Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 86
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Laurence (“Laird”) J. Lucas (ISB # 4733)
`llucas@advocateswest.org
`Todd C. Tucci (ISB # 6526)
`ttucci@advocateswest.org
`Talasi B. Brooks (ISB # 9712)
`tbrooks@advocateswest.org
`Advocates for the West
`P.O. Box 1612
`Boise, ID 83701
`(208) 342-7024
`(208) 342-8286 (fax)
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
`
`
`
`WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT,
`and CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
`DIVERSITY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary Of Interior;
`DAVID BERNHARDT, Deputy Secretary
`of Interior; and UNITED STATES
`
`BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
`an agency of the United States,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 01:18-cv-187
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs challenge the Trump Administration’s unlawful actions to lease and
`
`develop oil and gas resources on public lands, or managed by the United States, that will
`
`adversely impact essential habitats and populations across the range of the greater sage-grouse
`
`(Centrocercus urophasianus), and violate bedrock environmental laws including the Federal
`
`Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”), National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”),
`
`and Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).
`
`COMPLAINT -- 1
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 2 of 86
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The greater sage-grouse is deeply imperiled because of the loss, fragmentation,
`
`and degradation of its native sagebrush habitats across the Interior West. Multiple peer-reviewed
`
`studies have found that infrastructure and human activity associated with oil and gas
`
`development adversely affect greater sage-grouse and their habitat through direct mortality,
`
`habitat loss, displacement and behavioral effects, noise, spread of invasive plants, disease
`
`transmission, and other means. Defendant Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) directly
`
`manages approximately 45% of all remaining occupied greater sage-grouse habitat, as well as
`
`managing mineral leasing for substantial additional areas of occupied habitat on Forest Service
`
`and split estate (private surface and federal minerals) lands.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`In 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that greater sage-grouse
`
`“warranted” listing under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), based on threats including
`
`impacts of oil and gas development, and lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms for oil and gas
`
`development of federal minerals and on public lands. As a result, between approximately 2011
`
`and 2015, BLM adopted interim policies in large part barring the issuance of new oil and gas
`
`leases in what was preliminarily identified as “core” greater sage-grouse habitats.
`
`4.
`
`In September 2015, BLM and U.S. Forest Service completed their National
`
`Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy, which amended or revised 98 BLM Resource
`
`Management Plans (“RMPs”) and Forest Service land use and resource plans (“Forest Plans”)
`
`(jointly, “land use plans”) to designate sage-grouse habitats across the species’ range, and
`
`impose new management protections intended to prevent, mitigate, or compensate for further
`
`sage-grouse population declines and habitat losses.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Although these 2015 “Sage-Grouse Plan Amendments” vary across states and
`
`planning areas in the specifics of their management of oil and gas leasing and development, they
`
`COMPLAINT -- 2
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 3 of 86
`
`all consistently mandate that BLM “prioritize oil and gas leasing and development” outside of
`
`sage-grouse habitats, including Sagebrush Focal Areas (“SFAs”), Priority Habitat Management
`
`Areas (“PHMAs”), General Habitat Management Areas (“GHMAs”), and other identified high-
`
`value habitats.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`In October 2015, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that ESA listing is
`
`“not warranted,” finding that the Sage-Grouse Plan Amendments provide adequate regulatory
`
`mechanisms, and specifically citing the Plan Amendments’ requirement that “priority will be
`
`given to leasing and development of fluid mineral resources, including geothermal, outside of
`
`sage-grouse habitat.” 80 Fed. Reg. 59858, 59876 (Oct. 2, 2015) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Beginning in early 2016, some BLM Field Offices resumed leasing, subject to the
`
`Sage-Grouse Plan Amendments, of federal fluid minerals affecting sage-grouse habitats. On
`
`September 1, 2016, BLM issued guidance for “Implementation of Greater Sage-Grouse Resource
`
`Management Plan Revisions or Amendments – Oil & Gas Leasing and Development Sequential
`
`Prioritization,” Instruction Memorandum 2016-143.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`In January 2017, the new Trump Administration began working systematically to
`
`dismantle and/or avoid protections for public lands and their resources in order to promote oil,
`
`gas, and other fossil fuel development. Defendant Ryan Zinke, Trump’s Secretary of Interior,
`
`and Defendant David Bernhart, a former energy industry lobbyist who is now Deputy Secretary
`
`of Interior, have led the charge – to the point that the Department of Interior recently put an oil
`
`rig on employee identification badges. See D. Grandoni & J. Eilperin, “Oil rigs and cowboys:
`
`Interior agency gives employees new cards to wear,” Washington Post (3/15/18).
`
`9.
`
`In an October 2017 “Final Report: Review of the Department of Interior Actions
`
`that Potentially Burden Domestic Energy,” Zinke’s Interior Department identified sage-grouse
`
`COMPLAINT -- 3
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 4 of 86
`
`management plans, and the prioritization requirement in particular, as “burdens” to the
`
`Administration’s announced policy of promoting domestic oil and gas extraction. Defendant
`
`Zinke has further announced his intention to revise the Sage-Grouse Plan Amendments in order
`
`to weaken their protections.
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Defendants have issued a series of orders, reports, and directives reducing
`
`consideration of impacts to sage-grouse and opportunities for public involvement in the oil and
`
`gas leasing process. Among others, on December 27, 2017, without amending or revising its
`
`land use plans under FLPMA or NEPA, BLM issued Instruction Memorandum 2018-026,
`
`effectively repealing the prioritization requirement of the 2015 Sage-Grouse Plan Amendments.
`
`
`
`11.
`
`Following these directives, BLM has offered and sold – without prior review or
`
`analysis of site-specific and cumulative impacts to greater sage-grouse populations and habitat –
`
`hundreds of thousands of acres of oil and gas leases within or affecting sage-grouse habitats
`
`designated in the Sage-Grouse Plan Amendments, including SFAs, PHMAs, and GHMAs. These
`
`leasing actions violate the Sage-Grouse Plan Amendments’ provisions and requirements,
`
`including that oil and gas leasing be prioritized outside sage-grouse habitats. Over a million acres
`
`of similar lease sales are slated to be offered and sold by BLM in coming months. Individually
`
`and cumulatively, these oil and gas leases threaten substantial degradation and fragmentation of
`
`key sage-grouse habitats, and harm to sage-grouse populations, as illustrated on the following
`
`map Plaintiffs have prepared using BLM data (but not including proposed eastern Idaho June
`
`2018 split estate lease sale near Gray’s Lake, discussed below in paragraphs 230-38):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT -- 4
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 5 of 86
`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`
`BLM has also commenced approval of large oil and gas development projects in
`
`or affecting priority sage-grouse habitats, including the Normally Pressurized Lance (“Lance”)
`
`project, a massive proposed development of some 3,500 oil and gas wells within critical sage-
`
`grouse winter habitat and connectivity corridors for sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate
`
`wildlife. This Court previously addressed the Lance project in related BLM sage-grouse
`
`litigation. See Memorandum Decision and Order, W. Watersheds Project v. Salazar, No. 08-cv-
`
`516-BLW, 2012 WL 5880658 (D. Idaho Nov. 20, 2012), ECF Docket No. 31. The Court
`
`declined to enjoin the Lance project at that time because it was not yet final; now, however,
`
`COMPLAINT -- 5
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 6 of 86
`
`BLM is moving forward in approving the Lance project even though it poses severe threats to
`
`sage-grouse and other wildlife habitats and populations.
`
`13.
`
`Defendants are also acting unlawfully to limit, exclude, and/or preclude
`
`environmental review and involvement by Plaintiffs and other members of the public in BLM’s
`
`oil and gas leasing and development decisions. On January 31, 2018, BLM issued Instruction
`
`Memorandum 2018-034, which adopted a series of “policy” changes instructing its Field Offices
`
`to accelerate oil and gas leasing and reduce environmental review and public comment. IM
`
`2018-034 directs BLM offices to accelerate approval of oil and gas leases at the expense of
`
`conducting full environmental analysis, and drastically limits public involvement in leasing
`
`decisions. These changes affect and injure substantial rights and interests of Plaintiffs and the
`
`public, and were adopted in violation of NEPA and without compliance with the procedures and
`
`substantive requirements of law, including the APA.
`
`
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiffs thus seek judicial review and reversal of the challenged oil and gas
`
`leases and development projects, as identified below, as well as IMs 2018-026 and 2018-034.
`
`Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and injunctive relief ordering Defendants to adhere to NEPA and
`
`provide adequate notice and comment for future BLM oil and gas leasing and development
`
`decisions; and requiring Defendants to comply with law in future administration of oil and gas
`
`resources affecting sage-grouse on the public lands.
`
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`15.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question)
`
`because this action arises under the laws of the United States and their implementing regulations,
`
`including FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq.; NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.; the APA, 5
`
`COMPLAINT -- 6
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 7 of 86
`
`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. §§ 2412 et seq.
`
`16.
`
`An actual, justiciable controversy now exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants.
`
`The challenged actions are final and subject to judicial review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704,
`
`and 706. The requested relief is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06.
`
`17.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because Plaintiff Western
`
`Watersheds Project resides in this district and Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity has staff
`
`andr members in this district; Defendant BLM has offices and staff that manage greater sage-
`
`grouse habitats on public lands and administer federal fluid minerals in Idaho; and a substantial
`
`part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred within this district.
`
`18.
`
`The federal government has waived sovereign immunity under 5 U.S.C. § 701.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiffs in this action are as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`A. WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT is an Idaho non-profit corporation, which
`
`
`
`
`
`
`is dedicated to protecting and conserving the public lands and natural resources in Idaho and the
`
`American West. Western Watersheds Project is headquartered in Hailey, Idaho, and has
`
`additional staff and offices in Boise, as well as Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and
`
`Oregon. Western Watersheds Project has long-standing interests in preserving and conserving
`
`greater sage-grouse populations and habitat in Idaho and other states across the range of the
`
`greater sage-grouse. It is the plaintiff in the related BLM sage-grouse litigation involving the
`
`Normally Pressured Lance project, see W. Watersheds Project v. Salazar, No. 1:08-cv-516-BLW
`
`(D. Idaho), and is a co-plaintiff in W. Watersheds Project et al. v. Schneider et al., No. 1:16-cv-
`
`COMPLAINT -- 7
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 8 of 86
`
`083-BLW (D. Idaho), which challenges aspects of the Sage-Grouse Plan Amendments, as well as
`
`other sage-grouse cases before this Court.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY is a non-profit organization
`
`dedicated to the preservation, protection, and restoration of biodiversity, native species, and
`
`ecosystems. The Center was founded in 1989 and is based in Tucson, Arizona, with offices or
`
`staff throughout the country, including Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, California, and Colorado. It has
`
`more than 63,000 members, including many who reside in, explore, and enjoy the native species
`
`and ecosystems of the Interior Mountain West, where the greater sage-grouse is found. The
`
`Center is actively involved in species and habitat protection issues worldwide, including
`
`throughout the western United States, and continues to actively advocate for increased
`
`protections for greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligates in Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
`
`Wyoming, and elsewhere. The Center’s officers, staff, and members regularly seek out greater
`
`sage-grouse on public lands for recreational, scientific, educational and other pursuits, and intend
`
`to continue to do so in the future. The Center has an organizational interest in Defendants’
`
`management of habitat for imperiled species; and has participated in prior sage-grouse litigation
`
`before this and other courts, including W. Watersheds Project et al. v. Schneider et al., No. 1:16-
`
`cv-083-BLW (D. Idaho).
`
`
`
`20.
`
`The decline of the greater sage-grouse in Idaho and other states across its range is
`
`of great concern to Plaintiffs and their officers, staff, members, and supporters; and the
`
`preservation and recovery of the species and its sagebrush-steppe habitat are highly important to
`
`Plaintiffs and their officers, staff, members, and supporters.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiffs’ officers, staff, members, and supporters work, live, and/or recreate
`
`throughout the public lands of the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem of Idaho and other states which are
`
`COMPLAINT -- 8
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 9 of 86
`
`occupied by greater sage-grouse; and they regularly visit and utilize the public lands in Idaho and
`
`other states to observe and study the greater sage-grouse and the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem.
`
`Plaintiffs’ members, supporters and staff derive recreational, aesthetic, scientific, inspirational,
`
`educational, and other benefits from these activities and have an interest in preserving the possibility
`
`of such activities in the future. Their use and enjoyment of the sage-grouse depends on its
`
`continued existence within, and the scientifically sound management of, public lands and federal
`
`fluid mineral resources within the greater sage-grouse range.
`
`22. Many of Plaintiffs’ activities – including research and advocacy – have focused on
`
`preserving the remaining habitats of greater sage-grouse on public lands in Idaho and other states
`
`across the sage-grouse range; and in restoring those habitats to protect and recover greater sage-
`
`grouse populations. Plaintiffs have sought to participate in the BLM’s oil and gas leasing and
`
`development decisions challenged in this action, including by submitting scoping and other
`
`comments, and submitting detailed protests of the BLM’s challenged decisions, but often have not
`
`been given sufficient notice or opportunity to do so. Plaintiffs have exhausted all legally required
`
`administrative remedies before bringing this action.
`
`23.
`
`Defendants’ violations of FLPMA, NEPA, APA, and other provisions of law in
`
`adopting the Challenged Decisions (as identified below) have injured the aesthetic, commercial,
`
`conservation, scientific, recreational, educational, wildlife preservation, procedural, and other
`
`interests of Plaintiffs and their officers, staff, members, and supporters. These are actual, concrete
`
`injuries caused by Defendants’ violations of law, for which judicial relief is required to remedy
`
`those harms. The relief sought herein would redress these injuries. Plaintiffs have no adequate
`
`remedy at law.
`
`
`
`24.
`
`Defendants in this action are as follows:
`
`COMPLAINT -- 9
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 10 of 86
`
`
`
`A.
`
`RYAN K. ZINKE is Secretary of Interior, and has responsibility for approving the
`
`Challenged Decisions identified below. He is sued solely in his official capacity.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`DAVID BERNHARDT is Deputy Secretary of Interior, and has responsibility for
`
`approving and implementing many of the unlawful policy changes and other aspects of the
`
`Challenged Decisions, as identified below. He is sued solely in his official capacity.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT is an agency or instrumentality of the
`
`United States, within the Department of Interior. BLM is charged with statutory duties to
`
`manage public lands under its jurisdiction under FLPMA, NEPA and other authorities, and to
`
`manage leasing and development of federal oil and gas resources in accordance with all
`
`requirements of law. BLM is the agency responsible for issuing the oil and gas leases and other
`
`decisions challenged herein.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
`
`I.
`
`THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE.
`
`
`
`25.
`
`The plight of the greater sage-grouse is well-known to this Court from prior cases,
`
`including the 2008 BLM RMP/sage-grouse litigation referenced above, as well as ESA listing
`
`and other cases. See, e.g., W. Watersheds Project v. Salazar, No. 08-cv-516-BLW, 2011 WL
`
`4526746 (D. Idaho 2011) (“Salazar”) (holding that BLM “test case” RMPs violated NEPA and
`
`FLPMA for failing to address sage-grouse conservation needs); W. Watersheds Project v. U.S.
`
`Fish and Wildlife Serv., 535 F. Supp.2d 1173 (D. Idaho 2007) (reversing 2005 “not warranted”
`
`ESA listing determination for greater sage-grouse); W. Watersheds Project v. Jewell, 56 F. Supp.
`
`3d 1182 (D. Idaho 2014) (BLM violated NEPA and FLPMA in renewing grazing permits in key
`
`sage-grouse habitat in southern Idaho); W. Watersheds Project v. Salazar, 843 F. Supp. 2d 1105
`
`(D. Idaho 2012) (BLM violated NEPA and FLPMA in renewing grazing permits in southern
`
`COMPLAINT -- 10
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 11 of 86
`
`Idaho without considering cumulative impacts on sage-grouse and RMP duties to prioritize
`
`protection of sage-grouse as a sensitive species).
`
`
`
`26.
`
`The greater sage-grouse is a “sagebrush obligate” species, meaning it relies on the
`
`sagebrush steppe ecosystem for all its habitat needs. The fate of the sage-grouse thus depends on
`
`ensuring that healthy and well-distributed sagebrush steppe habitat exists across its range.
`
`
`
`27.
`
`Greater sage-grouse once numbered in the millions across the western U.S and
`
`Canada, but loss and fragmentation of their native sagebrush-steppe habitats have caused
`
`populations to decline precipitously over the last century. The current population of greater
`
`sage-grouse is estimated at less than 5% of historic population levels, i.e., sage-grouse
`
`populations have experienced a 95% or more decline.
`
`
`
`28.
`
`Federal agencies, principally BLM and the Forest Service, manage over half the
`
`remaining sagebrush steppe. Although cooperation among federal and state agencies, private
`
`land owners, and others is important to conserve sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat, the federal
`
`government and federal lands are key to ensuring conservation of the species.
`
`
`
`29.
`
`Greater sage-grouse is a landscape species that uses a variety of seasonal habitats
`
`throughout the year. Sage-grouse breeding sites (leks) and associated nesting and brood-rearing
`
`habitats, as well as winter concentration areas, are especially important to the species’ life cycle.
`
`The grouse have high fidelity to leks, and most hens will nest within four miles of the lek where
`
`they mated. Sage-grouse also return to the same winter habitats year after year. Anthropogenic
`
`disturbance and disruptive activities, noise, and habitat degradation in breeding, nesting, brood-
`
`rearing, and winter habitats negatively affect sage-grouse productivity.
`
`
`
`30.
`
`Energy development has well-documented adverse effects on sage grouse
`
`survival, breeding, and behavior. Roads, pipelines, wells, and other infrastructure cause direct
`
`COMPLAINT -- 11
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 12 of 86
`
`habitat loss and fragmentation. Surface development can disrupt breeding activities and cause
`
`birds to abandon suitable habitat, resulting in population declines. Noise associated with energy
`
`development is also known to disrupt the sage-grouse life cycle. Research suggests that drilling
`
`activity can affect sage-grouse more than 12 miles away.
`
`
`
`31. Multiple peer-reviewed studies have documented the adverse effects from oil and
`
`gas development on sage-grouse habitat use, breeding, and survival and recovery. As noted in
`
`one recent peer-reviewed study (Gamo & Beck 2017, pp. 189-90): “Energy development has
`
`been shown to specifically impact male sage-grouse lek attendance, lek persistence, recruitment
`
`of yearling male and female grouse to leks, nest initiation and site selection, nest survival, chick
`
`survival, brood survival, summer survival of adult females, early brood-rearing habitat selection,
`
`adult female summer habitat selection, and adult female winter habitat selection.” Another
`
`recent study (Green et al. 2017), confirms that sage-grouse lek attendance remains stable only
`
`where no oil and gas development is present within 6,400m, a level of protection far greater than
`
`that provided by the BLM’s 2015 Sage-Grouse Plan Amendments.
`
`
`
`
`
`2010 ESA Listing Decision
`
`32.
`
`After this Court reversed and remanded the 2005 “not warranted” ESA listing
`
`determination, W. Watersheds Project v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 535 F. Supp.2d 1173 (D.
`
`Idaho 2007), the Fish and Wildlife Service published a new finding in March 2010 that ESA
`
`listing was “warranted,” based on the best available science. But the Service determined that
`
`proceeding with a listing rule was “precluded” at that time by limited resources and higher
`
`priority species. See 75 Fed. Reg. 13910 (March 5, 2010) (“March 2010 Finding”).
`
`
`
`33.
`
`The March 2010 Finding stressed the inadequacy of existing regulatory
`
`mechanisms to protect greater sage-grouse from the many identified threats to grouse habitats
`
`COMPLAINT -- 12
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 13 of 86
`
`and populations – particularly focusing on BLM and Forest Service land use plans, which did not
`
`include measures necessary to ensure conservation of sage-grouse. The March 2010 Finding
`
`underscored that BLM’s existing regulatory mechanisms to protect sage-grouse populations and
`
`habitats from energy development (particularly oil and gas) were inadequate and not
`
`scientifically based, including BLM’s use of 0.25 mile and 0.6 mile “buffers” around sage-
`
`grouse leks.
`
`National Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy
`
`34.
`
`Partly in response to this Court’s rulings in the 2008 sage-grouse/RMP litigation,
`
`W. Watersheds Project v. Salazar, No. 08-cv-516-BLW, and citing the March 2010 Finding,
`
`BLM launched the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy in August 2011 to review
`
`and amend BLM RMPs across the sage-grouse range. The Forest Service later joined the
`
`National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy to amend its Forest Plans across the sage-
`
`grouse range as well.
`
`35.
`
`The charter for the National Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy established a
`
`National Technical Team (“NTT”) to serve “as an independent, technical and science-based team
`
`to ensure the best information related to greater sage-grouse management is fully reviewed,
`
`evaluated and provided to the BLM for consideration in the land use planning process.”
`
`36.
`
`On December 21, 2011, BLM released the NTT’s “Report on National Greater
`
`Sage-grouse Conservation Measures” (“NTT Report”), which BLM filed with this Court in the
`
`related BLM sage-grouse/RMP litigation. See SAGE GROUSE NATIONAL TECHNICAL TEAM, A
`
`REPORT ON NATIONAL GREATER SAGE-GROUSE CONSERVATION MEASURES 6-7 (Dec. 21, 2011),
`
`Hearing Exhibit 6, Salazar, No. 08-cv-516-BLW, ECF No. 167-14. Based on the evidence and
`
`testimony at the remedies hearing in that litigation, the Court found that the NTT Report
`
`COMPLAINT -- 13
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 14 of 86
`
`“contains the best available science concerning the sage-grouse” at the time. Memorandum
`
`Decision and Order, Salazar, 2012 WL 5880658 at *2 (Nov. 21, 2012), ECF No. 231.
`
`
`
`37.
`
`The NTT Report (p. 7) emphasized that the designation and protection of priority
`
`sage-grouse habitats is key to conserving the greater sage-grouse:
`
`The overall objective is to protect priority sage-grouse habitats from anthropogenic
`disturbances that will reduce distribution or abundance of sage-grouse. Priority sage-
`grouse habitats are areas that have the highest conservation value to maintaining or
`increasing sage-grouse populations. These areas would include breeding, late brood-
`rearing, winter concentration areas, and where known, migration or connectivity
`corridors.
`
`38.
`
`The NTT Report also explained that the “primary potential risks to sage-grouse
`
`
`
`from energy and mineral development” are: 1) direct disturbance, displacement, or mortality of
`
`grouse; 2) direct loss of habitat, or loss of effective habitat through fragmentation and reduced
`
`habitat patch size and quality; and 3) cumulative landscape-level impacts. Id. at 18.
`
`
`
`39.
`
`The NTT Report extensively discussed the scientific literature on the impacts of
`
`energy development on sage-grouse, id. at 19-21, and concluded that:
`
`There is strong evidence from the literature to support that surface-disturbing energy or
`mineral development within priority sage-grouse habitats is not consistent with the goal
`to maintain or increase populations or distribution. . . . Breeding populations are severely
`reduced at well pad densities commonly permitted. Magnitude of losses varies from one
`field to another, but findings suggest that impacts are universally negative and typically
`severe.
`
`Id. at 19 (emphasis added; citations omitted).
`
`
`
`40.
`
`The NTT Report found that BLM’s existing 0.25-mile “No Surface Occupancy”
`
`(“NSO”) buffers around leks, and seasonal timing stipulations applying 0.6-mile buffers around
`
`leks, are inadequate to protect sage-grouse, stating that “[e]ven a 4-mile NSO [non-surface
`
`occupancy] buffer would not be large enough to offset all the impacts” of energy development.
`
`Id. at 21.
`
`COMPLAINT -- 14
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 15 of 86
`
`
`
`41.
`
`The NTT Report concluded that “the conservation strategy most likely to meet the
`
`objective of maintaining or increasing sage-grouse distribution and abundance is to exclude
`
`energy development and other large-scale disturbance from priority habitats, and where valid
`
`existing rights exist, minimize those impacts by keeping disturbances to 1 per section with direct
`
`surface disturbance impacts held to 3% of the area or less.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`42.
`
`The NTT Report (pp. 22-23) provided other recommendations for conservation
`
`measures to limit adverse impacts of energy development on greater sage-grouse, including:
`
`• “Close priority sage-grouse habitat areas to fluid mineral leasing,”
`
` “Do not allow new surface occupancy on federal leases within priority habitat,
`this includes winter concentration areas during any time of the year,” and
`
`•
`
`• “Apply a seasonal restriction on exploratory drilling that prohibits surface-
`disturbing activities during the nesting and early brood-rearing season in all
`priority sage-grouse habitats during this period.”
`
`
`
`43.
`
`BLM issued Instruction Memorandum (“IM”) 2012-044 on December 27, 2011,
`
`
`
`which required that the NTT Report’s recommendations must be considered within the National
`
`Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy.
`
`COT Report
`
`44.
`
`The Fish and Wildlife Service convened a separate “Conservation Objectives
`
`Team” (“COT”) of federal and state experts, which was tasked with producing recommendations
`
`“regarding the degree to which threats need to be reduced or ameliorated to conserve the greater
`
`sage-grouse so that it would no longer be in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of
`
`extinction in the foreseeable future,” i.e., would not need to be listed under the ESA.
`
`
`
`45.
`
`In March 2013, the Fish and Wildlife Service released the team’s findings –
`
`known as the “COT Report” – which was peer-reviewed and based on the best scientific and
`
`COMPLAINT -- 15
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 16 of 86
`
`commercial data available. See GREATER SAGE-GROUSE (CENTROCERCUS UROPHASIANUS)
`
`CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES: FINAL REPORT (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013).
`
`46.
`
`The COT Report identified “Priority Areas for Conservation” (“PACs”), which it
`
`termed “key habitats essential for sage-grouse conservation.” The PACs “were identified using
`
`the best available information” and were described as “highly important for long-term viability
`
`of the species and should be a primary focus of our collective conservation efforts.”
`
`47.
`
`Subsequently, in an October 27, 2014 letter to the BLM and Forest Service, titled
`
`“Greater Sage-Grouse: Additional Recommendation to Refine Land Use Allocations in Highly
`
`Important Landscapes,” the Service identified a sub-category of lands within the PACs called
`
`sage-grouse “stronghold” areas – the most vital sage-grouse areas within the priority habitats
`
`designated as PACs.
`
`2015 Sage-Grouse Plan Amendments.
`
`
`
`48.
`
`On May 29, 2015, BLM and Forest Service released fourteen final Environmental
`
`Impact Statements (“EISs”) and Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments for the National Greater
`
`Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, which (along with the 2014 Lander RMP) would amend 98
`
`BLM RMPs and Forest Plans across the sage-grouse range.
`
`49.
`
`BLM and Forest Service finalized the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning
`
`Strategy through issuance of four Records of Decision (“RODs”) in September 2015, which
`
`(along with the prior Lander RMP) amended or revised each of the 98 BLM and Forest Service
`
`land use plans within the National Planning Strategy region. These plan amendments are called
`
`“Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments” (“ARMPAs”) or “Approved Resource
`
`Management Plans” (“ARMPs”) for the BLM lands, and “Land Management Plan Amendments”
`
`(“LMPAs”) for Forest Service lands.
`
`COMPLAINT -- 16
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 17 of 86
`
`50.
`
`The four September 2015 RODs were comprised of two RODs separately issued
`
`by BLM and two other RODs by the Forest Service for the Rocky Mountain and Great Basin
`
`regions, respectively. The two BLM RODs are as follows:
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`BLM’s “Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan
`
`Amendments for the Rocky Mountain Region, Including the Greater Sage-grouse Sub-Regions
`
`of Lewistown, North Dakota, Northwest Colorado, Wyoming, and the Approved Resource
`
`Management Plans for Billings, Buffalo, Cody, HiLine, Miles City, Pompeys Pillar National
`
`Monument, South Dakota, Worland,” dated September 21, 2015 (“BLM Rocky Mountain
`
`ROD”); and
`
`
`
`(b)
`
`BLM’s “Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan
`
`Amendments for the Great Basin Region, Including the Greater Sage-grouse Sub-Regions of
`
`Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, Utah, dated
`
`September 21, 2015 (“BLM Great Basin ROD”).
`
`51.
`
`BLM asserted in these Great Basin and Rocky Mountain RODs that it relied on
`
`the “best available science” in reaching the management decisions approving the various plan
`
`amendments. See, e.g., BLM Rocky Mountain ROD at 1-12 (“BLM used the best available
`
`science”) & 1-33 (revised/amended plans “are grounded in the best available science”).
`