kristine m. akland akland law firm pllc po box 7274 …...no significant impact statement (fonsi) on...

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 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


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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”.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.”


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


SECONDCLAIMFORRELIEFTheIronMaskDecisionviolatesFLPMAandAPA


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


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



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.


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).


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.


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;


B. EnjoinimplementationoftheProject;

C. AwardPlaintiffstheircosts,expenses,expertwitnessfees,and

reasonableattorneyfeesunderEAJA;and

D. GrantPlaintiffsanysuchfurtherreliefasmaybejust,proper,and

equitable.

Respectfullysubmittedthis23rdDayofMarch,2018.

/s/KristineM.Akland KristineM.AklandAKLANDLAWFIRMPLLCThomasWoodburyFORESTDEFENSEPCAttorneysforPlaintiffs


kristine m. akland akland law firm pllc po box 7274 …...no significant impact statement (fonsi) on...

Documents