Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 1 of 40
`
`Bryan Hurlbutt (ISB #8501)
`Laurence (“Laird”) J. Lucas (ISB #4733)
`ADVOCATES FOR THE WEST
`P.O. Box 1612
`Boise, ID 83701
`(208) 342-7024
`(208) 342-8286 (fax)
`bhurlbutt@advocateswest.org
`llucas@advocateswest.org
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
`
`
`
`IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. FOREST SERVICE, and
`
`U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
`
`SERVICE,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 1:21-cv-504
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
`
` )
` )
`
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This action challenges Defendants’ approval of the “Sage Hen Integrated
`
`Restoration Project”—a twenty-year, landscape-scale project that includes extensive logging,
`
`prescribed burns, and road construction on public lands in the Boise National Forest—for
`
`violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest Management Act
`
`(NFMA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
`
`2.
`
`The Sage Hen Project area covers 67,800 acres in the West Mountains,
`
`west/northwest of Smith Ferry, Idaho, as shown in Figure 1 below.
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 2 of 40
`
`Fig. 1 – Sage Hen Vicinity Map
`Sage Hen Integrated Restoration Project Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
`(reproduction of Fig. 1 in the Forest Service’s Environmental Assessment)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1. Project vicinity map
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 2
`
`Boise National Forest
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 3 of 40
`
`3.
`
`The Project area includes Sage Hen Reservoir, parts of the Snowbank Mountain
`
`Inventoried Roadless Area, and multiple tributaries to Squaw Creek1, a tributary to the Payette
`
`River. The Project includes 19,900 acres of commercial timber harvest, 11,200 acres of fuels
`
`reduction, 35,000 to 45,000 acres of prescribed burning, and up to 83.1 miles of road
`
`construction over the next twenty years.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Idaho Conservation League (ICL) is the largest state-based conservation
`
`group in Idaho. ICL is also a founding member of the Boise Forest Coalition, which is a citizen-
`
`led coalition formed in 2010 to bring together diverse interests to craft recommendations for
`
`forest restoration projects in the Boise National Forest. Through its involvement in the Boise
`
`Forest Coalition and other similar groups, ICL regularly partners with the U.S. Forest Service,
`
`local governments, communities, and other stakeholders to support well-planned forest
`
`restoration projects on National Forest lands. Both ICL and the Boise Forest Coalition filed
`
`objections critical of the Sage Hen Project, and neither objection was resolved.
`
`5.
`
`Unlike other forest projects ICL has supported, the Forest Service rushed the Sage
`
`Hen Project to approval, cut out the public, failed to consider alternatives, refused to prepare an
`
`Environmental Impact Statement, and deferred analyzing important effects to fish, plants, and
`
`wildlife until after the Project is underway, in violation of the core tenets of NEPA.
`
`6.
`
`Not only does this “approve first, study later” approach violate NEPA, but it also
`
`violates NFMA because the Forest Service failed to follow the Forest Plan for the Boise National
`
`Forest, which requires surveying and developing protections for “sensitive species” of wildlife,
`
`plants, and their habitat during project planning, not after project approval.
`
`
`
`1 In November 2021, Secretary of the Interior Haaland formally declared “squaw” to be a
`derogatory term and ordered a task force to find replacement names for sites on federal lands that
`use the term. Hereafter, the Complaint avoids using the term when possible.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 4 of 40
`
`7.
`
`Many of these errors flow from the Forest Service’s decision to do as little up-
`
`front planning as possible by using “conditions-based management” for the Sage Hen Project.
`
`Under this approach, the Forest Service set maximum amounts of logging, road work, and other
`
`activities now but gave itself a blank check to decide later—outside of the pre-decisional and
`
`public NEPA process—the specifics of when, where, and how to conduct Project activities. As a
`
`result, important details of the Project are largely unknown, and the true extent of its adverse
`
`environmental impacts are highly uncertain.
`
`8.
`
`Because the Sage Hen Project is so large in scale and duration, the maximum
`
`authorized logging and road construction will likely have significant adverse impacts on the
`
`area’s fish, wildlife, and plants. But the Forest Service ignored and downplayed these effects and
`
`erroneously concluded there will be no significant environmental effects, again violating NEPA.
`
`9.
`
`The Forest Service also violated the ESA by relying on a flawed Biological
`
`Opinion prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which fails to protect
`
`“threatened” bull trout. Local bull trout are isolated, their population numbers are dangerously
`
`small, and they are particularly susceptible to further loss due to climate change. Yet the Forest
`
`Service and FWS ignored this and other important information to conclude—incorrectly—that
`
`harm and habitat degradation caused by the Project will have minimal effect on bull trout.
`
`10.
`
`Based on these and other violations of law, Plaintiff ICL requests that the Court
`
`hold unlawful, set aside, and vacate the Forest Service’s approval of the Sage Hen Project, and
`
`FWS’s Biological Opinion, and enter other relief as prayed for below.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`11.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and 1331 because this
`
`action involves the United States as a defendant and arises under the laws of the United States,
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 5 of 40
`
`including NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; NFMA, 16 U.S.C. § 1600 et seq.; the ESA, 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1531 et seq.; the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (APA); the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 2201 et seq.; the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2212, 2214; and applicable
`
`regulations.
`
`12.
`
`As required by the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2), Plaintiff provided notice of its
`
`intent to bring the ESA claims in this action to the U.S. Forest Service, FWS, and Secretary of
`
`the Interior more than 60 days prior to bringing this action.
`
`13.
`
`An actual, justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendants. The
`
`requested relief is therefore proper under 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202, and 16
`
`U.S.C. § 1540(g).
`
`14.
`
`Venue is properly vested in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 16
`
`U.S.C. § 1540(g)(3)(A) because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
`
`the claims herein occurred within this judicial district, Plaintiff and Defendants are located in this
`
`district, and the public lands and resources in question are in this district.
`
`15.
`
`The federal government has waived sovereign immunity in this action pursuant to
`
`5 U.S.C. § 702 and 16 U.S.C. §1540(g)(1).
`
`PARTIES
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE is a non-profit conservation
`
`organization founded in 1973. ICL is based in Boise, Idaho, and has three field offices around
`
`the state, including one in McCall, Idaho. ICL works on behalf of over 35,000 members and
`
`supporters to protect public lands, water quality, fish, and wildlife throughout Idaho, including in
`
`the Boise National Forest.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 6 of 40
`
`17.
`
`ICL staff, members, and supporters regularly visit, use, and enjoy the public lands
`
`and waters in the Boise National Forest, including in the Sage Hen Project area, for recreation,
`
`conservation, scientific, aesthetic, and other uses, and they will continue to do so in the future.
`
`ICL staff, members, and supporters observe, enjoy, use, and appreciate the native fish, wildlife,
`
`and plants in the Project area. These uses will be harmed or even eliminated by the logging and
`
`road construction and use, and other activities authorized by the Project, which will harm fish,
`
`wildlife, and plants and destroy and degrade their habitat.
`
`18. Moreover, Defendants’ violations of law injure ICL and its staff, members, and
`
`supporters by denying them the ability to adequately participate in the public review process,
`
`failing to consider alternatives to the Project, and by denying them information concerning
`
`potential environmental impacts and other issues that NEPA requires the Forest Service to
`
`disclose, analyze, and seek public review of prior to authorizing the Project.
`
`19.
`
`ICL also suffers injury-in-fact because it has devoted time, energy, and money to
`
`protecting public lands, forests, fish, wildlife, and plants and advocating for responsible forest
`
`management in the Boise National Forest. ICL has diverted resources from other efforts to
`
`pursue its mission and has instead used those resources to conduct field visits, submit public
`
`comment to the Forest Service, file administrative objections, and engage with local, state, and
`
`federal officials about their concerns with the unlawfully-approved Sage Hen Project.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant U.S. FOREST SERVICE is an agency or instrumentality of the United
`
`States within the Department of Agriculture. The Forest Service is vested with the authority and
`
`duty to manage and protect the public lands and resources of the Boise National Forest. The
`
`Forest Service approved the Sage Hen Project in the April 2021 Decision Notice and based on its
`
`November 2020 EA/FONSI, as detailed further below.
`
`COMPLAINT – 6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 7 of 40
`
`21.
`
`Defendant U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE is an agency or instrumentality
`
`of the United States within the Department of the Interior. FWS is vested with the authority and
`
`duty to protect and restore populations and habitats of ESA-listed threatened and endangered
`
`species, including bull trout. FWS issued the Biological Opinion for the Sage Hen Project in
`
`January 2021.
`
`22.
`
`Each violation of law, as alleged herein, injures the aesthetic, commercial,
`
`conservation, scientific, recreational, educational, fish and wildlife preservation, and/or other
`
`interests of ICL and its staff, supporters, and members. These are actual, concrete injuries caused
`
`by Defendants’ violations of law, and the judicial relief sought would remedy, in whole or in
`
`part, ICL’s injuries.
`
`23.
`
`ICL’s interests have been, are being, and will continue to be irreparably injured
`
`and harmed by Defendants’ actions challenged herein. Unless the relief prayed for is granted,
`
`ICL and the public will suffer irreparable harm and injury to its legally protected interests.
`
`
`
`The National Environmental Policy Act
`
`LEGAL BACKGROUND
`
`24.
`
`Congress adopted NEPA to “encourage productive and enjoyable harmony
`
`between man and his environment,” and “to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate
`
`damage to the environment and biosphere,” among other stated purposes. 42 U.S.C. § 4321.
`
`25.
`
`As the Supreme Court has emphasized, NEPA requires federal agencies to take a
`
`“hard look” at likely environmental impacts before approving an action, not afterward. See
`
`Baltimore Gas & Electric v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983). “NEPA ensures that important effects
`
`will not be overlooked or underestimated only to be discovered after resources have been committed
`
`or the die otherwise cast.” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989).
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 8 of 40
`
`26.
`
`The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) promulgated regulations
`
`implementing NEPA, which are binding on all federal agencies. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500 et seq.2
`
`27.
`
`NEPA’s goals are to “insure that environmental information is available to public
`
`officials and citizens before decisions are made and actions are taken,” and to “help public
`
`officials make decisions that are based on [an] understanding of environmental consequences,
`
`and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b)–(c).
`
`The NEPA process requires that “environmental information is available to public officials and
`
`citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken.” Id. § 1500.1(b). The
`
`information agencies are required to gather and disclose during the NEPA process “must be of
`
`high quality.” Id. § 1500.1(b). “Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public
`
`scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.” Id.
`
`28.
`
`Under NEPA, federal agencies must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
`
`(EIS) for all “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
`
`environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). An EIS must include, inter alia, a detailed statement of:
`
`(1) the environmental effects—including direct, indirect, and cumulative effects—of the
`
`proposed action; (2) any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed
`
`action is implemented; (3) reasonable alternatives to the proposed action; and (4) mitigation
`
`measures to minimize any significant effects identified. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. §§
`
`1508.7, 1508.8, 1502.10, 1502.14, 1502.16.
`
`
`
`
`
`2 The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) adopted NEPA regulations binding on every
`federal agency. See 40 C.F.R. Part 1500. The Forest Service approved the Sage Hen Project
`using the 1978 CEQ NEPA regulations (as amended), which are cited in this Complaint, not the
`2020 CEQ NEPA regulations.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 9 of 40
`
`29.
`
`To determine whether potential adverse effects are significant enough to warrant
`
`an EIS, the agency may prepare a more concise Environmental Assessment (EA). 40 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1508.9(a). An EA must “provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to
`
`prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact.” Id. §
`
`1508.9(a)(1). An agency may avoid an EIS only if it finds, after preparing an EA, that the action
`
`will have “no significant impact,” in which case the agency may issue a Finding of No
`
`Significant Impact (FONSI). Id. §§ 1501.4(b), 1508.9 & 1508.13. An EA and FONSI must
`
`provide a “convincing statement of reasons” why the project’s impacts are insignificant. Id.
`
`30.
`
`In evaluating the “significance” of an environmental impact for purposes of
`
`determining whether an EIS is required, federal agencies must consider, among other factors: (1)
`
`Both beneficial and adverse impacts, as “[a] significant effect may exist even if the federal
`
`agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.”; (2) “The degree to which the
`
`effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial.”; (3) “The
`
`degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve
`
`unique or unknown risks.”; (4) “The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for
`
`future actions with significant effects . . . .”; (5) “Whether the action is related to other actions
`
`with . . . cumulatively insignificant impacts . . . .”; (6) “The degree to which the action may
`
`adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat . . . .”; and (7) “Whether the
`
`action threatens a violation of federal, state, or local law or requirements imposed for the
`
`protection of the environment.” Id. § 1508.27(b).
`
`31.
`
`The scope of NEPA review is quite broad. Federal agencies must, among other
`
`things, analyze all direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of a proposed action and its
`
`alternatives on ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, and health interests. Id.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 10 of 40
`
`§§ 1508.7, 1508.8. Direct effects include those that “are caused by the action and occur at the
`
`same time and place.” Id. § 1508.8(a). Indirect effects include effects that “are caused by the
`
`action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.”
`
`Id. § 1508.8(b). Cumulative effects result from incremental impacts of the action when added to
`
`all other past, present, and reasonably-foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or
`
`person undertakes such other actions. Id. § 1508.7.
`
`32.
`
`The consideration of alternatives is at the heart of NEPA review. Agencies must
`
`“[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives
`
`which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been
`
`eliminated”; “[d]evote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the
`
`proposed action”; and “[i]nclude reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead
`
`agency.” Id. § 1502.14(a)–(c). Agencies must consider alternatives in an EA. Id. § 1508.9(b).
`
`The National Forest Management Act
`
`33.
`
`NFMA requires the Forest Service to prepare a land and resource management
`
`plan (“forest plan”) for each national forest, including standards and guidelines for how the
`
`forest shall be managed. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1604(a), (e) & (g)(3)(B). NFMA and its implementing
`
`regulations require that all management actions must be consistent with the governing forest
`
`plan. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i); 36 C.F.R. § 219.15.
`
`34.
`
`The governing forest plan for the Sage Hen Project is the Boise National Forest
`
`Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended in 2010 (hereafter, the “Forest Plan” or
`
`“Boise Forest Plan”). The Forest Plan includes numerous goals, objectives, guidelines, and
`
`standards to benefit and protect plants, fish, wildlife, and their habitat. “Standards are binding
`
`limitations placed on management actions,” and a “project or action that varies from a relevant
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 11 of 40
`
`standard may not be authorized unless the Forest Plan is amended.” Boise Forest Plan, p. III-3.
`
`“Guidelines represent a preferred or advisable course of action generally expected to be carried
`
`out,” and while “[d]eviation from compliance does not require a Forest Plan amendment,” the
`
`“rationale for deviation should be documented in the project decision document.” Id.
`
`35.
`
`Among other standards and guidelines, the Forest Plan includes guidelines calling
`
`for identifying habitat and surveying for the presence of “sensitive species” of wildlife and plants
`
`during project planning, as well as related standards to protect these sensitive species.
`
`36.
`
`Sensitive species are those species identified by the Regional Forester for which
`
`population viability is a concern on National Forest lands within the region. The goal of the
`
`Forest Service Sensitive Species Program (Forest Service Manual 2670) is to ensure that species
`
`numbers and population distribution are adequate so that no ESA-listing will be required and no
`
`extirpation will occur on National Forest lands.
`
`37.
`
`For sensitive wildlife, Forest Plan guideline “WIGU05” provides: “Source habitat
`
`should be determined for Sensitive wildlife species within or near the project area during
`
`site/project scale analyses. Surveys to determine presence should be conducted for those species
`
`for which source habitat is identified.” Id. at III-28. Forest Plan standard “WIST03” requires:
`
`“Mitigate management actions within known nesting or denning sites of sensitive species if those
`
`actions would disrupt the reproductive success of those sites during the nesting or denning
`
`period. Mitigation measures shall be determined during project planning.” Id. at III-27. Forest
`
`Plan standard “WIST05” requires: “In goshawk territories with known active nest stands,
`
`identify alternate and replacement nest stands during project-level planning when it is
`
`determined that the proposed activity is likely to degrade nest stand habitat.” Id.
`
`38.
`
`For sensitive plants, Forest Plan guideline “BTGU01” provides: “For site/project-
`
`COMPLAINT – 11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 12 of 40
`
`scale analysis, suitable habitat should be determined for Sensitive species within or near the
`
`project area. Conduct surveys for those species with suitable habitat to determine presence.
`
`Document the rationale for not conducting surveys for other species in the project record.” Id. at
`
`III-36. Forest Plan standard “BTST01” requires: “Management actions that occur within
`
`occupied sensitive plant species habitat must incorporate measures to ensure habitat is
`
`maintained where it is within desired conditions, or restored where degraded.” Id. at 35.
`
`The Endangered Species Act
`
`39.
`
`Congress enacted the ESA “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon
`
`which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved [and] to provide a
`
`program for the conservation of such . . . species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b). The “heart of the ESA”
`
`is the Section 7 consultation requirement. W. Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472,
`
`495 (9th Cir. 2011). Section 7 imposes a substantive duty on each federal agency to “insure that
`
`any action . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or
`
`threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species.”
`
`16 U.S.C. §1536(a)(2). “Action” is defined broadly as “all activities or programs of any kind
`
`authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02.
`
`40.
`
`The purpose of consultation is to ensure the action at issue “is not likely to
`
`jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in
`
`the destruction or adverse modification of [designated critical] habitat of such species.” 16
`
`U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). An action will cause jeopardy if it “reasonably would be expected, directly
`
`or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed
`
`species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species.” 50
`
`C.F.R. § 402.02.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 13 of 40
`
`41.
`
`During consultation FWS must “review all relevant information” regarding the
`
`action area, whether provided by the action agency or not. Id. § 402.14(g)(1). FWS must evaluate
`
`both the current status of listed species and critical habitat in the action area, as well as the
`
`effects of the proposed action and cumulative effects on listed species and critical habitat. Id. §
`
`402.14(g)(2)–(3). Then, based on this information, FWS must issue a “biological opinion as to
`
`whether the action, taken together with cumulative effects, is likely to jeopardize the continued
`
`existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.”
`
`Id. § 402.14(g)(4). If the biological opinion concludes that the action will not result in jeopardy,
`
`FWS must provide an “incidental take statement” specifying the impact of such incidental taking
`
`on the species, any “reasonable and prudent measures” that FWS considers necessary to
`
`minimize such impact, and setting forth the “terms and conditions” that must be complied with
`
`by the agency to implement those measures. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4).
`
`42.
`
`In carrying out consultation, “each agency shall use the best scientific . . . data
`
`available.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). Mitigation measures relied on in a biological opinion must be
`
`reasonably specific, binding, certain to occur, and capable of implementation. Center for
`
`Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, 982 F.3d 723, 743–48 (9th Cir. 2020).
`
`43.
`
`The term “take” includes to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
`
`capture, or collect.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19). FWS further defines “harass” to include “an
`
`intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by
`
`annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns, including
`
`breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.3. And “harm” is defined to “include significant
`
`habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly
`
`impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.” Id.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 14 of 40
`
`44.
`
`Under ESA Section 7(a)(2), the action agency, like the Forest Service here, also
`
`must independently ensure that its actions do not result in jeopardy or adverse modification of
`
`critical habitat. Sierra Club v. Marsh, 816 F.2d 1376, 1386 (9th Cir. 1987); Defenders of Wildlife
`
`v. Martin, 454 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 1096–99 (E.D. Wash. 2006). As the Ninth Circuit has held:
`
`“Consulting with the Service alone does not satisfy an agency’s duty under the Endangered
`
`Species Act. An agency cannot ‘abrogate its responsibility to ensure that its actions will not
`
`jeopardize a listed species; its decision to rely on a Service biological opinion must not have
`
`been arbitrary or capricious.’” Resources Limited, Inc. v. Robertson, 35 F.3d 1300, 1304 (9th Cir.
`
`1994). Thus, an action agency cannot meet its substantive obligations under Section 7 of the
`
`ESA by relying on a biological opinion that is legally flawed. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v.
`
`U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 698 F.3d 1101, 1127–28 (9th Cir. 2012).
`
`45. Without a legally adequate biological opinion and incidental take statement, any
`
`activities likely to result in incidental take of members of a listed species are unlawful. 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1538(a)(1)(B). Accordingly, anyone who undertakes such activities, or who authorizes such
`
`activities, id. § 1538(g), may be subject to criminal and civil federal enforcement actions, as well
`
`as civil actions by citizens or others for declaratory and injunctive relief. See id. § 1540.
`
`The Administrative Procedure Act
`
`46.
`
`The APA empowers federal courts to hold unlawful and set aside any final agency
`
`action which is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
`
`law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). Under the APA, “the agency must examine the relevant data and
`
`articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the
`
`facts found and the choice made.” Motor Vehicle Mfgs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins.
`
`Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (internal quotation omitted).
`
`COMPLAINT – 14
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 15 of 40
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Sage Hen Project Overview
`
`47.
`
`The Sage Hen Project would occur on approximately 68,000 acres of public lands
`
`on the Emmett Ranger District of the Boise National Forest in the West Mountains in Gem and
`
`Valley Counties, Idaho. The Project area includes parts of the Snowbank Inventoried Roadless
`
`Area and includes the entire Upper Squaw Creek watershed.
`
`48.
`
`The Project area is home to many special-status fish, wildlife, and plant species
`
`and habitat. It is also a popular area for camping, fishing, hiking, hunting, and other recreation.
`
`49.
`
`The Project authorizes up to 19,900 acres of commercial timber harvest, 11,200
`
`acres of fuels reduction, 35,000 to 45,000 acres of prescribed burning, and 83.1 miles of road
`
`construction over the next twenty years. It also authorizes removing and replacing culverts and
`
`resurfacing and maintaining roads.
`
`50.
`
`The Forest Service is using “condition-based management” for the Sage Hen
`
`Project, so the Forest Service has not determined exactly where, when, or how authorized
`
`activities will occur and will decide that later. As stated in the Decision Notice (DN) approving
`
`the Project, this “allows managers to make landscape-level decisions while reserving flexibility
`
`and the ability to respond to change before implementing management activities.” The DN also
`
`asserts that it used a “conservative maximum impact analysis approach” for the Project.
`
`51.
`
`The Forest Service anticipates that there will be 13 to 18 timber sale contracts
`
`within the Project area, as illustrated in Figure 2 below, which depicts potential locations of
`
`logging areas and roads. Contracts would typically be 5 years in length. Implementation of
`
`timber sale activities would occur over a 10- to 15-year timeframe, starting in 2021. Upon
`
`completion, road rehabilitation, burning, and other activities would occur over additional years.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 16 of 40
`
`Fig. 2. – Map of Potential Timber Sale Areas and Roads
`
`(reproduction of Fig. 1 in the Forest Service’s Decision Notice)
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1. Modified timber sale areas
`
`Decision Notice for the Sage Hen Integrated Restoration Project
`COMPLAINT – 16
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 17 of 40
`
`Forest Service Approval Process
`
`52.
`
`Since 2012, the Forest Service and Boise Forest Coalition participated in field
`
`trips and meetings related to potential projects in the Sage Hen area. The Boise Forest Coalition
`
`is a citizen-led group open to anyone with an interest in Boise National Forest management.
`
`Members of the Boise Forest Coalition Steering Committee include representatives of ICL, the
`
`local Soil Conservation District, the Society of American Foresters, and Woodgrain (a timber
`
`product company), as well as a private citizen.
`
`53.
`
`In April 2020, the Forest Service initiated the “scoping period” for the Sage Hen
`
`Project, announcing the rough sketches of the proposed action and soliciting public comment.
`
`From that point on, the Forest Service rushed the Project to approval, minimizing public
`
`involvement, repeatedly rebuffing ICL’s efforts to engage, and ignoring warnings of the Forest
`
`Service’s impending legal violations.
`
`54.
`
`In May 2020, ICL submitted scoping comments. ICL noted that it supported
`
`components of the Project; however, ICL warned the Forest Service that authorizing such a large
`
`project by using an EA instead of a full EIS would violate NEPA. ICL identified five recent
`
`projects in the Payette National Forest where the Forest Service used EISs to evaluate landscape-
`
`scale projects similar to Sage Hen. ICL also urged the Forest Service to consider multiple action
`
`alternatives and utilize maximum public participation to comply with NEPA.
`
`55.
`
`The Boise Forest Coalition also submitted scoping comments, warning that the
`
`scoping documents failed to provide sufficient information to fully understand the proposed
`
`action and its potential effects, among other concerns. The Idaho Department of Parks and
`
`Recreation raised concerns about recreation access, opportunities and improvements, and asked
`
`the Forest Service to consider an alternative. Other conservation groups and citizens submitted
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 18 of 40
`
`comments as well, including comments raising concerns about the large scale of the Project and
`
`its likely adverse effects to fish, plants, and wildlife.
`
`56.
`
`By letter dated September 8, 2020, ICL urged the Forest Service to take public
`
`comment on a Draft EA, instead moving straight to a Final EA without further public comment.
`
`57. Without taking further public comment, the Forest Service released the Final
`
`Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (the EA/FONSI) and the Draft
`
`Decision Notice on November 12, 2020, triggering the Forest Service’s administrative objection
`
`period. The EA did not consider any action alternatives; it only considered the Forest Service’s
`
`proposal or taking no action. The FONSI asserted that the Project will not have any significant
`
`environmental impacts, downplaying any adverse effects as small and short-term, despite the
`
`Project’s large scale and the many