1 Patrick Gallagher (CA Bar No.146105) Sierra Club 2 85 Second Street San Francisco, CA 94104 3 (415) 977-5709 (415) 977-5793 FAX 4 [email protected] 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs Sierra Club and 6 Tule River Conservancy 7 Additional Counsel listed on next page 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SIERRA CLUB, TULE RIVER ) CONSERVANCY, SIERRA NEVADA ) 11 FOREST PROTECTION CAMPAIGN, ) Case No.: EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE, SEQUOIA ) 12 FORESTKEEPER, and CENTER FOR ) BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, non-profit ) 13 organizations, ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 14 ) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiffs, ) 15 ) (Administrative Procedure Act Case) v. ) 16 ) DALE BOSWORTH, in his official capacity ) 17 as Chief of the United States Forest Service, ) JACK BLACKWELL, in his official ) 18 capacity as Regional Forester, Region 5, ) United States Forest Service, KENT ) 19 CONNAUGHTON, in his official capacity ) as Deputy Regional Forester, Region 5, ) 20 United States Forest Service, ARTHUR ) 21 GAFFREY in his official capacity as Forest ) Supervisor, Sequoia National Forest, ) 22 UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, an ) agency of the U.S. Department of ) 23 Agriculture, MIKE JOHANNS, in his ) official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. ) 24 Dept. of Agriculture, and UNITED STATES ) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ) 25 ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT 1 Eric E. Huber, (Colo. Bar No. SC 700024) Pro Hac Vice Application Pending Sierra Club 2 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 105 Boulder, CO 80302 3 (303) 449-5595 4 (303) 449-0740 FAX [email protected] 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs 6 Sierra Club and Tule River Conservancy 7 8 Deborah Reames (CA Bar No. 117257) Anne C. Harper (CA Bar No. 176202) 9 Earthjustice 10 426 17th Street, 5th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 11 (510) 550-6725 (510) 550-6749 FAX 12 [email protected] [email protected] 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 14 Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign and Center for Biological Diversity 15 16 Rachel M. Fazio (CA Bar No. 187580) 17 John Muir Project P.O. Box 697 18 Cedar Ridge, CA 95924 (530) 273-9290 19 (530) 273-9260 FAX [email protected] 20 Attorney for Plaintiffs 21 Earth Island Institute and 22 Sequoia Forestkeeper. 23 24 25 COMPLAINT 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1. Plaintiffs bring this action to protect the magnificent Giant Sequoia National 3 Monument (“Sequoia Monument”) from the unlawful actions of the U.S. Forest Service and 4 Department of Agriculture and their responsible officials. The Sequoia Monument is an 5 exceptionally popular national treasure, containing approximately two-thirds of all of the giant 6 sequoia trees in the world. Most of the world’s remaining giant sequoias are located in the 7 adjacent Sequoia National Park. In stark contrast to the very successful management techniques 8 used for decades by the National Park Service in the Sequoia National Park, Defendants 9 10 approved a “Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan” and associated final 11 environmental impact statement (“FEIS”) that would permit extensive logging and cause the 12 degradation of old forest habitat and irreparable harm to the Sequoia Monument’s wildlife, 13 directly conflicting with the purposes of the Monument. Defendants’ actions also threaten to 14 exacerbate rather than lessen the risk posed by wildland fire to the Monument and nearby 15 communities. In contrast, the National Park Service has been using prescribed fire for decades in 16 the Sequoia National Park to protect communities, reduce fuels, sustain biological diversity and 17 stimulate the growth of young giant sequoia trees. Defendants’ actions violate the National 18 Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. (“NEPA”), inter alia, because they 19 contradict sound science and failed to provide accurate and meaningful information to the public 20 concerning the Management Plan’s scope, purpose, and environmental effects. Plaintiffs seek an 21 22 order vacating and remanding defendants’ actions to remedy their violations of NEPA. 23 JURISDICTION 24 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (action arising 25 under the laws of the United States), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. (Administrative Procedure Act) and 1 COMPLAINT 1 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 (Declaratory Judgment Act). Plaintiffs have exhausted all 2 administrative remedies and the violations of law claimed below are ripe for judicial review. 3 VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 4 3. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-2(c), plaintiffs state that they base venue in this 5 district and assignment to the San Francisco Division on the following: 1) plaintiffs Sierra Club 6 and Earth Island Institute are incorporated in California and reside and maintain their 7 headquarters in San Francisco County in this judicial district; 2) this action seeks relief against 8 federal officials acting in their official capacities; and 3) 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361 and 1391(e) provide 9 10 for venue in the judicial district of a plaintiff’s residence, including the San Francisco Division. 11 PARTIES 12 4. Plaintiff Sierra Club is a nonprofit corporation organized under California law, 13 with more than 700,000 members nationwide. The Sierra Club is closely identified with the 14 magnificent giant sequoia tree; an image of the giant sequoia forms the organization’s official 15 logo. Beginning in 1901, when John Muir lobbied for the expansion of Sequoia National Park to 16 encompass the entire range of the giant sequoia, the Sierra Club has advocated for the protection 17 of giant sequoia ecosystems in their entirety. Members of the Sierra Club’s Tehipite and Kern- 18 Kaweah chapters and Sequoia Task Force have participated in numerous legal and regulatory 19 actions to protect the giant sequoia, including: a 1986 administrative appeal to stop first entry 20 logging into the Freeman Creek Grove; a federal lawsuit that secured an injunction on sequoia 21 grove logging in 1988; participation in all phases of planning for the Sequoia National Forest 22 Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) in the 1980’s; an administrative appeal of the 23 1988 LRMP; negotiation of the 1990 Mediated Settlement Agreement resolving the 1988 LRMP 24 appeal; support and lobbying for Congressman Brown’s bill, HR 2153, which was the 25 foundation for the eventual Sequoia Monument Proclamation; support and lobbying for President Clinton’s Proclamation on April 15, 2000 establishing the Sequoia Monument; the submission of 2 COMPLAINT 1 detailed recommendations to both the Sequoia National Forest and the Science Advisory Board 2 during the development of the Sequoia Monument Management Plan and FEIS; and an 3 administrative appeal of the Record of Decision approving the Management Plan and FEIS. 4 5. Plaintiff Tule River Conservancy (“TRC”) is a nonprofit corporation organized 5 under California law, with more than 200 members who live, own property, or recreate in the 6 immediate environs of Sequoia National Forest. The Tule River Conservancy was organized 7 specifically to foster responsible, sound management of Sequoia National Forest and to educate 8 the public about how they can help encourage protection of forest resources. Since its 9 establishment, TRC has regularly and routinely submitted comments regarding projects proposed 10 in Sequoia National Forest and Sequoia National Monument. During the 1990’s, TRC provided 11 educational tours for Congressional members of Forest Service logging practices in Giant 12 Sequoia groves. They have analyzed and compiled extensive records documenting logging 13 damages on lands now within the Monument. They provided background information to the 14 administration leading to President Clinton’s Proclamation on April 15, 2000 establishing the 15 Giant Sequoia National Monument. TRC was a member of the coalition of environmental 16 groups that opposed the lawsuit that sought to dismantle the Giant Sequoia National Monument. 17 TRC submitted detailed recommendations to both the Sequoia National Forest and the Science 18 Advisory Board during the development of the Sequoia Monument Management Plan and draft 19 EIS; and filed an administrative appeal of the Record of Decision approving the Management 20 Plan and FEIS. 21 6. Plaintiff Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign is a coalition of over eighty 22 local, regional and national environmental organizations dedicated to protecting and restoring the 23 Sierra Nevada’s forests, including the Sequoia Monument. The Campaign works to protect and 24 restore the ancient forests, wildlands, wildlife and watersheds of the Sierra Nevada through 25 scientific and legal advocacy, public education and outreach, and grassroots forest protection 3 COMPLAINT 1 efforts. Among other things, the Campaign has sought to achieve greater protections for the 2 California spotted owl, Pacific fisher, American marten and other old forest-dependent species. 3 Since the late 1980s, the Campaign has been involved in major policy decisions and research 4 initiatives relating to Sierra Nevada national forest management and species conservation, 5 including the California Spotted Owl Sierran Province Interim Guidelines of 1993, the Sierra 6 Nevada Ecosystem Project of 1996, the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery 7 Act (1998) and pilot project (1999), the 2001 Sierra Nevada Framework, and the 2004 8 Framework revisions. The Campaign actively participated in the planning process for the 9 Sequoia Monument Management Plan, commented on the draft EIS and administratively 10 appealed defendants’ approval of the Management Plan. 11 7. Plaintiff Earth Island Institute (EII) is a nonprofit corporation organized under 12 California law. EII is headquartered in San Francisco, California. EII's mission is to develop 13 and support projects that counteract threats to the biological and cultural diversity that sustains 14 the environment. Through education and activism, these projects promote the conservation, 15 preservation and restoration of the Earth. One of these projects is the John Muir Project – whose 16 mission is to protect all federal public forest lands from commercial exploitation.