`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`International Society for the Protection of
`Mustangs and Burros, a non-profit
`organization,
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`United States Government, Department of
`Agriculture, Tom Vilsack as acting United
`States Secretary of Agriculture; United States
`Forest Service, Judy Palmer as acting U.S.
`Forest Supervisor,
`
`Case No. __________________
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT SEEKING
`DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`(Jury Trial Demanded)
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-08114-SPL Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`Troy B. Froderman (012717)
`Scott C. Ryan (026791)
`FR LAW GROUP PLLC
`4745 North 7th Street, Suite 310
`Phoenix, AZ 85014
`602.566.7425
`tfroderman@frlawgroup.com
`sryan@frlawgroup.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`International Society for the
`Protection of Mustangs and
`Burros
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Plaintiff, the International Society for the Protection of Mustangs and Burros
`
`(“ISPMB”), a non-profit organization, hereby alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for declaratory relief precipitated by the March 21, 2022
`
`notice that the United States Forest Service planned the capturing and removal of “up to 20
`
`unauthorized livestock”, specifically, feral horses found on the Apache National Forest. In
`
`its notice, the Forest Service alleges that these horses are negatively impacting native plants
`
`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 3:22-cv-08114-SPL Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`and animals, watersheds and ecosystems. Once captured, the horses will be impounded and
`
`offered for public sale. Upon information and belief, the majority of these horses will be
`
`purchased for slaughter and sold for their meat.
`
` JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`Jurisdiction is proper in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 (federal
`
`1.
`
`question), 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 (declaratory judgment), the Administrative Procedure Act
`
`(5 U.S.C. Section 701, et seq.)(“APA”), the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
`
`Section 4321, et seq.)(“NEPA”), and 28 U.S.C. 1346 (United States as defendant).
`
`2.
`
`Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1391(b) and
`
`(e).
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`
`Plaintiff, the International Society for the Protection of Mustangs and Burros
`
`3.
`
`(“ISPMB”), is a non-profit organization formed for the purpose of furthering the protection
`
`and preservation of wild horses and burros. ISPMB is incorporated in the state of California.
`
`ISPMB was headquartered in Arizona from approximately 1993 until the year 2000 when it
`
`re-located its headquarters to South Dakota. ISPMB is the oldest wild horse and burro
`
`organization in the United States. Along with its first president, Wild Horse Annie, ISPMB
`
`was instrumental in securing and implementing the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and
`
`Burros Act. ISPMB is an affected and interested party in the State of Arizona.
`
`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
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08114-SPL Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Defendant, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is a branch of the United States
`
`government which has been charged with the responsibility of overseeing the protection and
`
`management of wild free-roaming horses on National Forest System lands.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant, Tom Vilsack, is named only in his capacity as the current Secretary
`
`of Agriculture, United States Government.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant, U.S. Forest Service, is a governmental agency of the United States
`
`and is under the direction and control of the Secretary of Agriculture.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant, Judy Palmer, is named only in her capacity as the acting U.S. Forest
`
`Supervisor for the Apache-Sitgreaves Forests. Her business office is located in Springerville,
`
`Arizona.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`
`In passing the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, Congress
`
`8.
`
`declared that “wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and
`
`pioneer spirit of the West; that they contribute to the diversity of life forms within the Nation
`
`and enrich the lives of the American people; and that these horses and burros are fast
`
`disappearing from the American scene. It is the policy of Congress that wild free-roaming
`
`horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment, or death; and to
`
`accomplish this they are to be considered in the area where presently found, as an integral
`
`part of the natural system of the public lands.” 16 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq.
`
`9.
`
`Sometime prior to March 21, 2022, the U.S. Forest Service arbitrarily and
`
`without adequate investigation, determined that up to 20 horses living on the Apache National
`
`Forest were “unauthorized livestock” or feral horses and that their removal was necessary.
`
`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
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08114-SPL Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`10. On or about March 21, 2022 the U.S. Forest Service released a notice
`
`memorializing their plan to remove the horses, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “A”
`
`and incorporated herein.
`
`11. An updated notice by the U.S. Forest Service, relative to this horse removal,
`
`changed the number of horses to be removed from “20” to “a number of unauthorized
`
`livestock”, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein.
`
`12.
`
`In addition to not disclosing how many horses they intend or have authorized
`
`to remove, the U.S. Forest Service notice regarding this removal does not identify where,
`
`within the Apache National Forest, these horses are located and living.
`
`13.
`
`In her memo implementing what she refers to as the “Unauthorized Livestock
`
`Project”, Forest Supervisor Judy Palmer authorizes generally, the removal of unauthorized
`
`livestock from the Apache National Forest.
`
`14.
`
`The Apache National Forest consists of three Ranger Districts, Springerville,
`
`Alpine, and Clifton.
`
`15.
`
`In a June 11, 2021 Forest Service “Determination Letter” presumably created
`
`or utilized to bolster the “unauthorized livestock” designation, Forest Supervisor Anthony
`
`Madrid makes conclusions about the origins of horses found within the Black River
`
`Watershed in the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts. A copy of this Letter is attached
`
`as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein.
`
`16.
`
`Similarly, a problematic June 2021 Assessment of the “legal status of the
`
`Apache Horses” by Forest Range Program Manager Ralph Fink, purported to establish the
`
`origins of horses found in the Black River region of the Apache National Forest, specifically
`
`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
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08114-SPL Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`within the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts. A copy of the Assessment is attached
`
`as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein.
`
`17. While one could assume that the scope of this capture and removal, based on
`
`the Determination Letter and the Assessment, is to remove horses from the Black River region
`
`of the Apache National Forest within the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts, it is
`
`absolutely not clear from the U.S. Forest Service’s notice nor from Ms. Palmer’s Project
`
`memo which appear to provide for the removal of horses from the entire Apache National
`
`Forest.
`
`18.
`
`Furthermore, the U.S. Forest Service has summarily concluded, without
`
`adequate investigation or documentation and in the face of contradictory evidence, that these
`
`horses are feral horses as opposed to protected wild free-roaming horses.1
`
`19.
`
`There is Documentation of wild horses existing in the Apache National Forest
`
`as early as 1910 and throughout the following decades that the Forest Service appears to have
`
`ignored.
`
`20. Upon information and belief, the U.S. Forest Service has failed historically and
`
`presently to meaningfully survey the Apache National Forest for the presence of wild free-
`
`roaming horses.
`
`21. Upon information and belief, the U.S. Forest Service has not made any attempt
`
`historically or presently, via census, inventory, or any other type of survey, to determine how
`
`many of the horses slated for removal are branded or unbranded.
`
`
`1 Wild free-roaming horses are all “unbranded and unclaimed horses…and their progeny that
`have used lands of the National forest System on or after December 15, 1971, or do hereafter use
`these lands as all or part of their habitat, but does not include any horse…introduced onto the
`National Forest System on or after December 15, 1971, by accident, negligence, or willful disregard
`of private ownership.” 36 C.F.R. § 222.60(b)(13).
`
`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
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08114-SPL Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`22.
`
`The U.S. Forest Service has made an uninformed determination that these
`
`horses that are to be removed (the exact number of which remains unidentified) are feral and
`
`not subject to the protections under the Wild Horses and Burros Act of 1971.
`
`23.
`
`The U.S. Forest Service has also failed to complete an environmental impact
`
`statement (“EIS”), as contemplated by the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”),
`
`which would have provided an analysis of the environmental impact this horse removal would
`
`have.
`
`24.
`
`The U.S. Forest Service is tasked with protecting, managing, and controlling
`
`the wild free-roaming horses on the lands of the National Forest System yet, upon information
`
`and belief, they have neglected, for decades, to properly account for or manage those horses
`
`living on the Apache National Forest.
`
`25. Without adequate investigation, survey, census and analysis, this federal action
`
`risks harming beloved historical symbols of the West, ironically, by the very agency tasked
`
`with their protection.
`
`26. Although the capture and removal of horses from the Apache National Forest
`
`has not officially commenced, the notice of removal remains active and unrescinded.
`
`27.
`
`If removal is allowed, the horses will be offered for public sale. Upon
`
`information and belief a likely result is that the horses will be sold to locations where
`
`slaughter is legal, and they will be killed.
`
`28. Absent the prayed for declaratory relief, ISPMB and its members will suffer
`
`irreparable harm.
`
`
`
`6
`
`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 3:22-cv-08114-SPL Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`COUNT ONE
`
`(Declaration of a Violation of NEPA)
`
`
`Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs numbered
`
`29.
`
`1 through 28.
`
`30.
`
`The National Environmental Policy Act, or “NEPA”, establishes a national
`
`policy for the environment through which it seeks to promote, among other things, the
`
`preservation of “important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and
`
`maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of
`
`individual choice”. 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(4).
`
`31. NEPA provides certain protections for the environment including the
`
`requirement that the “responsible agency official” submit a statement detailing the
`
`environmental impact a major federal action will have prior to that action taking place. 42
`
`U.S.C. § 4321, et seq.
`
`32.
`
`Specific relevant NEPA requirements include the following:
`
`
`
`(2)
`
`[A]ll agencies of the Federal Government shall-***
`
`include in every recommendation or report on proposals for
`(C)
`
`legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of
`the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on—
`
`the environmental impact of the proposed action,
`
`(i)
`
`any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the
`(ii)
`proposal be implemented,
`
`
`alternatives to the proposed action,
`
`(iii)
`
`the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and
`(iv)
`the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and
`
`7
`
`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 3:22-cv-08114-SPL Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`
`any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which
`(v)
`would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.
`
`Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Federal official shall
`consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has
`jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental
`impact involved. Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the
`appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, which are authorized to develop
`and enforce environmental standards, shall be made available to the President,
`the Council on Environmental Quality and to the public as provided by section
`552 of title 5, and shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency
`review processes;
`
`
`The purpose of requiring an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) “is to
`
`33.
`
`ensure agencies consider the environmental impacts of their actions in decision making. It
`
`shall provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform
`
`decision makers and the public of reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize
`
`adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment. Agencies shall focus on
`
`significant environmental issues and alternatives and shall reduce paperwork and the
`
`accumulation of extraneous background data. Statements shall be concise clear and to the
`
`point, and shall be supported by evidence that the agency has made the necessary
`
`environmental analyses. An environmental impact statement is a document that informs
`
`Federal Agency decision making and the public.” 40 C.F.R. 1502.1.
`
`34. A fundamental part of this protection is the opportunity for public comment,
`
`whereby the federal agency “affirmatively solicit[s] comments [from the public] in a manner
`
`designed to inform those persons or organizations who may be interested in or affected by
`
`the proposed 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
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08114-SPL Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`35.
`
`The Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), Section 1508 defines what
`
`constitutes a Major Federal action, providing that it “means an activity or decision subject to
`
`Federal control and responsibility…” and “may include new and continuing activities,
`
`including projects and programs entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated,
`
`or approved by Federal agencies…”. 40 C.F.R. 1508(q)(2).
`
`36.
`
`The Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), Section 1508 provides examples of
`
`categories of actions that constitute Major Federal actions, which include, in part, the
`
`following:
`
`(3)
`
`
`
`(ii) Adoption of formal plans, such as official documents prepared or
`approved by Federal agencies, which prescribe alternative uses of
`Federal resources, upon which future agency actions will be based.
`
`(iii) Adoption of programs, such as a group of concerted actions to
`implement a specific policy or plan; systematic and connected agency
`decisions allocating agency resources to implement a specific statutory
`program or executive directive.
`
`(iv) Approval of specific projects, such as construction or
`management activities located in a defined geographic area. Projects
`include actions approved by permit or other regulatory decision as well
`as Federal and federally assisted activities.
`
`
`The U.S. Forest Service failed to prepare or issue an Environmental Impact
`
`37.
`
`Statement.
`
`38.
`
`The U.S. Forest Service justifies failing to complete an Environmental Impact
`
`Statement by relying on a categorical exclusion which they claim exempts them from the EIS
`
`requirement.
`
`39. A categorical exclusion as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, “means
`
`a category of actions that the agency has determined, in its agency NEPA procedures,
`
`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
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08114-SPL Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`normally do not have a significant effect on the human environment. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(d).
`
`Effect is defined in pertinent part as “changes to the human environment from the proposed
`
`action
`
`or
`
`alternatives
`
`that
`
`are
`
`reasonably
`
`foreseeable…[e]ffects
`
`include
`
`ecological…aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect,
`
`or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions which may have both
`
`beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effects will
`
`be beneficial.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(g), (g)(4). Finally, “human environment” is defined as
`
`“comprehensively the natural and physical environment and the relationship of present and
`
`future generations of Americans with that environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(m).
`
`40.
`
`Forest Supervisor Judy Palmer documents, in a December 15, 2021 memo, the
`
`U.S. Forest Service’s reliance on the categorical exclusion found at 7 C.F.R. § 1b.3(5) which
`
`provides that “[c]ivil and criminal law enforcement and investigative activities” are
`
`determined not to have a “significant individual or cumulative effect on the human
`
`environment.” A copy of the Memo is attached as Exhibit “E” and incorporated herein.
`
`41.
`
`The actions of capturing, permanently removing, and selling horses living on
`
`the Apache National Forest constitute far more than just a civil or criminal investigative
`
`activity. Those actions, in fact, clearly fit the definition of a Major Federal Action which
`
`necessitates compliance with NEPA provisions, including the requirement that an EIS be
`
`prepared.
`
`42.
`
`The ordered horse removal also fails to fall within the definition of what
`
`constitutes a categorical exclusion. Reliance on this categorical exclusion is nothing but an
`
`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
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08114-SPL Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`attempt to remove the horses without engaging in the due diligence required under the law –
`
`in other words, a quick fix.
`
`43. Actions to remove the horses from the Apache National Forest could have a
`
`significant effect on the surrounding environment and on the many people that study, view,
`
`and enjoy these horses.
`
`44.
`
`The Forest Service did not provide an analysis of any alternative options to
`
`removal.
`
`45.
`
`The Defendants have failed to comply with NEPA before ordering the removal
`
`of horses from the Apache National Forest.
`
`46. Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, an actual controversy
`
`has arisen between Plaintiff and Defendants involving the interpretation of certain federal
`
`statutes and acts within this Court’s jurisdiction.
`
`47. Absent the prayed for declaratory relief, ISPMB and its members will suffer
`
`immediate and irreparable harm.
`
`COUNT TWO
`(Declaration of a Violation of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971
`
`48.
`
`The Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs
`
`numbered 1 through 47.
`
`49. Under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, the Secretary
`
`of Agriculture is “directed to protect and manage wild free-roaming horses as components of
`
`the public lands…”. 16 U.S.C. § 1333(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
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08114-SPL Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`50.
`
`The term “wild free-roaming horses and burros” is specifically defined under
`
`the 1971 Act to mean “all unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on public lands of the
`
`United States.” (Emphasis added). 16 U.S.C. Section 1333(a).
`
`51.
`
`The 1971 Act also states that the Secretary “shall manage wild free-roaming
`
`horses and burros in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural
`
`ecological balance on the public lands.” 16 U.S.C. § 1333(a). The Secretary “shall consider
`
`the recommendations of qualified scientists in the field of biology and ecology, some of
`
`whom shall be independent of both Federal and State agencies…” and the Secretary may
`
`“designate and maintain specific ranges on public lands as sanctuaries for their protection and
`
`preservation...” 16 U.S.C. § 1333(a).
`
`52.
`
`The 1971 Act further provides that the Secretary “shall maintain a current
`
`inventory of wild free-roaming horses and burros on given areas of the public lands.” 16
`
`U.S.C. § 1333(b).
`
`53.
`
`Section 1338a of the 1971 Act provides that while the Secretary may use or
`
`contract for the use of motor vehicles for the purpose of transporting captured animals, such
`
`use can only be undertaken after a public hearing, among other things.
`
`54.
`
`The Defendants have made an uninformed and unilateral decision to remove an
`
`unidentified number of horses from the Apache National Forest, irresponsibly categorizing
`
`them as “unauthorized livestock” without performing their due diligence.
`
`55.
`
`The decision to capture and remove horses from the Apache National Forest
`
`was made without an inventory or accounting of the horses to determine their status as wild
`
`or domestic trespass, branded versus unbranded.
`
`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
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08114-SPL Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`56. Defendant’s decision to remove the horses is unsupported by any meaningful
`
`investigation, evidence, or inventory. The U.S. Forest Service failed to support their
`
`conclusion that the horses they intend to capture and remove are not wild free-roaming horses
`
`or offspring of those horses.
`
`57. Upon information and belief, the U.S. Forest Service plans to utilize motor
`
`vehicles during the planned horse removal for the purpose of transporting the captured
`
`animals.
`
`58. Upon information and belief, no public hearing was held prior to the decision
`
`to capture and remove these horses.
`
`59.
`
`The U.S. Forest Service relies on the Assessment of Horses on the Apache
`
`National Forest to lend some support to its conclusion that the horses are “unauthorized
`
`livestock” however the Assessment is problematic and is premised on “[r]ecords [that]
`
`indicate there were no unclaimed horses on the Apache National Forest at the time the [Wild
`
`Horse and Burro Act] was passed.” Exhibit “D”. This assertion is made without citation and
`
`contradicts historical accounts that document the presence of horses well before the passage
`
`of the Act. Further, the U.S. Forest Service had not conducted any inventory or census prior
`
`to, at the time of, or for decades after the passage of the Act.
`
`60.
`
`The Defendants have failed to manage the horses in the Apache National
`
`Forest.
`
`61.
`
`The Defendants have failed to conduct an inventory or census the number,
`
`types, age, and condition of the horses in the Apache National Forest.
`
`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
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08114-SPL Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`62.
`
`The Defendants have failed to hold a public hearing for comment on the
`
`decision to use motor vehicles in the capture and transport of these horses.
`
`63.
`
`The Defendants have failed to make an effort to segregate any wild horses from
`
`domestic horses before ordering removal of all horses from the Apache National Forest.
`
`64. Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, an actual controversy
`
`has arisen between Plaintiff and Defendants involving the interpretation of certain federal
`
`statutes and acts within this Court’s jurisdiction.
`
`65. Absent the prayed for declaratory relief, ISPMB and its members will suffer
`
`immediate and irreparable harm.
`
`COUNT THREE
`(Declaration of a Violation of the Administrative Procedures Act)
`
`66.
`
`The Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs
`
`numbered 1 through 65.
`
`67.
`
`The Defendants have violated the Administrative Procedures Act by their
`
`actions and failures to act.
`
`68.
`
`The Administrative Procedures Act allows for judicial review of certain federal
`
`agency actions. In particular, a reviewing court “shall hold unlawful and set aside agency
`
`action, findings, and conclusions found to be- (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
`
`or otherwise not in accordance with law…(D) without observance of procedure required by
`
`law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)(D).
`
`69.
`
`The U.S. Forest Service’s decision to remove an unidentified number of horses
`
`from the Apache National Forest without following NEPA requirements, without first
`
`conducting a full investigation or study in consultation with independent scientists,
`
`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
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08114-SPL Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`ecologists, and biologists, and without any inventory or census or management for decades
`
`is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with the law.
`
`70. Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, an actual controversy
`
`has arisen between Plaintiff and Defendants involving the interpretation of certain federal
`
`statutes and acts within this Court’s jurisdiction.
`
`71. Absent the prayed for declaratory relief, ISPMB and its members will suffer
`
`immediate and irreparable harm.
`
`COUNT FOUR
`(Declaration that the Horses Are Wild Free-Roaming Horses entitled to Protection
`under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971)
`
`The Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs
`
`72.
`
`numbered 1 through 71.
`
`73.
`
`Evidence exists indicating that, as far back as 1910, wild horses are and have
`
`been living in the Apache National Forest.
`
`74.
`
` The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 defines Wild Free-
`
`Roaming Horses as “all unbranded and unclaimed horses…on public lands of the United
`
`States.” 16 U.S.C. § 1333(a).
`
`75.
`
`Those unbranded unclaimed horses on the Apache National Forest, including,
`
`the Springerville, Alpine, and Clifton Ranger Districts and those horses identified by the U.S.
`
`Forest Service as found in the Black River region of the Apache National Forest, specifically
`
`within the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts, satisfy the definition of Wild Free-
`
`roaming Horses and are entitled to those protections afforded under this act.
`
`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
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08114-SPL Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 16 of 17
`
`
`
`76. Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, an actual controversy
`
`has arisen between Plaintiff and Defendants involving the interpretation of certain federal
`
`statutes and acts within this Court’s jurisdiction.
`
`77. Absent the prayed for declaratory relief, ISPMB and its members will suffer
`
`immediate and irreparable harm.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Department of Agriculture and U.S. Forest
`
`Service, and their respective agents and acting representatives in office, have violated the
`
`provisions of NEPA and have an obligation to conduct an environmental assessment and/or
`
`impact study before ordering the removal of horses from the Apache National Forest.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Department of Agriculture and U.S. Forest
`
`Service, and their respective agents and acting representatives in office, have violated the
`
`provisions of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burros Act of 1971 and that they have an
`
`obligation to comply with said provisions of the Act.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Department of Agriculture and U.S. Forest
`
`Service, and their respective agents and acting representatives in office, have violated the
`
`provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, specifically, that their decision to remove
`
`horses from the Apache National Forest was made in an arbitrary and capricious fashion and
`
`that they have an obligation to comply with the provisions contained within the Act.
`
`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
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08114-SPL Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 17 of 17
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the unbranded unclaimed horses that live on
`
`the Apache National Forest are Wild Free-Roaming horses entitled to the protections
`
`provided in the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.
`
`E.
`
`For an award of Plaintiff’s reasonable costs, fees and expenses pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 2412 et seq.
`
`F.
`
`For any other relief the Court or jury deems appropriate.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED this 28th day of June 2022.
`
`FILED this 28th day of June 2022, with
`the Clerk of the Maricopa County
`Superior Court
`
`
`By:/s/ Sarah Frith
`
`
`
`FR LAW GROUP PLLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`Troy B. Froderman, Esq.
`Scott C. Ryan, Esq.
`4745 N 7th Street, Suite 310
`Phoenix, AZ 85014
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`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
`
`