ELR Citation: ELR 21143
No(s). 1:89-cv-2741-ODE (N.D. Ga. Apr 23, 1990)

The court grants in part and denies in part the Forest Service's motion to dismiss a suit brought by timber contractors challenging restrictions on timber cutting near a colony of endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Forest Management Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court holds that the pleadings are not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Claims Court under the Contract Disputes Act. Moreover, the timber contractors did not fail to state a claim for denial of future timber sales because they did not assert it and would not be able to assert such a claim in this court. The court next holds that the timber contractors' environmental, informational, and participational interests fail to satisfy prudential standing requirements under NEPA. Although the court finds that the timber contractor's informational and participational interests meet the minimal Article III requirements of standing under the ESA, the complaint does not allege sufficient information to determine whether they also meet prudential standing requirements. Finally, the court holds that the action in not mooted by the Forest Service's plans to adopt new woodpecker recovery guidelines. The Forest Service has not shown that alleged violations of the contractors' informational and participatory rights are not reasonably likely to recur and that the guidelines completely and irrevocably eradicate the effects of the alleged abrogation of the contractors' rights.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Alexander Stephens Clay IV, Mary Lillian Walker
Kilpatrick & Cody
100 Peachtree St., Ste. 3100, Atlanta GA 30303
(404) 572-6500

Stephen P. Quarles, Thomas R. Lundquist, John A. Macleod
Crowell & Moring
1001 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20004-2505
(202) 624-2500

Counsel for Defendants
Daniel A. Caldwell III, Ass't U.S. Attorney
1800 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Spring St. SW, Atlanta GA 30335
(404) 331-4216