UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Quincy Library Group, an association of citizens;
and Plumas County, a California public agency,
PETITION FOR WRIT OF |
Petitioners,
Vs.
United States Forest Service; Bradley Powell,
Regional Forester, Region 5; Dale Bosworth,
Chief of the Forest Service; and Mark Rey,
Under-Secretary of Agriculture for Natural
Resources and the Environment
Respondents,
_____________________________________________
Petitioners Quincy Library Group and Plumas County, hereinafter jointly referred to as QLG, hereby petition this Court for writs of mandamus directed to the United States Forest Service, the Chief of the Forest Service, and the Regional Forester for Region 5 (California) (hereinafter collectively Forest Service), and by this verified Petition allege as follows:
This action challenges the Forest Service's adoption and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Sierra Nevada Forest Planning Amendment (SNFPA). Petitioners seek a writ of mandate commanding the Forest Service to vacate its Record of Decision signed on January 12, 2001 and to prepare a legally sufficient environmental impact statement using authorized regulatory procedures under the National Forest Management Act.
1. Petitioner Quincy Library Group is a voluntary association of individuals, government agencies, corporations and other business entities and is vitally interested in federal forest management since the local economy and environment depend upon it. The QLG has approximately thirty members and has been active in environmental and federal management issues within the Northern Sierra for l0 years. QLG members have a special connection by residence, employment, community, and lifestyle with the Sierra Nevada range in general and with the HFQLG area that is most impacted by the SNFPA in particular. Members representing QLG have attended every meeting concerning the SNFPA process and have provided extensive evidence in the administrative record. The members of QLG have done this because of their knowledge that Sierra Nevada is a “unique” forest resource for California, the United States and the world. Members recreate in the Sierra Nevada year-round and take part in the extensive planning activities that determine federal land management in the range. The QLG has been attempting to resolve the question of appropriate federal forest management by working for balanced harmony in the face of contentious debate about the appropriate spotted owl/fire/logging balance in the range. QLG proposed a program of local management to the executive and legislative branches of government. That proposal resulted in the HFQLG Act of 1998. QLG members took part in the EIS process for the HFQLG Pilot Project directed by the Act, and administratively appealed the decision to alter the implementation of the Act. QLG members took part in the EIS process for the SNFPA, and administratively appealed the decision in the ROD to again alter the implementation of the Act. Individual members of the QLG can be found in the Sierra Nevada year-round; watching birds, canoeing the rivers, fishing the waters, guiding scientific groups, working, hunting, and recreating with their families in this natural setting.
2. Petitioner PLUMAS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS is the governing Board of the California public agency that has the principal responsibility for preserving and promoting the general health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Plumas County. Since Plumas County is 74% owned by the federal government and the management of that land has the largest effect on the economy and the environment of Plumas County, the county Board of Supervisors has long been engaged in attempting to balance federal management between local and national purposes and needs.
3. Respondent United States Forest Service is a federal agency in the Department of Agriculture that has ownership and management authority over the 11 Sierra Nevada national forests that make up area covered in both the HFQLG Act and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.
4. This court has jurisdiction over this matter under------------------------------------
5. Venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of California under-------------------