throbber
Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 25
`
`Timothy M. Bechtold
`BECHTOLD LAW FIRM PLLC
`PO Box 7051
`Missoula, MT 59807
`(406) 721-1435
`tim@bechtoldlaw.net
`
`Attorney for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
`BILLINGS DIVISION
`
`NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS COUNCIL, and
`
`ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES,
` CV-
` Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`COMPLAINT FOR
`
`INJUNCTIVE AND
`JOHN MEHLHOFF and BUREAU OF
`DECLARATORY RELIEF
`LAND MANAGEMENT,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action for judicial review under the citizen suit
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`provision of the Administrative Procedure Act of the U.S. Bureau of Land
`
`Management’s (BLM) authorizations, analyses, and lack thereof within the
`
`Iron Mask Planning Area (Project).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs Native Ecosystems Council and Alliance for the Wild
`
`Rockies attest that the decisions of Defendants that authorized livestock
`
`grazing, fence construction, wet meadow exclosures, and development of
`
`water sources for livestock on public lands within the Iron Mask Planning
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 2 of 25
`
`Area are arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and/or otherwise
`
`not in accordance with law.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants’ actions or omissions violate the National Environmental
`
`Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq., and the Administrative
`
`Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., by illegally authorizing and
`
`completing rangeland management infrastructure projects on the Iron Mask
`
`Planning Area without the proper NEPA analysis.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs request that the Court find the actions implemented by the
`
`Defendants on the Iron Mask Planning Area illegal pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §
`
`706(2)(A).
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, the award of
`
`costs and expenses of suit, including attorney and expert witness fees
`
`pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and
`
`such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`II. JURISDICTION
`
`This action arises under the laws of the United States and involves the
`
`
`6.
`
`United States as a Defendant. Therefore, this Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction over the claims specified in this Complaint pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1346.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 3 of 25
`
`7.
`
`An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants.
`
`Plaintiffs’ members use and enjoy the Iron Mask Planning Area and
`
`specifically the Indian Creek Forage Reserve Allotment for hiking, fishing,
`
`hunting, camping, photographing scenery and wildlife, and engaging in
`
`other vocational, scientific, spiritual, and recreational activities. Plaintiffs’
`
`members intend to continue to use and enjoy the area frequently and on an
`
`ongoing basis in the future.
`
`8.
`
`The aesthetic, recreational, scientific, spiritual, and educational
`
`interests of Plaintiffs’ members have been and will be adversely affected and
`
`irreparably injured if Defendants continue to implement the Project. These
`
`are actual, concrete injuries caused by Defendants’ failure to comply with
`
`mandatory duties under NEPA and the APA. The requested relief would
`
`redress these injuries and this Court has the authority to grant Plaintiffs’
`
`requested relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 & 2202, and 5 U.S.C. §§ 705 &
`
`706.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs submitted timely written comments and objections
`
`concerning the Project in the available administrative review process, thus
`
`they have exhausted administrative remedies. Therefore, the Court has
`
`jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs’ APA claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 4 of 25
`
`III. VENUE
`
`10. Venue in this case is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) and LR
`
`3.2(b)(1)(C). Defendant Mehlhoff resides within the Billings Division of the
`
`United States District Court for the District of Montana.
`
`
`11. Plaintiff NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS COUNCIL (NEC) is a non-profit
`
`IV. PARTIES
`
`Montana corporation with its principal place of business in Three Forks,
`
`Montana. Native Ecosystems Council is dedicated to the conservation of
`
`natural resources on public lands in the Northern Rockies. Its members use
`
`and will continue to use the Indian Creek Forage Allotment and the Iron
`
`Mask Planning Area for work and for outdoor recreation of all kinds,
`
`including fishing, hunting, hiking, horseback riding, and cross-country
`
`skiing. The BLM’s unlawful actions adversely affect Native Ecosystems
`
`Council’s organizational interests, as well as its members’ use and
`
`enjoyment of the Indian Creek Forage Allotment and the Iron Mask
`
`Planning Area. Native Ecosystems Council brings this action on its own
`
`behalf and on behalf of its adversely affected members.
`
`12. Plaintiff ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES (Alliance) is a tax-
`
`exempt, non-profit public interest organization dedicated to the protection
`
`and preservation of the native biodiversity of the Northern Rockies
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 5 of 25
`
`Bioregion, its native plant, fish, and animal life, and its naturally functioning
`
`ecosystems. Its registered office is located in Missoula, Montana. The
`
`Alliance has over 2,000 individual members, many of whom are located in
`
`Montana. Members of the Alliance observe, enjoy, and appreciate
`
`Montana’s native wildlife, water quality, and terrestrial habitat quality, and
`
`expect to continue to do so in the future, including in the Iron Mask Planning
`
`Area and in the Indian Creek Forage Allotment. Alliance’s members’
`
`professional and recreational activities are directly affected by Defendants’
`
`failure to perform their lawful duty to protect and conserve these ecosystems
`
`as set forth below. Alliance for the Wild Rockies brings this action on its
`
`own behalf and on behalf of its adversely affected members.
`
`13. Defendant John Mehlhoff is the State Director for the
`
`Montana/Dakotas Bureau of Land Management.
`
`14. Defendant U.S. Bureau of Land Management is an administrative
`
`agency within the U.S. Department of Interior, and is responsible for the
`
`health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment
`
`of present and future generations.
`
`V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`
`BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 6 of 25
`
`15.
`
`In 2007, the BLM acquired 5,566 acres of land adjacent to the Indian
`
`Creek Allotment (Iron Mask Acquisition) to “protect important resource
`
`values” and “improve wildlife habitat near the Missouri River corridor . . .”
`
`16. This land, next to the Canyon Ferry Reservoir near Townsend,
`
`Montana, was slated for subdivision development, but The Rocky Mountain
`
`Elk Foundation and The Conservation Fund purchased the property to
`
`prevent subdivision development and preserve wildlife habitat.
`
`17. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and The Conservation Fund
`
`sold the land to the BLM.
`
`18. Funds for the purchase were provided by the Land and Water
`
`Conservation Fund and by the Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation
`
`Trust, which was funded by sales of cabin sites on Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
`
`19. The land is in the Elkhorn Wildlife Management Unit, a unique
`
`designation in which the land is managed specifically for the benefit of the
`
`elk, bighorn sheep, deer and other wildlife that inhabit the area.
`
`20. The BLM released the Proposed Butte Resource Management Plan
`
`and Final Environmental Impact Statement in September 2008.
`
`21. The BLM produced the Butte Resource Management Plan (RMP) in
`
`2009 that provides a comprehensive land use plan to guide management of
`
`public lands, including the Iron Mask Planning Area.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 7 of 25
`
`22. The BLM released a draft Environmental Assessment for the Iron
`
`Mask Project on June 6, 2014. NEC and Alliance provided comments on the
`
`draft Environmental Assessment on July 18, 2014.
`
`23. The BLM produced a Final Environmental Assessment (Iron Mask
`
`EA) for the Iron Mask Project on July 1, 2015.
`
`24. The BLM signed the Decision Record authorizing the Project and a
`
`Finding of No Significant Impact Statement (FONSI) on July 1, 2015.
`
`25. The agency chose to implement Alternative B, the Preferred
`
`Alternative, that would be implemented in separate decisions.
`
`26. The separate decisions included the Decision Record for Vegetation
`
`and Riparian Treatments issued on July 1, 2015 (2015 Vegetation Decision)
`
`and the Final Grazing Decision and Response to Protest for the Indian Creek
`
`Forage Reserve issued on March 7, 2016 (2016 Grazing Decision).
`
`27. On August 11, 2015 Alliance and NEC administratively appealed the
`
`Decision Records. The appeal was rejected August 24, 2015.
`
`28. Plaintiffs Alliance and NEC filed suit challenging the 2015
`
`Vegetation Decision and 2016 Grazing Decision alleging, among other
`
`claims, that the BLM failed to analyze and disclose past, present and
`
`reasonably foreseeable treatments or their cumulative impacts to the Project.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 8 of 25
`
`See Native Ecosystem Council v. Judice, 2019 WL 1131231 (D. Mont. 2019)
`
`(Iron Mask I).
`
`29. Prior to resolution on the merits of Iron Mask I, the BLM began
`
`implementation of grazing developments.
`
`30.
`
` This Court ultimately found in favor of Plaintiffs and held that the
`
`BLM failed to perform a cumulative impacts analysis by failing to consider
`
`past, present and reasonably foreseeable vegetation projects. Iron Mask I at
`
`*7-8.
`
`31. This Court stated, “Nowhere in [the Ironmask EA] does BLM attempt
`
`to analyze possible spill-over effects of the challenged decisions on the
`
`impacts to vegetation or wildlife inside the Planning Area. Id. at *8.
`
`32. This Court remanded the matter to the BLM “so that it may prepare a
`
`supplemental environmental assessment consistent with this order and the
`
`law.” Id. at *9.
`
`33. On September 20, 2019, the BLM subsequently conduced and
`
`released the Iron Mask Planning Area Supplemental Environmental
`
`Assessment (SEA).
`
`34. On September 23, 2019, the BLM issued a Decision Record for
`
`Upland and Riparian Vegetation Treatments for Iron Mask Planning Area
`
`(2019 Vegetation Decision).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 9 of 25
`
`35. On February 28, 2020 Plaintiffs filed another action challenging the
`
`2019 Vegetation Decision, alleging the BLM failed to analyze the
`
`cumulative impacts of vegetation treatments on wildlife as required by
`
`NEPA and this Court’s directive in Iron Mask I. Native Ecosystems Council
`
`et al., v. Mehlhoff, CV-20-19-BLG-SPW-TJC (D. Mont.)(Iron Mask II).
`
`Plaintiffs moved this Court to preliminarily enjoin the 2019 Vegetation
`
`Decision.
`
`36. On July 6, 2020, the magistrate judge recommended granting
`
`Plaintiffs’ motion, finding that the Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of
`
`success on the merits. Iron Mask II, Dkt#13.
`
`37. The magistrate judge found, “the SEA has likely failed to satisfy this
`
`Court’s order in Iron Mask I and thus NEPA’s requirement that BLM give a
`
`hard look at to the cumulative impacts of the proposed treatments on
`
`wildlife- with particular attention on sensitive species.” Iron Mask II,
`
`Dkt#13 at 21.
`
`38. On July 24, 2020, this Court adopted the findings and
`
`recommendation of the magistrate judge and preliminarily enjoined the 2019
`
`Vegetation Decision.
`
`39. Following the Court’s Order, the Iron Mask II Defendants voluntarily
`
`withdrew the 2019 Vegetation Decision on August 24, 2020.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 10 of 25
`
`40. On February 28, 2020, BLM issued a grazing decision for the Indian
`
`Creek allotments on the Iron Mask Planning area (2020 Grazing Decision)
`
`pursuant to the SEA.
`
`41. The 2020 Grazing Decision establishes grazing terms and conditions,
`
`management prescriptions, and authorizes construction of “range
`
`improvement projects” to manage grazing on the Indian Creek Forage
`
`Reserve Allotment within the Iron Mask Planning Area.
`
`42. Plaintiffs administratively appealed the 2020 Grazing Decision.
`
`43. On May 21, 2020, the BLM denied Plaintiffs’ administrative appeal.
`
`44. After this Court issued a preliminary injunction order on the 2019
`
`Vegetation Decision, Plaintiffs here asked the BLM to voluntarily withdraw
`
`the 2020 Grazing Decision, since it was based on the same infirm analyses
`
`as the 2019 Vegetation Decision. Plaintiffs also requested the BLM to
`
`remove grazing developments it had installed on the Indian Creek area.
`
`45. The BLM informed Plaintiffs that it would withdraw the 2020
`
`Grazing Decision.
`
`46. After a period of delay, on December 10, 2020, the BLM voluntarily
`
`withdrew the “unimplemented portions of the [2020] grazing decision,” and
`
`stated that it “does not have plans to remove any fencing.”
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 11 of 25
`
`47. After the BLM withdrew the 2020 Grazing Decision, rather than filing
`
`a lawsuit, Plaintiffs here again requested the BLM to remove the grazing
`
`developments it had installed on the Iron Mask area, since the developments
`
`were installed pursuant to decisions either held unlawful by the Court or
`
`withdrawn by the BLM because this Court had identified infirmities in the
`
`analyses for the decisions.
`
`48. On December 17, 2020, the BLM stated that it “will not be removing
`
`any of the fencing or other range improvements installed pursuant to either
`
`the 2016 or 2020 Indian Creek Forage Reserve Allotment Grazing Decision.
`
`Any further action by BLM, including removal of the fencing or other
`
`improvements, would require a new BLM decision.”
`
`49. Because the BLM refuses to remove unlawful grazing developments
`
`on land that was purchased specifically for wildlife habitat, Plaintiffs here
`
`must again ask this Court to intervene.
`
`ELKHORN MOUNTAINS
`
`50. The Elkhorn Mountains are an isolated and unique mountain range of
`
`about 250,000 acres.
`
`51. About 160,000 acres of the Elkhorn Mountains are managed by the
`
`Helena and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests. The Iron Mask area
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 12 of 25
`
`includes land managed as the only Wildlife Management Unit in the
`
`National Forest System.
`
`52. About 75,000 acres of the Elkhorn Mountain foothills are managed by
`
`the BLM under the Butte RMP.
`
`53. The Butte RMP designated 50,431 acres as the Elkhorn Mountains
`
`Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) because of its “diverse
`
`upland and aquatic habitat for wildlife and fish.”
`
`54. The Iron Mask Environmental Assessment states that “Management
`
`of the Elkhorn Mountains ACEC is focused primarily on . . . Important
`
`cultural/historical sites, diverse upland and aquatic habitat for the wildlife
`
`and fish, and unique natural management area (referring to the USFS lands
`
`being designated as a Wildlife Management Unit) and cooperative
`
`management of the area with the BLM, USFS, and FWP.”
`
`55.
`
`“For the Iron Mask [Decision Area], wildlife, habitat and unique
`
`management area are the primary values. . .” for the Elkhorn Mountains
`
`ACEC.
`
`56.
`
`“Most of the Decision Area was designated in the Butte RMP as part
`
`of the Elkhorn Mountain ACEC.”
`
`57. Approximately 15,019 acres of the Elkhorn Mountains ACEC are
`
`within the Iron Mask Planning Area.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 13 of 25
`
`IRON MASK PLANNING AREA
`
`58. The Iron Mask Planning Area is located in the Upper Missouri
`
`Watershed Basin, in Broadwater and Jefferson County northwest of
`
`Townsend, Montana.
`
`59. The Iron Mask Planning Area covers approximately 124,933 acres
`
`within Jefferson and Broadwater Counties, Montana.
`
`60. The Decision area, the BLM-administered lands within the planning
`
`area considered here, consists of 19 separate BLM-owned land parcels
`
`totaling 26,235 acres.
`
`61. The FONSI stated, “environmental analysis documented no major
`
`effects on unique geographic features of the area, cultural or historic
`
`resources, park lands, prime farmlands
`
`BUTTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
`
`62. The Butte RMP sets forth land management standards for the Project
`
`Area.
`
`63. Throughout the Butte Field Office region, all BLM authorized
`
`activities must meet or move toward providing habitat to maintain a viable
`
`and diverse population of native plant and animal species, including special
`
`status species.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 14 of 25
`
`64. The Butte RMP authorized the expansion of the Indian Creek
`
`Allotment, a portion of land within the Planning Area, and combined the
`
`Indian Creek Allotment with 5,566 acres acquired from the Rocky Mountain
`
`Elk Foundation and The Conservation Fund.
`
`65. The Butte RMP designated the total area as the Indian Creek Forage
`
`Reserve Allotment.
`
`66. The Butte RMP sets forth directives to manage the Indian Creek
`
`Forage Reserve Allotment as a forage reserve usable by permittees of other
`
`allotments, on a temporary basis, when their own allotments are unavailable
`
`or unusable due to events like drought, fire, vegetation treatments, or other
`
`agency project work.
`
`67. The Butte RMP provide the objectives and authorizations for treating
`
`grassland and shrubland, and reducing conifer colonization in the Iron Mask
`
`Planning Area.
`
`68. The Butte RMP determined that vegetation treatments would include
`
`“cutting non-commercial conifers that have encroached into grassland or
`
`sagebrush habitats, and that prescribed burning will be used to treat forest,
`
`grassland or shrubland vegetation types.”
`
`69. The Butte RMP authorized the vegetation and riparian treatments and
`
`authorized grazing in the Iron Mask Planning Area.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 15 of 25
`
`70. The Butte RMP states in its analysis of direct, indirect, and
`
`cumulative impacts “Certain information was unavailable for use, usually
`
`because inventories have either not been conducted, were not complete, or
`
`were not of consistent quality across the Planning Area. Some of the major
`
`areas where data are incomplete or substantially lacking are: . . . Certain
`
`wildlife inventory data (i.e. lynx denning habitat, occupied pygmy rabbit
`
`habitat); Wildlife monitoring data. . . .”
`
`71. The Butte RMP states, “As a result, impacts cannot be quantified
`
`given the proposed management of certain resources. Where this occurs,
`
`impacts are projected in qualitative terms, or in some instances, are
`
`described as unknown. Subsequent project level analysis will provide the
`
`opportunity to collect and examine site-specific inventory data necessary to
`
`determine the appropriate application of the RMP level guidance. In
`
`addition, ongoing inventory efforts within the Planning Area continue to
`
`update and refine the information used to implement this plan.”
`
`INDIAN CREEK FOREST RESERVE ALLOTMENT
`
`72. The Iron Mask Planning Area contains 15 active livestock grazing
`
`allotments, including the Indian Creek Allotment.
`
`73. The Indian Creek Allotment was previously 2,215 acres and 376
`
`AUMs. Butte RMP EIS 40.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 16 of 25
`
`74.
`
`In 2007, the BLM acquired 5,566 acres of land adjacent to the Indian
`
`Creek Allotment (Iron Mask Acquisition) to “protect important resource
`
`values” and “improve wildlife habitat near the Missouri River corridor . . .”
`
`75. The Butte RMP authorizes the expansion of the Indian Creek
`
`Allotment by an additional 5,566 acres and 700 AUM by including the Iron
`
`Mask Acquisition.
`
`76. The Iron Mask FONSI and Grazing Decision implement this
`
`expansion.
`
`77. This expanded Indian Creek Allotment is located in the Elkhorns
`
`Cooperative Management area (ECMA) and managed as a forage reserve
`
`allotment (Indian Creek Reserve Allotment).
`
`78. A forage reserve allotment is an allotment without a term grazing
`
`permit that is grazed on a temporary nonrenewable basis.
`
`79. This type of allotment is used “to provide temporary grazing to rest
`
`other areas.”
`
`2020 GRAZING DECISION
`
`80. The 2020 Grazing Decision, which has been withdrawn, authorized up
`
`to 937 AUMs within the Indian Creek Reserve Allotment.
`
`81. Grazing on this allotment would remove approximately 40% of the
`
`existing herbaceous forage.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 17 of 25
`
`82. Vegetation less than 4 inches high “reduces forage availability for
`
`livestock and wildlife.”
`
`83. Grazing on the forage reserve allotment would result in competition
`
`for forage between cows and herbivorous wildlife.
`
`84. Grazing by cattle reduces plant biomass available and does not
`
`increase nutritional value of the remaining plant biomass, thus reducing
`
`potential for available forage for wildlife.
`
`85. The majority of the uplands located on the lower elevation of the
`
`Indian Creek Reserve Allotment are currently in an “undesirable state” and
`
`“may have crossed a threshold in plant communities from that expected for
`
`the area.”
`
`86. The Iron Mask SEA states that the Indian Creek Reserve Allotment is
`
`dominated by cheatgrass, Dalmation toadflax, and lacks bluebunch
`
`wheatgrass; the SEA also notes a shift away from a dominance of deep-
`
`rooted perennials and toward more shallow-rooted species.
`
`87. The Iron Mask SEA concludes that increased livestock grazing on this
`
`already degraded allotment will “help increase vigor and reproductive
`
`opportunities for plants” but fails to disclose how.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 18 of 25
`
`88. The 2020 Grazing Decision authorized construction of riparian
`
`exclosures, water developments, as well as construction of five miles of
`
`new fencing.
`
`89. Fences constitute hazards to wildlife from entanglement and by
`
`blocking movement.
`
`WILDLIFE
`
`90. The Iron Mask EA states “Several [bird] species designated
`
`‘sensitive’ by BLM may occur in the [planning] area. Species requiring
`
`special management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce
`
`the likelihood of future Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing are designated
`
`‘sensitive’ by BLM State Directors.”
`
`91. The Iron Mask EA further states, “Grey wolves have moved into the
`
`area in recent years. Other predators include coyote, mountain lion, bobcat,
`
`black bear, and badger. Numerous small mammals are present in the area as
`
`well, including shrew species, many rodent species, and several bat species.”
`
`92. The Iron Mask EA provides a table that discloses BLM-listed
`
`Sensitive Species that occur in the planning area.
`
`93. The BLM-listed Sensitive Species that have been documented in the
`
`area are gray wolf, Townsend’s big-eared bat, bald eagle, Brewer’s sparrow,
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 19 of 25
`
`golden eagle, long-billed curlew, McCown’s longspur, sage thrasher,
`
`Northern leopard frog, and westslope cutthroat trout.
`
`94. The SEA analyzes cumulative impacts to “relevant resources” or
`
`“relevant resources issues.”
`
`95. The SEA states, “The Present Actions are those actions described in
`
`the 2015 Vegetation Treatment decision and the 2016 the Indian Creek
`
`Forage Reserve decision, contemporaneously with other ongoing decisions
`
`in the cumulative impact areas identified for the relevant resource issues.”
`
`96. The SEA does not disclose and discuss why the identified “relevant
`
`resource” or “relevant resource issues” were chosen for analysis.
`
`97. The “relevant resource issue” for wildlife identified in the SEA are elk
`
`and elk habitat, bighorn sheep and bighorn sheep habitat, mule deer and
`
`mule deer habitat, and pronghorn and pronghorn habitat.
`
`98. The SEA does not analyze the cumulative impacts to the BLM-listed
`
`Sensitive Species that have been documented in the Iron Mask Planning
`
`Area.
`
`99. The SEA does not analyze the cumulative impacts to species found in
`
`the Iron Mask Planning Area.
`
`100. The BLM fails to analyze the grazing decision’s cumulative impacts
`
`on wildlife species other than elk, pronghorn, bighorn sheep and mule deer.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 20 of 25
`
`101. The BLM fails to analyze and disclose the direct and indirect impacts
`
`of grazing on wildlife.
`
`102. The BLM fails to disclose the science and reasoning supporting its
`
`conclusion that the vegetation treatments and grazing benefits plant
`
`communities and wildlife.
`
`UNLAWFUL FENCE CONSTRUCTION AND WATER SOURCES
`
`103. The BLM has constructed up to 8.5 miles of fencing in the Iron Mask
`
`Planning Area, has constructed riparian exclosures, and has developed water
`
`sources.
`
`104. The construction of the up to 8.5 miles of fencing, riparian exclosures,
`
`and development of water sources were authorized by the 2016 Grazing
`
`Decision.
`
`105. The 2016 Grazing Decision was vacated by this court. The supporting
`
`Iron Mask EA was found to be in violation of NEPA.
`
`106. The 2020 Grazing Decision authorized construction of 5 miles of
`
`fencing, riparian exclosures, and development of water sources.
`
`107. The BLM has withdrawn the 2020 Grazing Decision. The supporting
`
`SEA was found to be in violation of NEPA.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 21 of 25
`
`108. The BLM refuses to remove the fencing, riparian exclosures, and
`
`development of water sources constructed pursuant to the 2016 Grazing
`
`Decision and 2020 Grazing Decision.
`
`VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`CLAIM 1
`
`The construction of the fencing, riparian exclosures, and water sources
`are unlawfully authorized actions without proper analysis in violation of
`the NEPA and APA.
`
`
`109. All previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
`
`110. NEPA requires that agencies take a “hard look” at the environmental
`
`consequences of their proposed actions before the agencies choose a
`
`particular course of action.
`
`111. Federal regulations permit an agency planning a major federal action
`
`to conduct an Environmental Assessment in order to determine whether it
`
`must prepare an EIS. 40 C.F.R. §1508.9
`
`112. If the EA shows that the proposed action will have no significant
`
`impact, the agency may issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and
`
`Decision Notice. 40 C.F.R. §1501.4; 36 C.F.R. §220.3
`
`113. If however, the EA shows that the proposed activity will have a
`
`significant impact, the federal agency must prepare an EIS before
`
`proceeding with the proposed activity. Id.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 22 of 25
`
`114. If the agency prepares an EIS, it must document its final decision in a
`
`Record of Decision. 40 C.F.R. §1505.2.
`
`115. Alternatively, an agency may invoke a “categorical exclusion” to
`
`NEPA analysis if the action falls within “a category of actions which do not
`
`individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
`
`environment and which have been found to have no such effect in
`
`procedures adopted by a Federal agency in implementation of these
`
`regulations (§ 1507.3) and for which, therefore, neither an environmental
`
`assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.” 40 C.F.R. §
`
`1508.4.
`
`116. If an agency decides to use a categorical exclusion, it must prepare a
`
`Decision Memo documenting the decision. 36 C.F.R. §220.3.
`
`117. Any agency action must be authorized by a decision.
`
`118. The fences, riparian exclosures, and water developments are unlawful
`
`because they have not been authorized pursuant to a decision notice, record
`
`of decision, or decision memo.
`
`CLAIM 2
`
`The 2020 Grazing Decision and Iron Mask SEA violate NEPA and the
`APA.
`
`119. Alternatively, if the BLM has not fully withdrawn the 2020 Grazing
`
`Decision and relies upon it for authorization of the fences, riparian
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 23 of 25
`
`exclosures and water developments, then the BLM is in violation of NEPA
`
`and this Court’s directive by failing to examine the cumulative impacts of
`
`the 2020 Grazing Decision on all wildlife.
`
`120. NEPA requires federal agencies’ environmental analysis to consider
`
`“any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided.” 42 U.S.C.
`
`§4332(2)(C)(ii). When several actions may have cumulative or synergistic
`
`environmental impacts, BLM must consider these actions together and
`
`prepare a comprehensive environmental analysis.
`
`121. Agencies are required to take a hard look at direct, indirect and
`
`cumulative impacts of a proposed action. 40 C.F.R. §1508.25(c).
`
`122. Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment, “which results
`
`from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present
`
`and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal
`
`or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts
`
`can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking
`
`place over a period of time.” 40 C.F.R. §1508.7.
`
`123. The Iron Mask Project EA indicates that wildlife and habitat are
`
`primary values for the decision area.
`
`124. The Iron Mask Project EA indicates that BLM Sensitive Species occur
`
`in the Decision Area.
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 24 of 25
`
`125. The Butte RMP Environmental Impact Statement indicates that many
`
`wildlife species depend on the habitat the BLM will be removing.
`
`126. The Iron Mask Supplemental Environmental Analysis fails to analyze
`
`the cumulative impacts on BLM Sensitive Species that are known to occur
`
`in the Iron Mask Planning Area.
`
`127. The BLM’s failure to analyze the cumulative impacts on these species
`
`violates NEPA and this Court’s Orders in Iron Mask I and Iron Mask II.
`
`128. The BLM also failed to disclose why it chose to limit its cumulative
`
`impact analysis to its chosen “relevant resources” and further failed to
`
`disclose the best available science and analysis that supports using the
`
`chosen “relevant resources” as a proxy in analyzing cumulative impacts to
`
`wildlife in violation of NEPA.
`
`129. The BLM’s failure to consider these impacts and disclose its decision
`
`is arbitrary and capricious and unlawful in violation of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §
`
`4332(2)(C), NEPA’s implementing regulations, and the APA, 5 U.S.C. §
`
`706.
`
`VII. RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`For all of the above-stated reasons, Plaintiffs request that this Court award
`
`the following relief:
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00186-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 25 of 25
`
`A. Declare that the fences, riparian exclosures, water developments and
`
`any other “range improvement” constructed in the Iron Mask Planning Area
`
`pursuant to the 2016 Grazing Decision and/or the 2020 Grazing Decision are
`
`unlawful and in violation of NEPA and the APA.
`
`B. Declare the Iron Mask SEA and the 2020 Grazing Decision in
`
`violation of NEPA and this Court’s directive and enjoin implementation of
`
`the developments authorized by the 2020 Grazing Decision, Iron Mask SEA,
`
`and the Butte RMP;
`
`C. Order the BLM to remove the fences, riparian exclosures, water
`
`developments, and any other “range improvements.”
`
`D. Award Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, expert witness fees, and
`
`reasonable attorney fees under EAJA; and
`
`E. Grant Plaintiffs any such further relief as may be just, proper, and
`
`equitable.
`
`Respectfully submitted this 21st day of December, 2020.
`
`
`
`/s/Timothy M. Bechtold
`BECHTOLD LAW FIRM, PLLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney for Plaintiffs
`
`25
`
`

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket