA, the APA, and implementing regulations established pursuant to thesefederal statutes. An actual, justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants. Therequested relief is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and 5 U.S.C. §§ 705 and 706.
6. Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C §§ 1391 and 1392. The actions challengedin this case, including the Decision Notice and FONSI, were developed and issued by Defendants in theLake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, which is headquartered in South Lake Tahoe, California, located inEl Dorado County. Additionally, land subject to the challenged decisions is located in this judicialdistrict. Venue therefore properly vests in this district.
7. Plaintiff Earth Island Institute (“EII”) is a nonprofit corporation organized under the lawsof the state of California. EII is headquartered in Berkeley, California. EII’s mission is to develop and
Case 2:11-at-00190 Document 1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 3 of 18
SearchSearch History: Searching...Result 00 of 0000 results for result for p. Woodpecker LawsuitDownload or PrintAdd To Collection734Reads0Readcasts0Embed ViewsThis is a private document.
Published bysrust2792FollowSearchTIP Press Ctrl-F⌘F to search anywhere in the document.Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.See Premium PlansInfo and RatingCategory:Uncategorized.Rating:Upload Date:02/17/2011Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialTags:No tagsFree download or readfalse online for free.Flag for inappropriate contenthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/49055763/Woodpecker-Lawsuit02/17/2011pdftextoriginal
More From This User5 p.Vetter Brown Widow JME (1)srust2792648 Reads3 p.Letter to WCB 05.29.2012srust2792261 Reads135 p.FinalAgenda5_12srust2792576 Reads7 p.Leg Counsel Opinion 0001srust279243 Reads4 p.Land Trust letter to WCBsrust2792356 Reads6 p.sealionupdate4-20-12srust2792202 Reads9 p.Truck Petitionsrust2792347 Reads22 p.Appraisal Reviewsrust27921631 Reads105 p.FinalAgenda9_2011 (2)srust2792202 Reads122 p.Minutes 24Feb2011 2srust2792647 Reads2 p.PavleytoCalEPAsrust2792439 Reads1 p.EPAtoPavleysrust2792224 Reads1 p.Torlakson Statementsrust27921032 Reads1 p.PGEDNCPPstatementsrust2792278 Reads23 p.Extended Hosgri Faultsrust2792576 Reads23 p.sanonofre.jsp (2)srust2792141 Reads25 p.Diablo Canyon (1)srust27921155 Reads21 p.Quest.allergysrust27921745 Reads6 p.allergy.CO2srust2792719 Reads8 p.Francis at Al 2011srust2792744 Reads3 p.Hastings Bills Leg0411_03 1 (1)srust2792592 Reads5 p.Peng_etal_GRL_2011srust2792619 Reads8 p.LEDssrust27921668 Reads8 p.LEDssrust2792187 Reads