Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
KristineM.AklandAKLANDLAWFIRMPLLCPOBox7274Missoula,MT59807(406)544-9863aklandlawfirm@gmail.comThomasWoodburyFORESTDEFENSEPC618RollinsSt.Missoula,MT59807(650)[email protected]
INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEDISTRICTOFMONTANA
BILLINGSDIVISION
NATIVEECOSYSTEMCOUNCIL,andALLIANCEFORTHEWILDROCKIES,Plaintiffs,vs.JONRABY,ActingStateDirector,theBUREAUOFLANDMANAGEMENT,DEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIOR,anagencyoftheUnitedStates.Defendants.
CV-COMPLAINTFORINJUNCTIVERELIEF
I.INTRODUCTION
1. Thisisacivilactionforjudicialreviewunderthecitizensuitprovisionofthe
AdministrativeProcedureActoftheU.S.BureauofLandManagement’s
(BLM)authorizations,analyses,andlackthereofwithintheElkhorns
CooperativeManagementArea(ECMA)relatedtoandregardingtheIron
MaskPlanningArea(Project).
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 27
2. PlaintiffsNativeEcosystemsCouncilandAlliancefortheWildRockiesattest
thattherecentdecisionsofDefendantswhichauthorizedlivestockgrazing,
sagebrushremoval,coniferreductionandprescribedburningacrosspublic
landswithintheECMAarearbitraryandcapricious,anabuseofdiscretion,
and/orotherwisenotinaccordancewithlaw.
3. Defendants’actionsoromissionsviolatetheNationalEnvironmentalPolicy
Act(NEPA),42U.S.C.4331etseq.,theFederalLandPolicyandManagement
Act(FLPMA),43U.S.C.§1701etseq.,andtheAdministrativeProcedureAct
(APA),5U.S.C.§§701etseq.,byfailingtotakeahardlook
4. PlaintiffsrequestthattheCourtsetasidetheProjectpursuantto5U.S.C.§
706(2)(A)andenjoinimplementation.
5. Plaintiffsseekadeclaratoryjudgment,injunctiverelief,theawardofcosts
andexpensesofsuit,includingattorneyandexpertwitnessfeespursuantto
theEqualAccesstoJusticeAct(EAJA)28U.S.C.§2412,andsuchotherrelief
asthisCourtdeemsjustandproper.
II.JURISDICTION6. ThisactionarisesunderthelawsoftheUnitedStatesandinvolvestheUnited
StatesasaDefendant.Therefore,thisCourthassubjectmatterjurisdiction
overtheclaimsspecifiedinthisComplaintpursuantto28U.S.C.§§1331,
1346.
7. AnactualcontroversyexistsbetweenPlaintiffsandDefendants.Plaintiffs’
membersuseandenjoytheECMAandspecificallytheIronMaskPlanning
Areaforhiking,fishing,hunting,camping,photographingsceneryand
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 2 of 27
wildlife,andengaginginothervocational,scientific,spiritual,and
recreationalactivities.Plaintiffs’membersintendtocontinuetouseand
enjoytheareafrequentlyandonanongoingbasisinthefuture.
8. Theaesthetic,recreational,scientific,spiritual,andeducationalinterestsof
Plaintiffs’membershavebeenandwillbeadverselyaffectedandirreparably
injuredifDefendantscontinuetoimplementtheProject.Theseareactual,
concreteinjuriescausedbyDefendants’failuretocomplywithmandatory
dutiesunderNEPA,FLPMAandtheAPA.Therequestedreliefwouldredress
theseinjuriesandthisCourthastheauthoritytograntPlaintiffs’requested
reliefunder28U.S.C.§§2201&2202,and5U.S.C.§§705&706.
9. Plaintiffssubmittedtimelywrittencommentsandobjectionsconcerningthe
Projectintheavailableadministrativereviewprocess,thustheyhave
exhaustedadministrativeremedies.Therefore,theCourthasjurisdictionto
reviewPlaintiffs’APAclaims.
III.VENUE
10. Venueinthiscaseisproperunder28U.S.C.§1391(e)andLR3.2(b)(1)(C).
DefendantRabyresideswithintheBillingsDivisionoftheUnitedStates
DistrictCourtfortheDistrictofMontana.
IV.PARTIES11. PlaintiffNATIVEECOSYSTEMSCOUNCIL(NEC)isanon-profitMontana
corporationwithitsprincipalplaceofbusinessinThreeForks,Montana.
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 3 of 27
NativeEcosystemsCouncilisdedicatedtotheconservationofnatural
resourcesonpubliclandsintheNorthernRockies.Itsmembersuseandwill
continuetousetheECMAandtheIronMaskPlanningAreaforworkandfor
outdoorrecreationofallkinds,includingfishing,hunting,hiking,horseback
riding,andcross-countryskiing.TheBLM’sunlawfulactionsadverselyaffect
NativeEcosystemsCouncil’sorganizationalinterests,aswellasitsmembers’
useandenjoymentoftheECMAandtheIronMaskPlanningArea.Native
EcosystemsCouncilbringsthisactiononitsownbehalfandonbehalfofits
adverselyaffectedmembers.
12. PlaintiffALLIANCEFORTHEWILDROCKIES(Alliance)isatax-exempt,non-
profitpublicinterestorganizationdedicatedtotheprotectionand
preservationofthenativebiodiversityoftheNorthernRockiesBioregion,its
nativeplant,fish,andanimallife,anditsnaturallyfunctioningecosystems.Its
registeredofficeislocatedinMissoula,Montana.TheAlliancehasover2,000
individualmembers,manyofwhomarelocatedinMontana.Membersofthe
Allianceobserve,enjoy,andappreciateMontana’snativewildlife,water
quality,andterrestrialhabitatquality,andexpecttocontinuetodosointhe
future,includingintheIronMaskPlanningAreaandintheECMA.Alliance’s
members’professionalandrecreationalactivitiesaredirectlyaffectedby
Defendants’failuretoperformtheirlawfuldutytoprotectandconserve
theseecosystemsassetforthbelow.AlliancefortheWildRockiesbringsthis
actiononitsownbehalfandonbehalfofitsadverselyaffectedmembers.
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 4 of 27
13. DefendantJONRABYistheActingStateDirectorfortheMontana/Dakotas
BureauofLandManagement.
14. DefendantU.S.BUREAUOFLANDMANAGEMENT(BLM)isanadministrative
agencywithintheU.S.DepartmentofInterior,andisresponsibleforthe
health,diversityandproductivityofpubliclandsfortheuseandenjoyment
ofpresentandfuturegenerations.
15. DefendantU.S.DEPARTMENTOFINTERIOR(Interior)isanagencyor
instrumentalityoftheUnitedStates,chargedbylawwithadministeringthe
publiclandsatissueinthislitigation.
V.FACTUALALLEGATIONS16. TheBLMreleasedadraftEnvironmentalAssessmentfortheIronMask
ProjectonJune6,2014.NECandAllianceprovidedcommentsonthedraft
EAonJuly18,2014.
17. TheIronMaskProjectaddressesmanagementissuesregardingland
acquisition,travelplanning,aforagereserveandothergrazing
authorizations.
18. TheBLMproducedaFinalEnvironmentalAssessment(IronMaskEA)forthe
IronMaskProjectonJuly1,2015.
19. TheBLMsignedtheDecisionRecordauthorizingtheProjectandaFindingof
NoSignificantImpactStatement(FONSI)onJuly1,2015.
20. TheagencychosetoimplementAlternativeB,thePreferredAlternative.
21. TheFONSIconcludedthatanEISisnotrequiredbecausenosignificantshort
orlong-termimpactswereidentifiedintheIronMaskEA.
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 5 of 27
22. OnMarch7,2016,theBLMissuedafinalgrazingdecisionfortheIndian
CreekForageReserveAllotment,whichimplementedAlternativeBas
analyzedintheIronMaskEA.
23. OnAugust11,2015AllianceandNECadministrativelyappealedtheDecision
Record,whichwasrejectedAugust24,2015.
IRONMASKPLANNINGAREA&ACTIVITIES24. TheplanningareaislocatedintheUpperMissouriWatershedBasin,in
BroadwaterandJeffersonCountynorthwestofTownsend,Montana.
25. Theplanningareacoversapproximately124,933acreswithinBroadwater
andJeffersonCounties,Montana.
26. Thedecisionarea,theBLM-administeredlandswithintheplanningarea
consideredhere,consistsof19separateBLM-ownedlandparcelstotaling
26,235acres.
27. TheProjectauthorizes“coniferreduction”(juniperwoodlandreduction)on
5,397acres.Ofthoseacres,978acreswillbesubjecttoprescribedfireand
theremainingtreatedbyhandandmechanicalmeans.
28. TheProjectalsoauthorizesgrazingwithintheElkhornMountainsAreaof
CriticalEnvironmentalConcern.
29. TheProjectallowsutilizationof937AUMsover8,088acresoftheIndian
CreekForageReserveAllotment,locatedwithintheElkhornMountainsArea
ofCriticalEnvironmentalConcern(ACEC).
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 6 of 27
30. TheFONSIstated,“theactionsanalyzedintheIronMaskPlanning
EnvironmentalAssessmentwouldnotconstituteamajorFederalactionthat
wouldsignificantlyaffectthequalityofthehumanenvironment.”
31. TheFONSIfurtherstated,“environmentalanalysisdocumentednomajor
effectsonuniquegeographicfeaturesofthearea,culturalorhistoric
resources,parklands,primefarmlands,wetlands,wildandscenicrivers,or
ecologicallycriticalareas”.
ELKHORNMOUNTAINS
32. TheElkhornMountainsareanisolatedanduniquemountainrangeofabout
250,000acres.
33. About160,000acresoftheElkhornMountainsaremanagedbytheHelena
andBeaverhead-DeerlodgeNationalForests.Thisportionismanagedasthe
onlyWildlifeManagementUnitintheNationalForestSystem.
34. About75,000acresoftheElkhornMountainfoothillsaremanagedbythe
BLMundertheButteResourceManagementPlan(ButteRMP).
35. TheBLM,UnitedStatesForestService(USFS),andMontanaDepartmentof
Fish,WildlifeandParks(FWP)cooperativelymanagetheElkhorn
CooperativeManagementAreatocooperativelymanagetheElkhorn
Mountainsasanecosystem.
36. In1992,theBLM,USFS,andMontanaFWPenteredintoaMemorandumof
Understanding(MOU)“tomanagetheElkhornsasacontiguousecosystem
acrossboundarieswithaemphasisonhealthywildlifeandfishhabitats.”
37. TheagenciessignedanupdatedMOUin2014.
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 7 of 27
38. PursuanttotheMOU,theElkhornsaremanagedfortheopportunitytohunt
large,maturebullelk,amongothermanagementgoals.Elkhornbullpermits
areamongthemostsoughtafterinMontana.
39. ManagementoftheElkhornsiscontroversial.“Primarily,thenumberofelk
andtheirmanagementisanon-goingcontroversialissue,particularlyasit
relatestodomesticlivestockgrazingopportunities.”
40. Wildlifehabitatshavebeencompromisedbythelossofvegetativediversity
duetotheinfluencesofgrazing,mining,recreationandotherhumanusesof
theElkhorns.
41. Hidingcoverandsecurityhabitatarekeytoensuringahealthyelk
populationthatsupportsMontanaFWP’smanagementgoalsofHunting
DistrictwithintheElkhornsandgoalsoftheWildlifeManagementUnit(USFS
designation)andtheAreaofCriticalEnvironmentalConcern(BLM
designation).
42. TheBLM’sAreasofCriticalEnvironmentalConcern(ACEC)designations
highlightareaswherespecialmanagementattentionisneededtoprotect
importanthistorical,culturalandscenicvalues,fishandwildlifeorother
naturalresources.
43. TheButteRMPdesignated50,431acresastheElkhornMountainsACEC
becauseofits“diverseuplandandaquatichabitatforwildlifeandfish.”
44. TheIronMaskEnvironmentalAssessmentstatesthat“Managementofthe
ElkhornMountainsACECisfocusedprimarilyon...Important
cultural/historicalsites,diverseuplandandaquatichabitatforthewildlife
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 8 of 27
andfish,anduniquenaturalmanagementarea(referringtotheUSFSlands
beingdesignatedasaWildlifeManagementUnit)andcooperative
managementoftheareawiththeBLM,USFS,andFWP.”
45. “FortheIronMask[DecisionArea],wildlife,habitatanduniquemanagement
areaaretheprimaryvalues...”fortheElkhornMountainsACEC.
46. “MostoftheDecisionAreawasdesignatedintheButteRMPaspartofthe
ElkhornMountainACEC.”
47. Approximately15,019acresoftheElkhornMountainsACECarewithinthe
IronMaskPlanningArea.
48. TheIronMaskEAfailedtoanalyzeanddisclosetheProject’simpactsonthe
ElkhornMountainAreaofCriticalEnvironmentalConcern.
BUTTERMP49. TheButteRMPsetsforthlandmanagementstandardsfortheProjectArea.
50. ThroughouttheButteFieldOfficeregion,allBLMauthorizedactivitiesmust
meetormovetowardprovidinghabitattomaintainaviableanddiverse
populationofnativeplantandanimalspecies,includingspecialstatus
species.
51. Asstatedabove,theButteRMPdesignated50,431acresastheElkhorn
MountainsACEC.
52. TheButteRMPstatesthatwithintheElkhornMountainsACEC,“Wildlifeand
wildlifehabitatswillbemanagedtosupportpopulationsofspecies
associatedwithendemicvegetativecommunities,withemphasison
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 9 of 27
providingthenecessaryhabitatcomponentsforthosespecieswithspecial
needs.”
53. TheButteRMPfurtherstates,“Currentdirectionoutlinedinthe
MemorandumofUnderstanding(MOU)signedbytheMontanaFishWildlife
andParks(MFWP),USFS,andBLMwillbefollowedwithinamodified
boundaryfromtheonedescribedintheMOU.”
54. Additionally,theButteRMPobjectivesprovidethatatotalof150-500acres
ofshrublandintheUpperMissouriWatershedmaybetreatedforconifer
reductionperdecade.
55. TheButteRMPobjectivesprovidethatatotalof1,750-6,000acresof
grasslandintheUpperMissouriWatershedmaybetreatedforconifer
reductionperdecade.
56. TheButteRMPobjectivesprovidethatatotalof100-200acresofriparian
vegetationhabitatintheUpperMissouriWatershedmaybetreatedfor
mechanicaland/orprescribedburningtreatmentperdecade.
57. TheMOUandtheButteRMPrequiresspecific“ProjectCriteria”beutilizedto
identifypossibleconifercolonizationmanagementprojects.Thesecriteria
mustbeevaluatedbytheElkhornImplementationGrouptodetermineif
thereisaneedtomanageencroachingconifers.
58. TheIronMaskDecisionauthorizestreatment978acresof
“grassland/shrublandtypehabitat”withintheIndianCreekAllotmentto
reduceconiferexpansion.
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 10 of 27
59. TheBLMfailedtodiscloseandanalyzeProjectCriteriafortheIronMask
conifercolonizationmanagementtreatments.Itfurtherfailedtodisclosethe
ElkhornImplementationGroup’sevaluationofthesecriteria.
60. TheBLMfailedtodisclosetheButteRMPobjectivesandfurtherfailsto
analyzewhethertheProjectmeetsorexceedstheButteRMPobjectives.
61. TheBLMdoesnotanalyzewhethertheProjectmeetsorexceedsthe
objectivesforconiferreductioningrasslandorshrublandhabitats.
62. TheBLMdoesnotprovidethenumberofacresofgrasslandorshrublandsor
riparianareastreatedinthelastdecade.
INDIANCREEKFORESTRESERVEALLOTMENT
63. TheIronMaskPlanningAreacontains15activelivestockgrazingallotments,
includingtheIndianCreekAllotment.
64. TheIndianCreekAllotmentwaspreviously2,215acresand376AUMs.
65. In2007,theBLMacquired5,566acresoflandadjacenttotheIndianCreek
Allotment(IronMaskAcquisition)to“protectimportantresourcevalues”
and“improvewildlifehabitatneartheMissouriRivercorridor...”
66. TheButteRMPauthorizestheexpansionoftheIndianCreekAllotmentbyan
additional5,566acresand700AUMbyincludingtheIronMaskAcquisition.
67. TheIronMaskProjectimplementsthisexpansion.
68. ThisexpandedIndianCreekAllotmentislocatedintheECMAandmanaged
asaforagereserveallotment(IndianCreekReserveAllotment).
69. Aforagereserveallotmentisanallotmentwithoutatermgrazingpermitthat
isgrazedonatemporarynonrenewablebasis.
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 11 of 27
70. Thistypeofallotmentisused“toprovidetemporarygrazingtorestother
areas.”
71. TheIronMaskdecisionauthorizesupto1,086AUMswithintheIndianCreek
ReserveAllotment.
72. Grazingonthisallotmentwillremoveapproximately40%oftheexisting
herbaceousforage.
73. Vegetationlessthan4incheshigh“reducesforageavailabilityforlivestock
andwildlife.”
74. Grazingontheforagereserveallotmentwillresultincompetitionforforage
betweencowsandherbivorouswildlife.
75. Grazingbycattlereducesplantbiomassavailableanddoesnotincrease
nutritionalvalueoftheremainingplantbiomassthusreducingpotentialfor
availableforageforwildlife.
76. ThemajorityoftheuplandslocatedonthelowerelevationoftheIndian
CreekReserveAllotmentarecurrentlyinan“undesirablestate”and“may
havecrossedathresholdinplantcommunitiesfromthatexpectedforthe
area.”
77. TheIronMaskEAstatesthattheIndianCreekReserveAllotmentis
dominatedbycheatgrass,Dalmationtoadflax,andlacksbluebunch
wheatgrassandalsonotesashiftawayfromadominanceofdeep-rooted
perennialsandtowardmoreshallowrootedspecies.
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 12 of 27
78. TheIronMaskEAconcludesthatincreasedlivestockgrazingonthisalready
degradedallotmentwill“helpincreasevigorandreproductiveopportunities
forplants”butfailstodisclosehow.
79. TheBLMdoesnotanalyzeordisclosehoworwhygrazingwill“helpincrease
vigor.”
80. TheBLMdoesnotanalyzeordisclosetheProject’seffectsspecieswith
specialneedsorspecialstatusspeciesortheirhabitatcomponents.
VEGETATIONTREATMENTS
81. TheIronMaskplanningareaiswithintheUpperMissouriWatershedBasin.
82. TheButteRMPandtheMOUrequiretheBLMtoutilizethebestavailable
sciencetoworktowardsobtainingdesiredconditionswithintheECMA:“We-
theAgencieswhomanagethewildlifeandlandintheElkhorns-willuse
publishedpeer-reviewedscientificliteraturetoguidevegetationandwildlife
management.”
83. TheDecisionauthorizesatotalof5,397acresofvegetationtreatments
withinthreedifferenttreatmentareas:IndianCreekForageReserve,Shep’s
Ridge,andLimestoneHills.
84. Thepurposeofthesevegetationtreatmentsistoreducejuniperwoodlands.
85. TheDecisionauthorizes3,569acresofforesttreatmentsintheIndianCreak
ReserveAllotment,whichequatesto46%ofthetotalacreswithintheIndian
CreekReserveAllotment.
86. About978acreswouldbetreatedwithprescribedfire.“Theseacreswere
determinedbywhereburnscouldbesafelycontrolled”.
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 13 of 27
87. TheIronMaskEAdoesnotdisclosehowmanyacreswillbetreatedinthe
Shep’sRidgeTreatmentArea.
88. In2006,a1,200acresmasticationandprescribedburntreatmentwas
completedonShep’sRidge.
89. TheLimestoneHilltreatmentissubdividedintofourTreatmentAreas:
Whipcracker,AspenStands,ColdSpringsandSpringsDevelopmentArea.
90. Upto344acreswouldbetreatedbyhandcuttingandmechanizedoperation
inWhipcracker,atotalof298acresofprescribedfireandhandcuttingwould
betreatedintheSpringDevelopmentArea,andatotalof125acreswouldbe
treatedbyhandcuttingandterra-torching(flamethrowingdevice).
91. TheIronMaskdecisionauthorizestreatmentoftheentirestretchofIndian
CreekandtheWestForkofIndianCreektotalingapproximately69acres.
92. TheDecisionauthorizesapproximately21acresofripariantreatmentinthe
KellySpringGulch.
93. Therearepublishedscientificarticlesthatdemonstratethatjuniper
woodlandsexpandandcontractasperclimaticconditionsandthatlow
severityfireisnotanaturalcomponent.
94. Further,bestavailablesciencedemonstratesthatfirerotationsinjuniperare
believedtorangefrom400-450years.
95. Juniperwoodlandecosystemsareoneofthehighestprioritiesfor
conservationbecauseithasaconsiderablenumberofdecliningspecies.One
ofthethreatsidentifiedtojuniperwoodlandsisdeforestationthrough
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 14 of 27
controlofjuniperwoodlands,suchasthetreatmentsplanintheIronMask
Project.
96. TheBLMfailstoanalyzethevegetationtreatmentsimpactsonwildlife.
97. TheBLMfailstoanalyzeanddisclosewhetherthevegetationtreatments
meetorexceedthegrasslandandshrublandobjectivessetforthintheButte
RMP.
98. TheBLMdoesnotdisclosetheobjectiveforriparianvegetationhabitatset
forthintheButteRMPoranalyzewhethertheProjectmeetsthatobjective.
99. TheBLMdoesnotdisclosetheriparianobjectivesetforthintheButteRMP
fortheprojectareaandfurtherfailstoanalyzeanddisclosewhetherthe
treatmentmeetsthatobjective.
100. TheBLMfailstodisclosethescienceandreasoningsupportingitsconclusion
thattheProjectbenefitsplantcommunitiesandwildlife.
101. TheBLMfailstoanalyzeanddisclosethecumulativeimpactsoftheprevious
1,200acresmasticationandprescribedburntreatmentonShep’sRidgeon
theprojectarea.
JOHNNYCROWPROJECTCUMULATIVEEFFECTS
102. TheHelenaandTownsendRangerDistrictoftheU.S.ForestService
authorizedaloggingandburningprojectdirectlyadjacenttotheIronMask
Project,whichiscalledtheJohnnyCrowWildlifeHabitatImprovement
Project(“JohnnyCrowProject”)
103. TheForestServiceissuedaDecisionMemoapprovingtheJohnnyCrow
ProjectMarch2,2017.Currently,minoractivitiesarebeingimplementedin
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 15 of 27
theJonnyCrowProject.Additionally,theJohnnyCrowProjectiscurrentlyin
litigation.(NativeEcosystemCouncil,MontanaEcosystemDefenseCouncilv.
LeanneMartinetal.,CV9:17-CV-00077-DLC,(D.Mont).)
104. ThemapbelowshowstheJohnnyCrowProjectArea.Thepurpleline
representstheJohnnyCrowProjectAreaboundary.Theredline(drawnby
counsel)highlightswheretheIndianCreekandtheWestForkofIndian
Creekmeet.TherustcolorindicatesthetreatmentareaswithintheJohnny
CrowProject.
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 16 of 27
105. The map below shows the confluence of Indian Creek and West Fork of Indian
Creek (red line- drawn by counsel) and its relation to the Iron Mask Planning Area
(indicated in yellow shading). The purple line (drawn by counsel) indicates the
approximate Johnny Crow Project boundary.
105. ThevegetationtreatmentsintheIronMaskProjectareadjacenttothe
vegetationtreatmentsinJohnnyCrow.
106. TheBLMfailstodisclosetheexistenceoftheJohnnyCrowProjectand
furtherfailstoanalyzeanypotentialcumulativeeffectsofprojectstogether.
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 17 of 27
WILDLIFE
107. “Theplanningareaprovidesimportantbiggamehabitat.”
108. Elkwinterintheupperandmiddleelevationsintheplanningareaand
generallymovetoupperelevationsinthesummer.
109. GreyWolves,Brewer’ssparrow,goldeneagle,McCown’slongspur,sage
thrasher,theNorthernLeopardfrogandwestslopecutthroattrouthaveall
beendocumentedintheplanningarea.
110. Thesespeciesareconsidered“SpecialStatusSpecies”.
111. Specialstatusspeciesincludeproposedspecies,listedspecies,andcandidate
speciesundertheESA;state-listedspecies;andBLMStateDirector-
designatedsensitivespecies.
112. TheIronMaskDecisionauthorizesconstructionofover8.5milesofnew
fence.
113. Fencesconstitutehazardstowildlifefromentanglementorblockingof
movement.
114. TheBLMdoesnotdisclosetheobjectivesforforesthabitat,grasslandhabitat
orshrublandhabitatforwildlife.
115. TheIronMaskdecisionconclusivelystatesthattheProjectwillbenefit
wildlife,yetfailstodisclosewhatobjectivestheProjectattemptingtomove
towardsorhowitmeetsthoseobjectives.
116. TheBLMfailstodiscloseoranalyzetheIndianCreekForageReserve
Allotment’sdirect,indirectandcumulativeimpactsonwildlife,including
specialstatusspeciesandspecieswithspecialneeds.
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 18 of 27
117. TheIronMaskEAfailstoanalyzeanddisclosetheIndianCreekForage
ReserveAllotment’sdirect,indirectandcumulativeimpactsonelk
populationswithintheDecisionArea.
118. TheBLMdidnotdiscloseobjectivesforwildlifeintheProjectAreaincluding
hidingcover,thermalcoverandsecurityandfurtherfailedtoanalyzeand
discloseiftheobjectivesaremet.
119. TheBLMfailstoanalyzethedirect,indirectorcumulativeimpactsofnew
fencingonwildlife.
VI.CLAIMSFORRELIEFFIRSTCLAIMFORRELIEF
FIRSTCLAIMFORRELIEFTheIronMaskDecisionviolatesNEPAandtheAPA
120. Allpreviousparagraphsareincorporatedbyreference.
121. TheBLMviolatedNEPAbyfailingtoexaminethedirect,indirectand
cumulativeimpactsoftheIronMaskDecisiononwildlife.
122. NEPArequiresfederalagencies’environmentalanalysistoconsider“any
adverseenvironmentaleffectswhichcannotbeavoided.”42U.S.C.
§4332(2)(C)(ii).Whenseveralactionsmayhavecumulativeorsynergistic
environmentalimpacts,BLMmustconsidertheseactionstogetherand
prepareacomprehensiveenvironmentalanalysis.
123. Agenciesarerequiredtotakeahardlookatdirect,indirectandcumulative
impactsofaproposedaction.40C.F.R.§1508.25(c).
124. Directimpactsare“causedbytheactionandoccuratthesameplaceand
time.”Id.§1508.8(a).Indirectimpactsare“causedbytheactionandarelater
intimeorfurtherremovedindistancebutarestillreasonablyforeseeable.”
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 19 of 27
Id.§1508.8(b).Cumulativeimpactsare“theimpacts[s]ontheenvironment
whichresultfromtheincrementalimpactoftheactionwhenaddedtoother
past,presentandreasonablyforeseeablefutureactions,regardlessofwhat
agency(Federalornon-Federal)orpersonunderstandssuchactions.”Id.¶
1508.7
125. TheIronMaskProjectEAindicatesthatwildlifeandhabitatareprimary
valuesforthedecisionarea.
126. TheElkhornMountainACECwasdesignatedbecauseofitsimportantwildlife
resources.
127. TheIronMaskDecisionauthorizedbytheProjectEAwilllikelycause
foreseeableadversedirect,indirectandcumulativeimpactsonwildlife.
128. TheBLM’sfailuretoanalyzetheseimpactsmakesassessmentofthe
environmentalconsequencesoftheProjectimpossible.
129. TheBLMfailedtodiscloseandanalyzethecumulativeeffectsofpastgrazing
ontheIndianCreekForageReserveonwildlife.
130. TheBLM’sfailuretodiscloseandanalyzethecumulativeeffectsofpast
grazingontheIndianCreekForageReserveonwildlifeisaviolationofNEPA
andtheAPA.
131. TheBLMfailedtodiscloseandanalyzecumulativeeffectsofpasttreatments
intheprojectarea.
132. TheBLM’sfailuretoconsidertheseimpactswasarbitraryandcapriciousand
unlawfulinviolationofNEPA,42U.S.C.§4332(2)(C),NEPA’simplementing
regulations,andtheAPA,5U.S.C.§706
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 20 of 27
SECONDCLAIMFORRELIEFTheIronMaskDecisionviolatesFLPMAandAPA
133. Allpreviousparagraphsareincorporatedbyreference.
134. TheBLMviolatedFLPMA,43U.S.C.§1701etseq.,andtheimplementing
regulations,handbook,manualandpoliciesadoptedbytheBLMunder
FLMPA,inapprovingtheIronMaskDecision.Thisclaimisbroughtpursuant
tothejudicialreviewprovisionsoftheAPA,5US.C.§706.
135. FLMPAimposesproceduralandsubstantivestatutoryrequirementsupon
BLM’smanagementofthepubliclandsinquestionhere,includingmultiple
use/sustainedyield,andpreventingunnecessaryorunduedegradationof
thepubliclandsandresources.Pursuanttotheseandotherstatutory
authorities,Defendantshaveadoptedvariousregulations,handbooks,
manuals,conservationstrategies,andotherpoliciesrelatingtoits
managementofthepubliclands,includingBLM'sgrazingregulations,43
C.F.R.Part4100;BLM'sFundamentalsofRangelandHealthregulations,43
C.F.R.4180etseq;andtheSpecialStatusSpeciesPolicy,Section6840ofthe
BLMManual(2001).
136. TheSpecialStatusSpeciesPolicyrequiresthatBLM“shallensurethatactions
authorized,fundedorcarriedoutbytheBLMdonotcontributetotheneed
forthespeciestobecomelisted.”SeeBLMManual6841.06C.
137. FLPMAgovernsthemanagementofthefederalpubliclandsbytheBureauof
LandManagement.UnderFLPMA,BLMmustdeveloplanduseplansforthe
publiclandsunderitscontrol.43U.S.C.§1712.Allresourcemanagement
decisionsmadebyBLMmustconformtotheapprovedlanduseplan.43
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 21 of 27
C.F.R.§1610.5-3(a).Toconformtoalanduseplan,aresourcemanagement
decision“shallbespecificallyprovidedforintheplan,orifnotspecifically
mentioned,shallbeclearlyconsistentwiththeterms,conditions,and
decisionsoftheapprovedplan.”43C.F.R.§1601.0-5.Priortocarryingouta
proposedactionthatisnotclearlyconsistentwiththelanduseplan,BLM
mustamendtheplan,complyingwithNEPAandallowingforpublic
participation.43C.F.R.§§1610.5-3,1610.5-5.
138. TheButteRMPrequiresthatwildlifeandwildlifehabitatswithintheElkhorn
MountainACEC“bemanagedtosupportpopulationsofspeciesassociated
withendemicvegetativecommunities,withemphasisonproviding
necessaryhabitatcomponentsforthosespecieswithspecialneeds.”
139. TheIronMaskEAfailstodisclosethisrequirementandfurtherfailsto
disclosetheProject’simpactsonspeciesassociatedwithendemicvegetative
communitiesandspecieswithspecialneedsandspecialstatusspecies.
140. TheBLMfailstodiscloseitsdutytosafeguardspecialstatusspeciesand
furtherfailstoanalyzeanddisclosetheimpactsoftheProjectonspecial
statusspecies.
141. TheButteRMPprovidesspecificobjectivesandconditionsregarding
shrubland,grasslandandripariantreatments.
142. TheIronMaskEAfailstodisclosetheseobjectivesandfurtherfailsto
demonstrationconsistencytotheseobjectives.
THIRDCLAIMFORRELIEFTheIronMaskEnvironmentalAssessmentdoesnotanalyzeareasonablerangeof
alternativesorapplythebestavailablesciencetoensurewildlifeviability
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 22 of 27
143. Allpreviousparagraphsareincorporatedbyreference.
144. Anenvironmentalassessmentmustincludeananalysisofreasonable
alternatives.
145. Thus,vegetationtreatmentsandgrazingauthorizationsthatareauthorized
inaDecisionRecordandanalyzedinanEAmustconsiderareasonablerange
ofalternatives.
146. Assetforthabove,theprimaryvaluesfortheIronMaskDecisionAreaare
wildlifeandhabitat.
147. TheBLMisrequiredtodiscloseandapplythebestavailablesciencetoguide
vegetationandwildlifemanagement.
148. ThegrazingallotmentswithintheElkhornACEC,includingtheIndianCreek
ForageReserveAllotment,arenotmeetingLandHealthStandards.
149. TheIronMaskEAfailstoconsideranograzingalternativethatpromotes
wildlifeandwildlifehabitatasrequiredbytheElkhornACECdesignationand
theButteRMP.
150. AreasonablealternativefortheIronMaskEAwouldbeanalternativethat
promoteswildlifeandwildlifehabitatbyusingcurrentscienceand
consultationwithStatebiologiststo:(a)ensurewell-distributedhabitatfor
elkandotherendemicspeciesofconcernthroughouttheplanningarea;(b)
establishgrazingcapacitybasedforpromotionofwildlifevalues;and,(c)
addressforageanddisplacementproblemsduringgrazingandhunting
seasons.
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 23 of 27
151. TheBLM’sfailuretoanalyzeareasonablerangeofalternativesfortheIron
MaskProjectviolatesNEPAandAPA.
152. TheBLMfailedtodisclosewhatscientificprincipalsorstudiessupportthe
BLM’sconclusionIronMaskProjectwillbenefitwildlifeandwildlifehabitat.
153. TheBLMfailuretoidentifyandapplythebestavailablesciencefortheIron
MaskProjectviolatesNEPA,FLMPAandtheAPA.
FOURTHCLAIMFORRELIEFTheBLMfailedtoanalyzeimpactsontheElkhornMountainACEC,inviolationof
NEPAandtheAPA154. Allpreviousparagraphsareincorporatedbyreference.
155. TheregulationsimplementingNEPArequiretheDefendantstodiscloseand
analyzetheenvironmentaleffectsoftheproposedactionandalternativesto
it.40C.F.R.§1500.1(b).Specifically,theregulationexplainsthat“NEPA
proceduresmustinsurethatenvironmentalinformationisavailabletopublic
officialsandcitizensbeforedecisionsaremadeandbeforeactionsaretaken.
Theinformationmustbeofhighquality.Accuratescientificanalysis,expert
agencycomments,andpublicscrutinyareessentialtoimplementingNEPA.”
Id.
156. NEPA“requirestheFederalagenciestoassesstheenvironmental
consequencesoftheiractionsbeforethoseactionsareundertaken.”
Klamath–SiskiyouWildlandsCenterv.BureauofLandManagement,387F.3d
989,993(9thCir.2004).
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 24 of 27
157. TheBLMisrequiredtopreparea“detailedstatement”ofenvironmental
consequencesfor“majorFederalactionssignificantlyaffectingthequalityof
thehumanenvironment.”42U.S.C.§4332(C).
158. Indeterminingwhetheraproposedactionmay“significantlyimpactthe
environment,boththecontextandintensityoftheactionmustbe
considered.40C.F.R.§1508.27
159. Inevaluatingintensity,theagencymustconsidernumerous“significance”
factors,includingimpactsthatmaybebothbeneficialandadverseandthe
uniquecharacteristicsofthegeographicareasuchasproximityto
ecologicallycriticalareas.40C.F.R.§1508.27(b).
160. Iftheagency'sactionmaybeenvironmentallysignificantaccordingtoanyof
thecriteria,theagencymustprepareanEnvironmentalImpactStatement
(EIS).Thepresenceofseveralsignificancefactors,whenconsidered
cumulatively,canrequirethepreparationofanEIS.
161. “Anagency’sdecisionnottoprepareanEISwillbeconsideredunreasonable
iftheagencyfailstosupplyaconvincingstatementofreasonswhypotential
effectsareinsignificant.”BlueMountainsBiodiversityProjectv.Blackwood,
161F.3d1208,1211(9thCir.1998).
162. TheIronMaskEAfailedtoanalyzeanddisclosetheProject’sindirect,direct
andcumulativeeffectsontheuniquecharacteristicsoftheElkhornMountain
AreaofCriticalEnvironmentalConcernandtheElkhornCooperative
ManagementArea,whichmakesassessmentoftheenvironmental
consequencesoftheProjectimpossible.
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 25 of 27
FIFTHCLAIMFORRELIEFTheIronMaskEAviolatesNEPAandtheAPAbyfailingtoconsidertheJohnnyCrow
Projectinthecumulativeimpactsanalysis.163. Allpreviousparagraphsareincorporatedbyreference.
164. TheBLMisrequiredtoanalyzethecumulativeimpactsoftheIronMask
Project.
165. Cumulativeimpactistheimpactontheenvironment,“whichresultsfromthe
incrementalimpactoftheactionwhenaddedtootherpast,presentand
reasonablyforeseeablefutureactionsregardlessofwhatagency(Federalor
non-Federal)orpersonundertakessuchotheractions.Cumulativeimpacts
canresultfromindividuallyminorbutcollectivelysignificantactionstaking
placeoveraperiodoftime.”40C.F.R.§1508.7.
166. Assetforthabove,theJohnnyCrowProjectandtheIronMaskProjectsharea
commonborder.ThetreatmentareasintheJohnnyCrowProjectareclosein
distance,ifnotadjacentto,thetreatmentunitsintheIronMaskProject.
167. TheBLMfailedtodisclosetheexistenceoftheJohnnyCrowProjectinthe
IronMaskEAandfurtherfailedtoanalyzethecumulativeimpactofthe
JohnnyCrowProjecttogetherwiththeIronMaskProject.
168. TheBLM’sfailuretodiscloseandanalyzetheadjacentandsimultaneous
JohnnyCrowProjectintheIronMaskEAviolatesNEPAandtheAPA.
VII. RELIEFREQUESTEDForalloftheabove-statedreasons,PlaintiffsrequestthatthisCourtawardthe
followingrelief:
A. DeclarethattheProjectviolatesthelaw;
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 26 of 27
B. EnjoinimplementationoftheProject;
C. AwardPlaintiffstheircosts,expenses,expertwitnessfees,and
reasonableattorneyfeesunderEAJA;and
D. GrantPlaintiffsanysuchfurtherreliefasmaybejust,proper,and
equitable.
Respectfullysubmittedthis23rdDayofMarch,2018.
/s/KristineM.Akland KristineM.AklandAKLANDLAWFIRMPLLCThomasWoodburyFORESTDEFENSEPCAttorneysforPlaintiffs
Case 1:18-cv-00055-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 27 of 27