`
`
`
`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