throbber
Case 2:21-cv-01126-SRB Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 1 of 44
`
`
`
`Lauren M. Rule (OSB # 015174), pro hac vice
`ADVOCATES FOR THE WEST
`3701 SE Milwaukie Ave, Suite B
`Portland, OR 97202
`(503) 914-6388
`lrule@advocateswest.org
`
`
`Cynthia C. Tuell (AZSB # 025301)
`WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT
`738 N. 5th Ave., Suite 206
`Tucson, AZ 85705
`(520) 272-2454
`cyndi@westernwatersheds.org
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`
`Western Watersheds Project and Grand
`Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club;
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`U.S. Bureau of Land Management;
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`(Declaratory and Injunctive Relief)
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs Western Watersheds Project and Grand Canyon Chapter of the
`1.
`
`Sierra Club (hereafter “WWP”) challenge the revised livestock grazing analysis
`completed by Defendant Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) for the agency’s
`Sonoran Desert National Monument Resource Management Plan (“RMP”). BLM revised
`its grazing analysis after this Court ruled the prior analysis completed in 2012 was
`seriously flawed and unlawful under the National Environmental Policy Act. W.
`Watersheds Proj. v. BLM, 2015 WL 846548, No. CV-13-01028-PHX-PGR (D. Ariz. Feb.
`26, 2015); W. Watersheds Proj. v. BLM, 181 F. Supp. 3d 673 (D. Ariz. 2016). Rather
`
`COMPLAINT - 1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01126-SRB Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 2 of 44
`
`
`
`than addressing the problems of the prior analysis, BLM conducted a new analysis that is
`equally flawed and allows for even more future livestock grazing that will degrade the
`biological and cultural resources on the Monument, in violation of the proclamation that
`established the Sonoran Desert National Monument.
`
`2.
`The Sonoran Desert is the most biologically diverse desert in North
`America. President Clinton established the 496,337 acre Sonoran Desert National
`Monument in January 2001 to protect the biodiversity of plants and animals and their
`habitats, as well as the numerous historic and cultural sites, found in this desert setting.
`According to the proclamation that established the Monument, this newly protected area
`in the heart of Arizona has “an extraordinary array of biological, scientific, and historic
`resources” that provide for a “spectacular diversity of plant and animal species,”
`including imperiled species such as desert bighorn sheep, Sonoran pronghorn, Sonoran
`desert tortoise, and many other birds, reptiles, and plants.
`
`3.
`Recognizing the harmful impacts that livestock grazing was having on this
`ecosystem, the proclamation closed all grazing allotments in the southern portion of the
`Monument, and allowed grazing to continue on the northern portion of the Monument
`only if BLM determined that grazing is compatible with the “paramount purpose of
`protecting the objects identified in this proclamation.” It also required BLM to prepare a
`management plan that addresses the actions “necessary to protect the objects identified in
`the proclamation.”
`
`4.
`Shortly after designation of the Monument, rigorous scientific studies found
`that livestock were degrading soils, reducing plant diversity, increasing weeds and non-
`native plants, and damaging wildlife habitat on the Monument. Yet, BLM determined in
`the previously-challenged grazing analysis for the Monument RMP that livestock grazing
`was compatible with protecting the objects identified in the proclamation on the majority
`of lands within the northern portion of the Monument and that therefore grazing could
`continue on those lands. This Court held that determination was arbitrary and capricious
`because it was based on a flawed and unsupported analysis. Because the 2012 RMP
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01126-SRB Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 3 of 44
`
`
`
`Record of Decision relied on the arbitrary compatibility determination to allow continued
`livestock grazing on the Monument, the Court ruled that aspect of the decision was
`unlawful and remanded it to the agency to conduct a proper livestock compatibility
`determination.
`
`5.
`Since the agency issued its prior analysis in 2012, little or no grazing has
`occurred on the allotments within the Monument. After five to ten years of non-use,
`many areas are recovering from the prior degradation caused by livestock, with
`increasing vegetation and reduced signs of cattle impacts. Rather than furthering this
`recovery, BLM’s new grazing analysis uses it as an excuse to allow future grazing across
`all lands in the northern part of the Monument—expanding use beyond that allowed
`under the 2012 decision. This new decision is just as flawed as the prior one, again
`incorporating irrational and unsupported analysis and conclusions—including relying
`entirely on new data collected after years of no grazing to assess the impacts of grazing.
`Even areas that still have degraded ecological conditions due to prior cattle use are
`available for future grazing under BLM’s new decision.
`6.
`Rather than fixing its prior analysis to adequately protect the Monument
`objects, BLM chose to issue yet another unscientific grazing decision that protects no
`land from livestock grazing—ensuring that the recovery occurring over the past ten years
`will be reversed and grazing will again harm many of the biological and cultural
`resources on the Monument. This new decision, which relies on an equally flawed and
`unsupported analysis that fails to protect the Monument objects, violates the Federal
`Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”), the National Landscape Conservation
`System (“NLCS”) Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the National
`Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”). Accordingly, this Court should once again hold
`BLM’s livestock grazing compatibility analysis, environmental assessment, and RMP
`amendment arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law, and under 5
`U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) set them aside as unlawful agency action.
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01126-SRB Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 4 of 44
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`7.
`Jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this
`action arises under the laws of the United States, including the Federal Land Policy and
`Management Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.; the National Landscape Conservation System
`Act, 16 U.S.C. § 7202; the Sonoran Desert National Monument Proclamation,
`Proclamation No. 7397, 66 Fed. Reg. 7354; the National Environmental Policy Act, 42
`U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.;
`the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.; the Declaratory Judgment Act,
`28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.; and the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2214 et seq.
`An actual, justiciable controversy now exists between Plaintiffs and Defendant, and the
`requested relief is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06.
`8.
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because a
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred within
`this judicial district and a substantial part of the public lands and resources at issue are
`located within this district.
`9.
`The Federal Government has waived sovereign immunity in this action
`pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702.
`
`PARTIES
`10.
`Plaintiff WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT (“WWP”) is a regional,
`membership, not-for-profit conservation organization, dedicated to protecting and
`conserving the public lands and natural resources of watersheds in the American West.
`WWP has offices throughout the West, including in Tucson, Arizona, and more than
`12,000 members and supporters located throughout the United States. Through agency
`proceedings, public education, scientific studies, and legal advocacy conducted by its
`staff, members, volunteers, and supporters, WWP is actively engaged in protecting and
`improving plant and animal communities and other natural resources and ecological
`values of western watersheds. Since 2007, WWP has actively participated in
`management of livestock grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument through
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01126-SRB Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 5 of 44
`
`
`
`letters, comments, field trips, and oral communications to the BLM, expressing its
`concerns over livestock grazing on the Monument. WWP provided extensive comments
`on the draft environmental assessment (“EA”) challenged here and submitted a timely
`protest of the Proposed RMP amendment and Final EA.
`11.
`Plaintiff GRAND CANYON CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA CLUB is one
`of the oldest grassroots environmental organizations in the country. The Sierra Club’s
`mission is to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; to practice and
`promote the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources; and to educate and
`enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human
`environments. The Grand Canyon Chapter has long been committed to protection of
`Arizona’s lands, wildlife, water, and communities and has been significantly involved in
`activities related to the Sonoran Desert National Monument, including the management
`of livestock grazing. The Sierra Club has participated in the planning process for the
`Monument, including participating in public meetings, submitting comments on the Draft
`EA at issue here, and a protest of the proposed RMP amendment and Final EA.
`12.
`Plaintiffs’ staff and members regularly use and enjoy the public lands,
`wildlife, and other natural resources on the Sonoran Desert National Monument for many
`health, recreational, scientific, spiritual, educational, aesthetic, and other purposes. WWP
`and Sierra Club staff and members pursue activities such as hiking, wildlife viewing,
`biological and botanical research, photography, and spiritual renewal on the Sonoran
`Desert National Monument. Livestock grazing that degrades this fragile ecosystem
`impairs the use and enjoyment of this Monument by Plaintiffs’ staff and members.
`Plaintiffs’ staff and members have observed grazing impacts that have adversely affected
`native plants, desert soils, and wildlife habitat on the Monument, which reduces their
`enjoyment when they visit the Monument for their various activities. WWP and Sierra
`Club have submitted to BLM photographs of livestock impacts on the Monument on
`numerous occasions.
`13.
`Plaintiffs’ staff, members, and supporters will continue to visit the Sonoran
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01126-SRB Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 6 of 44
`
`
`
`Desert National Monument in the future for many purposes such as hiking, wildlife
`viewing, photography, scientific study, spiritual renewal, and to otherwise enjoy the
`natural scenery and beauty of the Sonoran Desert. Plaintiffs, both organizationally and
`on behalf of their staff, members, and supporters, have an interest in the preservation and
`protection of the Sonoran Desert National Monument, and are directly harmed by
`Defendant’s violations of law challenged herein.
`14.
`The above-described conservation, recreational, scientific, and aesthetic
`interests of Plaintiffs’ staff, members and supporters have been, are being, and, unless the
`relief prayed for is granted, will continue to be adversely affected and irreparably injured
`by Defendant’s violations of law. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, and thus the
`requested relief is appropriate.
`15.
` Defendant BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (“BLM”) is an agency
`or instrumentality of the United States, and is charged with managing the public lands
`and resources of the Sonoran Desert National Monument, in accordance and compliance
`with federal laws and regulations.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`Sonoran Desert National Monument
`16.
`The Sonoran Desert is a hot, arid region that stretches between southwest
`Arizona, southeast California, and northern Mexico. The Sonoran Desert has remarkably
`high biological diversity for both plants and animals. This desert is well known for its
`“cactus forests” of saguaros, but is also home to other trees such as paloverde, desert
`ironwood, and mesquite, a variety of shrubs, and many species of ephemeral plants that
`arise after seasonal rains.
`17.
`These varied plant communities provide habitat for a plethora of wildlife.
`The Sonoran Desert has over 2,000 native plant species, many of which are endemic to
`the Sonoran Desert, as well as 60 species of mammals, 350 species of birds, 20 species of
`amphibians, and more than 100 species of reptiles that inhabit the area.
`18. One of the defining characteristics of the upland Arizona portion of the
`
`A.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01126-SRB Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 7 of 44
`
`
`
`Sonoran Desert is the bi-seasonal rainfall pattern, with winter rains coming from the
`Pacific and summer moisture coming from tropical monsoons. Years with good
`precipitation result in large populations of annual wildflowers while other years result in
`drought and much less annual plant production. The mild winters rarely experience frost
`and thus almost half of the biota of this region is tropical in origin.
`19.
`Livestock grazing, off-road vehicle use, encroachment of agriculture and
`human development, climate change, and the introduction of non-native species are the
`primary threats facing the Sonoran Desert ecosystem.
`20. Amidst this unique ecosystem, President Clinton established the Sonoran
`Desert National Monument in 2001 pursuant to his authority under the Antiquities Act.
`In Presidential Proclamation 7397, President Clinton set aside this area to protect its
`resources from development and degradation. The Monument is located about 60 miles
`southwest of Phoenix, Arizona and encompasses 496,337 acres.
`21.
`The proclamation begins by noting that the Monument is a “magnificent
`example of untrammeled Sonoran desert landscape.” This desert ecosystem has “an
`extraordinary array of biological, scientific, and historic resources. The most biologically
`diverse of the North American deserts, the Monument consists of distinct mountain
`ranges separated by wide valleys, and includes large saguaro cactus forest communities
`that provide excellent habitat for a wide range of wildlife species.”
`22.
`The proclamation continues by discussing the “spectacular diversity of
`plant and animal species” there. The higher peaks on the Monument contain unique
`woodland communities, while lower elevation lands “offer one of the most structurally
`complex examples of paloverde/mixed cacti association in the Sonoran Desert.” The
`proclamation highlights the saguaro cactus forests, stating that these forests, with their
`signature saguaro plants together with a wide variety of other trees, shrubs, and
`herbaceous plants, are “an impressive site to behold” and “a national treasure.”
`23.
`In discussing the lower-elevation, flatter areas of the Monument, the
`proclamation highlights the creosote-bursage plant community, which thrives in open
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01126-SRB Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 8 of 44
`
`
`
`expanses between mountain ranges and acts as a connector to other plant communities.
`The Monument also contains desert grasslands and ephemeral washes, which support
`denser vegetation such as mesquite, ironwood, paloverde, and desert willow trees, as well
`as a variety of herbaceous plants. This vegetation provides dense cover for bird species
`for nesting, foraging, and escape, and “birds heavily use the washes during migration.”
`24. Of particular relevance here, the proclamation remarks on the rich diversity,
`density, and distribution of plants in the Sand Tank Mountains area on the Monument,
`which is due to the management regime in place in that particular area that excluded
`livestock grazing there for more than fifty years.1 The proclamation stated that in order
`to extend the extraordinary diversity and overall ecological health of the Sand Tank
`Mountains area, adjacent Monument lands with similar biological resources should be
`subject to similar management “to the fullest extent possible.”
`25. Wildlife diversity is also a focal point of the proclamation. “The diverse
`plant communities present in the Monument support a wide variety of wildlife, including
`the endangered Sonoran pronghorn, a robust population of desert bighorn sheep,
`especially in the Maricopa Mountains area, and other mammalian species such as mule
`deer, javelina, mountain lion, gray fox, and bobcat.”
`26.
`The proclamation makes note of other mammals, birds, reptiles, and
`amphibians on the Monument. More than 200 species of birds are found on the
`Monument including many raptors and owls. Reptiles such as the red-backed whiptail
`and the Sonoran desert tortoise inhabit the Monument. Because of its declining numbers,
`the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the Sonoran desert tortoise is a
`candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The Monument contains
`more than 150,000 acres of key tortoise habitat.
`27.
`In addition to the biological resources on the Monument, the proclamation
`
`
`1 This area was withdrawn for military purposes in 1941. Pursuant to the proclamation,
`the military withdrawal terminated on November 6, 2001 and BLM has assumed
`management responsibility.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01126-SRB Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 9 of 44
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`also stresses the importance of the “many significant archaeological and historic sites,
`including rock art sites, lithic quarries, and scattered artifacts.” The Monument contains
`remains of prehistoric Indigenous travel corridors and villages as well as remnants of
`several important historic trails, including the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic
`Trail, the Mormon Battalion Trail, and the Butterfield Overland Stage Route.
`28.
`In light of these biologic and historic values, President Clinton used his
`authority under the Antiquities Act to create the Sonoran Desert National Monument “for
`the purpose of protecting the objects identified above.”
`29.
`To further this purpose, the proclamation prohibited motorized and
`mechanized vehicle use off roads and withdrew the land from any form of entry, sale,
`leasing, or other disposition, including for mining or mineral development.
`30.
`The proclamation also prohibited BLM from renewing livestock grazing
`permits for all Federal lands within the Monument south of Highway 8 at the end of their
`term; and stated that grazing on Federal lands north of Highway 8 “shall be allowed to
`continue only to the extent that the Bureau of Land Management determines that grazing
`is compatible with the paramount purpose of protecting the objects identified in this
`proclamation.”2
`31. According to the proclamation, BLM was required to prepare a
`management plan that addresses the actions necessary to protect the objects identified in
`the proclamation. In light of the proclamation designating this area as a National
`Monument, BLM no longer manages the area simply on a multiple use basis but instead
`must manage it primarily for the protection of the objects of interest identified in the
`proclamation.
`B.
`Livestock Grazing on the Monument
`32.
`The majority of the land now encompassed within the Sonoran Desert
`National Monument was grazed by livestock for many decades. The Sand Tank
`
`
`2 Highway 8 crosses the Monument from east to west. Slightly more than half of the
`Monument occurs north of the Highway.
`
`COMPLAINT - 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01126-SRB Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 10 of 44
`
`
`
`Mountains area, mentioned above, in the southwest corner of the Monument was the only
`substantial area that had not been recently impacted by livestock prior to designation of
`the Monument.
`33. As of February 28, 2009, the Monument lands south of Highway 8, which
`included part of the Big Horn and other allotments, were permanently closed to livestock
`grazing pursuant to the proclamation. To the north of Highway 8 is the remainder of the
`Big Horn allotment, as well as the Lower Vekol, Conley, Hazen, Beloat, and Arnold
`allotments. The portion of these northern allotments that fall within the Monument are
`the subject of BLM’s livestock grazing compatibility analyses.
`34. Grazing permits for these allotments allow for two types of grazing:
`perennial and ephemeral. Perennial grazing authorization allows for a certain number of
`cattle to graze the allotment during a certain period of time each year for the ten-year
`term of the permit.
`35.
`Ephemeral grazing authorization allows for additional grazing on a seasonal
`basis when rainfall provides adequate forage. Depending on the seasonal forage
`production, BLM authorizes a certain number of cows to graze for a limited time. On the
`Monument, ephemeral grazing occurs primarily when winter rains trigger sufficient
`forage production, generally in the form of annual plants and wildflowers that carpet the
`desert floor.
`36.
`Prior to the initial grazing compatibility analysis for the Monument, the
`permits for the allotments north of Highway 8 authorized ephemeral use on the Arnold
`allotment and perennial/ephemeral use on the remaining five allotments. The perennial
`use was year-long and ranged from 101 to 559 cattle and 1,164 to 6,104 Animal Unit
`Months (“AUMs”) per allotment. An AUM is the amount of forage needed to sustain a
`cow and calf pair for one month.
`37.
`It is well recognized that livestock grazing in the Sonoran Desert can have
`significant impacts on the natural and cultural resources there. Grazing use has resulted
`in compaction and erosion of soils, destruction of biological soil crusts, reduction in
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01126-SRB Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 11 of 44
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`vegetation cover, loss of native plant diversity, increase in non-native plants, and altered
`plant community structure and composition. This damage to vegetation also degrades
`wildlife habitat.
`38. Compaction of soils by livestock inhibits water infiltration and increases
`surface water run-off, thereby increasing erosion of surface soil and decreasing the water
`available to vegetation. Depletion of vegetative cover by livestock and the resultant
`increase in bare ground also increases soil erosion. This loss of vegetation cover and soil
`has long-term impacts to soil and plant productivity and the hydrology of watersheds.
`39. Destruction of biological soil crusts also impairs ecological functions. Soil
`crusts are important assets to plant growth, enhancing plant uptake of nutrients and
`nitrogen, which is particularly important in nitrogen-limited desert ecosystems. These
`crusts provide favorable sites for germination of native plant seeds, and hinder
`germination of non-native seeds that prefer disturbed sites. Soil crusts also help prevent
`water and wind erosion. Recovery of soil crusts from disturbance can take years or even
`decades.
`40.
`Plant community structure on the Sonoran Desert National Monument
`generally consists of an understory of perennial and annual grasses and forbs3, a mid-
`story of shrubs, cacti, and small trees, and an overstory of somewhat larger trees as well
`as saguaro cacti. In the driest areas of the Monument, trees, shrubs, and grasses are
`confined to drainages where supplemental water supports diverse plant communities.
`Because of the dry climate, overall plant productivity is low, particularly during periods
`of drought.
`41. Cattle usually prefer to eat grasses, but will also eat forbs and browse
`shrubs and small trees if grasses are unavailable. Because of their forage preferences,
`cattle alter the natural structure of communities by grazing the understory or mid-story
`more heavily, reducing the abundance of plants in the understory and favoring expansion
`
`
`3 Forbs are broad-leaved herbaceous plants other than grasses, sedges, or rushes, and
`include a variety of wildflowers.
`
`COMPLAINT - 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01126-SRB Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 12 of 44
`
`
`
`of trees and shrubs. Where vegetation is reduced by grazing, the plant community may
`not recover unless grazing is discontinued because of the normally low productivity in
`the desert.
`42. Grazing significantly reduces native plant diversity and changes the
`composition of the plant community by eliminating plants that are sensitive to grazing
`and allowing only those plants more adapted to disturbance to grow. Often native
`species, especially native grasses, are replaced with non-native invasive species because
`cattle prefer the native species, selecting them as forage and allowing invasive species to
`spread. These non-native species often increase the risk of wildfire.
`43.
`Livestock are particularly detrimental to saguaro cactus communities
`because cattle trample saguaro seedlings, and also graze understory plants and grasses
`that provide shade and structural protection for the seedlings and juvenile cacti. Because
`saguaros stay small for decades, they remain vulnerable to the threat of livestock grazing
`for many years before outgrowing the direct threat posed by cattle trampling. Saguaros
`growing in the shelter of leguminous trees (known as “nurse plants”) are especially at risk
`because these same trees are the only source of shade for livestock in the hot desert and
`thus attract heavy use by livestock.
`44.
`The consumption and trampling of vegetation by livestock reduces forage
`and cover for many wildlife species, including birds, small mammals, insects, and other
`native herbivores like deer and pronghorn. Many animals in the Sonoran Desert are
`highly dependent on seasonal pulses of plant productivity that occur in response to rain
`events. Ephemeral grazing that occurs during those same periods is particularly
`detrimental to the survival and reproduction of those species. Many wildlife species also
`heavily rely upon desert washes for protection, movement corridors, and food, but
`livestock often congregate in these areas, removing forage and eliminating protective
`cover for wildlife.
`45. Grazing infrastructure such as water developments and fences can directly
`and indirectly harm wildlife. Water developments that remove water from washes impact
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01126-SRB Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 13 of 44
`
`
`
`downgradient vegetation, which is important to native wildlife for food and cover. These
`developments also create “sacrifice zones” of extreme degradation of vegetation and soil,
`as well as high levels of non-native plants, because of the concentrated presence of
`livestock at these sites. Fences also fragment habitat, limit movement of large mammals,
`and entangle and ensnare untold numbers of wildlife each year.
`46. Many of the species directly named in the Sonoran Desert National
`Monument proclamation are negatively impacted by livestock grazing, such as Sonoran
`desert tortoise and desert bighorn sheep. For instance, cattle eliminate nutritionally
`important forage for desert tortoise adults and hatchlings, which depend heavily on
`availability of plants after seasonal rainfall events. Thus, ephemeral grazing is
`particularly detrimental to the tortoise. Cattle can also trample and crush individual
`tortoises or their burrows. Livestock operations affect desert bighorns by removing
`forage, impairing bighorn movements through fencing, and excluding bighorns from
`suitable habitat, movement corridors, or water sources because bighorns tend to avoid
`cattle.
`47.
`Finally, cattle damage cultural and historical sites by trampling artifacts and
`other features on the soil surface and rubbing against and knocking over historic
`structures. They also induce changes in plants and soils that lead to erosion and gullying
`which can displace or bury archaeological sites, as well as change the visual nature of the
`cultural landscape.
`C.
`Pacific Biodiversity Institute and Nature Conservancy Research
`48. Not long after the Sonoran Desert National Monument was established,
`BLM entered into contracts with The Nature Conservancy and the Pacific Biodiversity
`Institute (“PBI”) to study the ecological condition of and livestock grazing impacts to the
`Monument. Fieldwork for the PBI studies occurred from 2002 to 2006 and several reports
`were completed, which included maps of the various natural communities on the
`Monument as well as assessments of the ecological condition of each community and the
`stressors that affected each community.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01126-SRB Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 14 of 44
`
`
`
`49.
`The results of the PBI studies indicated that the communities most heavily
`used by livestock had the most disturbance in the form of decreased vegetation cover,
`diminished native species diversity, high levels of non-native species—especially in forb
`and grass cover, and soil erosion and compaction. These communities were at the lower
`elevations of the Monument and included the creosote-bursage community, some of the
`paloverde-mixed cacti community, and desert wash communities.
`50.
`The creosote-bursage community, one of the most widespread natural
`communities on the Monument, was where most of the livestock grazing occurred and
`likewise was one of the most disturbed communities. As noted by the report, “[t]he
`influence (stresses) of livestock extends throughout most of the community, as few of the
`regions we visited within the study area are without some indication of livestock
`influence.”
`51.
`In contrast, the communities least accessible to livestock—such as the
`higher elevations of paloverde-mixed cacti, mountain uplands, and rocky outcrops—had
`few exotic species, high diversity of native plants, and little soil disturbance. However,
`in 2005 and 2006, signs of livestock use were seen even in these higher elevation areas.
`Surveyors speculated that this new use was due to the extreme drought and decreased
`availability of forage in the lower elevations.
`52.
`The native grasslands also showed a contrast between grazed and ungrazed
`areas, with the grazed grasslands on the Monument showing significant disturbance and
`poor conditions while ungrazed grasslands on adjacent property were in much better
`condition and had much higher levels of native grasses. In looking specifically at grazed
`valley riparian areas, the study noted that these areas on the Monument had a high
`abundance of exotic grasses and very low abundance of native grasses, and that the native
`grass cover was being reduced by livestock activity.
`53.
`The reports also documented that communities most affected by grazing,
`such

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket