Case 2:22-cv-00086-JB-CG Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 1 of 15
`
`Brandon L. Jensen (Federal Bar No. 21-261)
`Karen Budd-Falen (pro hac vice pending)
`BUDD-FALEN LAW OFFICES, LLC
`300 East 18th Street
`Post Office Box 346
`Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003
`(307) 632-5105 Telephone
`(307) 637-3891 Facsimile
`brandon@buddfalen.com
`karen@buddfalen.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
`
`
`)
`NEW MEXICO CATTLE GROWERS’
`)
`ASSOCIATION, a New Mexico Nonprofit
`)
`Corporation, NEW MEXICO FEDERAL
`)
`LANDS COUNCIL, SPUR LAKE
`
`)
`CATTLE COMPANY, DOUBLE SPRING
`)
`RANCH, LLC
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`TOM VILSACK, is his official capacity
`)
`as Secretary of the United States
`
`)
`Department of Agriculture,
`
`
`)
`RANDY MOORE, in his official capacity
`)
`as Chief of the U.S. Forest Service,
`MICHIKO MARTIN, in his official capacity )
`as Southwestern Regional Forester,
`)
`ROB LEVER, in his official capacity as
`)
`acting Forest Supervisor, Gila National
`)
`Forest, HARRY PROVENCIO, in his official )
`capacity as District Ranger for the
`
`)
`Wilderness Ranger District, Gila National )
`Forest, KEVIN SHEA, in his official
`)
`capacity as Administrator of the Animal
`)
`and Plant Health Inspection Service,
`)
`KEITH WEHNEW, in his official capacity
`)
`as Western Regional Director, Animal
`)
`and Plant Health Inspection Service,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`)
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 15
`
`Docket No. 22-cv-00086
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00086-JB-CG Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 2 of 15
`
`COMPLAINT/PETITION FOR AGENCY REVIEW FOR DECLARATORY AND
`
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`1. This is an action for a temporary restraining order, declaratory judgment and injunctive
`
`relief filed by the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, New Mexico Federal Lands
`
`Council, Spur Lake Cattle Company and the Double Springs Ranch LLC against the U.S.
`
`Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) and Animal and Plant Health
`
`Inspection Service (APHIS) (or collectively federal agencies) for violating statutory law.
`
`2. On or about February 4, 2022, the USFS announced that it was going to authorize APHIS
`
`to use a helicopter aerial gun and slaughter livestock on the Arizona and New Mexico
`
`border in the Gila National Forest, Gila Wilderness starting February 8 to 10, 2022. See
`
`Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.
`
`3. Once slaughtered, the federal agencies propose to leave the carcasses in place to rot (see
`
`Exhibit 4) and likely attract predators such as the Mexican wolf to the locations of the
`
`dead cattle. The agencies estimate that there are approximately 200 head of livestock that
`
`would be killed. Id.
`
`4. Although the federal agencies claim to be complying with all state and Federal laws, the
`
`New Mexico Livestock Board, the state agency who administers the state statutes related
`
`to unbranded or estray livestock is publicly opposed to the “gunning down” of livestock.
`
`See Exhibit 13.
`
`5. This is at least the second attempt by the USFS and APHIS to authorize the aerial
`
`slaughter of livestock. The original plan proposed in March 2021, to kill these livestock
`
`was met with significant resistance by the Plaintiffs, environmental groups, and the New
`
`Mexico Livestock Board, and thus was halted. See Exhibit 3.
`
`Page 2 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00086-JB-CG Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 3 of 15
`
`6. This decision substantively violates the USFS regulations and New Mexico state brand
`
`and estray laws.
`
`7. In addition, prior to aerially gunning down livestock, the agencies are required to comply
`
`with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and complete an adequate analysis
`
`pursuant to the Wilderness Act. While a Categorical Exclusion under NEPA and a
`
`“Minimum Requirements Decision Guide” related to the Wilderness Act were completed,
`
`neither document analyzes an important aspect of leaving approximately 200 cattle
`
`carcasses in place after being shot which will attract endangered Mexican wolves to the
`
`area. See Exhibits 5 and 7, respectively.
`
`8. In fact, while the Minimum Requirements Decision Guide prepared for this operation
`
`included numerous actions which would have the tangential benefit of ensuring that
`
`privately owned livestock would not be caught in the cross hairs of the cattle slaughter
`
`such as the use of trail cameras and additional helicopter flyovers, the agencies have not
`
`complied with ANY of the additional requirements described in the document. See
`
`Exhibit 7, p. 14.
`
`9. In contrast, the USDA requires area ranchers to pick up and dispose of dead livestock
`
`carcasses to prevent attracting wolves. See Exhibit 6 ¶ 13.
`
`10. On March 20, 2019, a group of 37 environmental organizations requested that the U.S.
`
`Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) “please require that livestock owners remove or render
`
`inedible the carcasses of their domestic animals that die of non-wolf causes before they
`
`attract wolves to scavenge and then persist in proximity to vulnerable cattle.” See Exhibit
`
`8.
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00086-JB-CG Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 4 of 15
`
`11. The slaughter of 200 to 250 head of livestock has not been analyzed for its “effect” on the
`
`endangered Mexican wolf pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
`
`specifically related to leaving 200 head of livestock carcasses as a food source for
`
`Mexican wolves, particularly in an area where significant wolf depredation is already
`
`occurring. See Exhibits 10 ¶ 12, Exhibit 9 ¶ 13.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12. Plaintiffs have suffered a legal wrong and are adversely affected or aggrieved by the
`
`Defendants’ final agency actions and inactions and are entitled to seek review pursuant to
`
`5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 704.
`
`13. The Defendants’ final agency actions and inactions are also reviewable in accordance
`
`with Olenhouse v. Commodity Credit Corporation, 42 F.3d 1560 (1994).
`
`14. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2) because the Plaintiffs
`
`represent ranchers in New Mexico and the proposed cattle slaughter is to occur within the
`
`State of New Mexico.
`
`15. This case is ripe for judicial review. Upon information and belief, Defendants are set to
`
`start slaughtering livestock from a helicopter on February 10, 2022. See Exhibit 11.
`
`PARTIES
`
`16. Plaintiff New Mexico Cattle Growers Association (NMCGA) is a membership
`
`association formed in 1914. The primary mission of the NMCGA is to advance and
`
`protect the cattle industry of New Mexico, work towards solutions of cattle industry
`
`problems, promote the well-being of the industry, provide an official and united voice on
`
`issues of importance to the cattle producers and cattle feeders, and to create and maintain
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00086-JB-CG Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 5 of 15
`
`an economic climate to obtain optimum return on their investments within the free
`
`enterprise system. See Exhibit 9.
`
`17. The New Mexico Federal Lands Council (NMFLC) was founded in the mid-1970s and
`
`operates as a nonprofit organization to lobby for the interests of ranchers who utilize
`
`federal and state grazing lands. The NMFLC provides information, programs, and
`
`advocacy services.
`
`18. Plaintiff Spur Lake Cattle Company is owned by Nelson D. Shirley of Springerville, Az.
`
`Spur Lake Cattle Company owns several ranches along the Arizona and New Mexico
`
`border, including on the Gila National Forest. One of these ranches borders the Gila
`
`Wilderness where the Defendants propose to gun-down the cattle for over 15 miles. See
`
`Exhibit 6 ¶¶ 3, 4.
`
`19. Plaintiff Double Spring Ranch LLC is located in Catron County, New Mexico. The
`
`Double Spring Ranch has Forest Service grazing allotments in the Wilderness Ranger
`
`District, including three within the Gila Wilderness. See Exhibit 10 ¶ 7.
`
`20. Defendant Tom Vilsack is the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In that
`
`capacity, he oversees the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Animal and Plant Health
`
`Inspection Service. As such, he is responsible for compliance with all federal laws and
`
`regulations. Defendant Vilsack is sued in his official capacity.
`
`21. Defendant Michiko Martin is the USFS Regional Forester for the Southwest Region. The
`
`Southwest Region oversees the activities on the Gila National Forest, including in the
`
`Wilderness District. As such, he is responsible for compliance with all federal laws and
`
`regulations. Defendant Martin is sued in his official capacity.
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00086-JB-CG Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 6 of 15
`
`22. Defendant Rob Lever is the acting Forest Supervisor for the Gila National Forest. As
`
`such, he is responsible for compliance with all federal laws and regulations and oversees
`
`the Wilderness Ranger District. Defendant Lever is sued in his official capacity.
`
`23. Defendant Harry Provencio is the District Ranger for the Wilderness Ranger District. As
`
`such is he responsible for compliance with all federal laws and regulations. Defendant
`
`Provencio is sued in his official capacity.
`
`24. Defendant Kevin Shea is the Administrator of APHIS. As such he is responsible for
`
`compliance with all federal laws, rules, and regulations, including the National
`
`Environmental Policy Act, the Wilderness Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
`
`Defendant Shea is sued in his official capacity.
`
`25. Defendant Wehnew is the Western Regional Administrator of APHIS, including the State
`
`of New Mexico. As such he is responsible for compliance with all federal laws, rules,
`
`and regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Wilderness Act,
`
`and the Endangered Species Act. Defendant Wehnew is sued in his official capacity.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`26. On or about February 4, 2022, the local press began to run articles stating that the Forest
`
`Service had authorized the Federal Wildlife Service (FWS) to flyover and shoot estray or
`
`unbranded livestock from a helicopter beginning February 8 to 10, 2022. See Exhibits 1,
`
`2 and 3.
`
`27. Upon information and belief, the only Forest Service “decision” on this issue was issued
`
`in the form of a “Decision Memo Feral Cow Mitigation” dated September 11, 2020. The
`
`decision memo states that its purpose is to “allow the USDAs Animal and Plant Health
`
`Inspection Service (APHIS) to come in and remove the feral cows through whatever
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00086-JB-CG Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 7 of 15
`
`methods they determine are most effective.” The decision description states that the
`
`APHIS shall be allowed to decide the best way to mitigate the situation. See Exhibit 5 p.
`
`2. Scoping for this notice was only accomplished with the Center for Biological
`
`Diversity, and Defendant APHIS. None of the Plaintiffs/Petitioners were contacted
`
`although they have neighboring ranches. Id. p.3.
`
`28. At some time later, the USDA also prepared a “Minimum Requirements Decision Guide
`
`Workbook” to assess the impacts of shooting livestock from a helicopter in the Gila
`
`Wilderness. See Exhibit 7. The proposed action states:
`
`First, Wildlife Services specialists would use aerial reconnaissance
`through helicopter flights in combination with deployed trail
`cameras to determine cattle distribution and estimated population
`size. Cameras would be deployed along major drainages and open
`meadow areas where cattle are expected to congregate. Up to 10
`trail cameras would be deployed one month prior to removal
`operations. Trail cameras would remain deployed for up to two
`months following removal operations. Two helicopter
`reconnaissance flights would be conducted within one week of
`beginning removal efforts to assist in determining cattle locations. .
`.. Removal operations would primarily involve shooting by
`Wildlife Services specialists from a helicopter. Shooting by
`specialists on the ground may be used as well if ground based
`support is needed. . .. Cattle would be left onsite to naturally
`decompose.
`See Exhibit 7 at p. 14.
`29. On February 1, 2022, Defendant APHIS Western Regional Director issued a Categorical
`
`Exclusion Record Operational Wildlife Damage Management USDA Wildlife Services
`
`(Cat. Ex). This document states that the cattle slaughter is being completed at the request
`
`of the Gila National Forest field office. See Exhibit 4. The background of the proposal
`
`states that the livestock in question have been in the Gila Wilderness “since the 1970s.”
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00086-JB-CG Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 8 of 15
`
`30. The document also states that the livestock are all “unbranded/unauthorized cattle”
`
`although there is no indication that anyone with expertise in reading brands has
`
`confirmed that claim. Additionally, it would be nearly impossible for even a trained
`
`brand inspector to identify brands or other ownership marks from an aircraft. Exhibit 6 ¶
`
`7 to 9; Exhibit 9 ¶ 11 ¶ 13, Exhibit 10 ¶ 10. That is especially true for a running scared
`
`animal that is being chased by a noisy moving helicopter. See Exhibit 9. Without a
`
`positive review of each animal to ensure branded animals are not shot, irreparable injury
`
`is certain to occur. There is no compensation available for a rancher whose livestock is
`
`shot in this operation. Id.
`
`31. Defendant/Respondent’s Cat. Ex. states that “WS [APHIS] personnel positively identify
`
`all targets before a shot is taken.” See Exhibit 4 p. 2. There is no indication that APHIS
`
`has the expertise to read the brands or ear tags to ensure that no personally owned
`
`livestock are shot. See Exhibit 9 ¶ 11.
`
`32. After the approximately 200 head of livestock are shot, the USDA and APHIS intend to
`
`leave the cattle carcasses where they are killed. See Exhibit 4.
`
`33. Although Exhibit 4 indicates that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed this
`
`proposed action for its effect on the endangered Mexican wolf, there is no indication that
`
`such review included leaving 200 cattle carcasses and whether that would draw Mexican
`
`wolves to the area.
`
`34. On March 20, 2019, 37 environmental groups petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
`
`service to require livestock operators to remove dead livestock carcasses from their
`
`allotments to not attract wolves. See Exhibit 8. Area permittees are required to remove
`
`livestock carcasses so as not to attract Mexican wolves. See Exhibit 6 ¶ 13.
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00086-JB-CG Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 9 of 15
`
`35. Plaintiff Double Springs Ranch is missing 20 to 30 head of livestock which could be in
`
`the Gila Wilderness and could be shot by APHIS. See Exhibit 10 ¶ 8.
`
`36. Other gathers that have occurred in the Gila Wilderness, including the area in question
`
`have been successful removing both branded and unbranded livestock. See Exhibit 12.
`
`37. When livestock are gathered that have strayed onto the Gila Wilderness, often both
`
`branded and unbranded livestock are included. See Exhibit 12. Thus, there is no
`
`assurance that the operations proposed by Respondents/Defendants will not result in
`
`killing of privately owned livestock.
`
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`
`38. Forest Service regulations specifically govern the removal of unbranded livestock from a
`
`grazing allotment or area closed to livestock grazing. There is no federal statute or
`
`regulations allowing the federal government to shoot livestock from a helicopter. Rather,
`
`branded and/or unbranded cattle that are grazing unlawfully on National Forest Service
`
`lands or Wilderness areas managed by the USFS must be seized and impounded, after
`
`certain conditions are met. See 36 C.F.R. § 262.10. Such conditions include a written
`
`notice of intent to impound if the owner of the livestock is known, or publication of a
`
`notice of intent to impound if the owner is not known. Id. at § 262.10(a)-(b).
`
`39. Following an impoundment, the agency must publish a notice of sale of impounded
`
`livestock in a local newspaper, as well as post notices in the county courthouse and one
`
`or more local post offices. Id. at § 262.10(d).
`
`40. Once the livestock are impounded, the livestock are to be sold to recoup the agency’s
`
`costs. Id. at § 262.10(f). Only after efforts to publicly sell the livestock have failed to
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00086-JB-CG Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 10 of 15
`
`produce a bid for the livestock at or above the minimum set by the USFS, may the
`
`animals be condemned or destroyed. Id.
`
`41. The state of New Mexico has enacted regulations governing trespassing and estray
`
`livestock. NMSA §§ 77-13-1 to -10.
`
`42. Under New Mexico law, “estray” means livestock that are found running at large on
`
`public or private lands whose owner is unknown, that is branded with a brand that is not
`
`on record with the New Mexico brand office or is not branded. NMSA § 77-2-1.1. N.
`
`43. New Mexico statutes prohibit injury to livestock including “willfully and maliciously
`
`killing or injuring livestock that is the property of another. . .. Whoever commits injury
`
`to livestock is found guilty of a fourth degree felony.” NMSA § 30-18-12.
`
`44. The New Mexico Livestock Board is opposed to “gunning down livestock in the Gila
`
`Wilderness.” See Exhibit 13.
`
`45. The Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1133(c) expressly prohibits the use of aircraft in
`
`Wilderness.
`
`46. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4332, requires that major
`
`Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment must include
`
`a detailed statement about the environmental impact of the proposed action, the adverse
`
`environmental effects which cannot be avoided, alternatives to the proposed action, the
`
`relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance
`
`and enhancement of long-term productivity and an irreversible and irretrievable
`
`commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be
`
`implemented.
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00086-JB-CG Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 11 of 15
`
`47. One of the purposes of the NEPA process is to ensure (1) informed decision making and
`
`(2) informed public comment. New Mexico ex rel. Richardson v. Bureau of Lands
`
`Management, 565 F.3d 683 (10th Cir. 2009).
`
`48. Because NEPA provides no private cause of action, NEPA challenges are brought
`
`pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Under the APA, the Court must
`
`determine whether the agency action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or
`
`otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(a).
`
`49. An agency’s decision is arbitrary and capricious if the agency “entirely failed to consider
`
`an important aspect of the problem” or “failed to base its decision on consideration of
`
`relevant factors.” Utah Envtl. Cong. v. Troyer, 479 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2007).
`
`50. NEPA does not permit an agency to remain oblivious to differing environmental impacts
`
`or hide these from the public. Such a state of affairs would be anathema to NEPA's “twin
`
`aims” of informed agency decision making and public access to information. See 565
`
`F.3d at 707.
`
`51. In this case, the federal agencies have failed to consider an important aspect of the
`
`problem and failed to provide public notice of that problem.
`
`52. In this case, expending Federal agency funds to hire helicopter pilots trained to fly in
`
`remote canyon areas to chase livestock while sharp shooters slaughter the animals is an
`
`expenditure of agency funds that will have a significant environmental affect. This effect
`
`includes allowing approximately 200 livestock carcasses left where they are shot,
`
`potentially impacting the riparian and water sources; the intrusion into the wilderness
`
`characteristics of helicopter noise and any landings that would have to occur; the socio-
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00086-JB-CG Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 12 of 15
`
`economic impact to the county and the individual ranchers should privately owned
`
`livestock be slaughtered; and the opposition of local livestock producers.
`
`53. Additionally, because of the presence of federally listed threatened or endangered species
`
`in the area, including the Mexican wolf, the Federal agencies are required to consider any
`
`adverse impact on the species as well as the adverse environmental and human impacts
`
`such as food conditioning or whether the introduction of a new food source (200 dead
`
`livestock) will adversely impact the Mexican wolf reintroduction program.
`
`54. In 2019, over 37 environmental organizations including the Center for Biological
`
`Diversity, wrote a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service urging that all livestock
`
`carcasses be removed from the public or federal lands to protect wolves from the
`
`consequences of scavenging on livestock carcasses. See Exhibit 8.
`
`55. Additionally, the 2001 Mexican Wolf Three-Year Review recommended that livestock
`
`carcasses be disposed of to reduce the likelihood that wolves become habituated to
`
`feeding on livestock. Given this potential “effect” on a listed endangered species, ESA
`
`section 7 consultation on whether leaving 200 head of livestock where they are shot to act
`
`as an attractant for the Mexican wolf will be required. See 16 U.S.C. § 1536 et. seq.
`
`56. Neighboring ranchers are already required to remove the carcasses of dead livestock, so
`
`they do not attract Mexican wolves. See Exhibits 6 ¶ 13. Yet in this case, the USDA
`
`proposes to let the slaughtered cattle remain in place. Such an inconsistent policy should
`
`be analyzed through NEPA and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
`
`57. No compensation is authorized for any private livestock that are maimed or killed during
`
`this process.
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00086-JB-CG Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 13 of 15
`
`58. The submission of the “Minimum Requirement Decision Guide” (MRDG) for approval
`
`to violate the Wilderness Act, such document does not waive the requirements of the
`
`Wilderness Act or NEPA. The second paragraph of the Guide states “Use of the MRDG
`
`is not currently required by law or agency policy,” citing FSM 2320. The Guide goes on
`
`to state:
`
`The MRDG is designed for use when making a determination that
`one of the 'prohibited uses', listed in Section 4(c) of the
`[Wilderness] Act, is the minimum necessary requirement. If NEPA
`analysis is warranted the MRDG can serve to identify the proposed
`action and add depth to the analysis. If a NEPA analysis is not
`necessary, but approval by a Line Officer is required, the MRDG
`can serve as documentation of that approval. (See the NEPA
`Analysis Decision Process section near the end of these guidelines
`for more information.)
`
`WHEREFORE Plaintiffs/Petitioners request that this Court:
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Declare the Respondents’ action violated NEPA, the Wilderness Act,
`
`Forest Service regulations and the APA.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Issue a temporary restraining order immediately stopping the Defendants
`
`from gunning down livestock in the Gila Wilderness until an adequate analysis is
`
`completed and private property (livestock) is protected.
`
`C.
`
`Preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendants/Respondents’
`
`gunning down livestock without compliance with all required statutory authority.
`
`D.
`
`Grant Plaintiffs/Petitioners such additional relief as the Count deems just
`
`and proper to remedy the Respondents’ violation of law and to protect the
`
`Plaintiffs/Petitioners interests.
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00086-JB-CG Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 14 of 15
`
`E.
`
`Award attorney’s fees and costs to Plaintiffs/Petitioners as appropriate
`
`under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
`
`Respectfully submitted this 9th day of February, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brandon L. Jensen
`Brandon L. Jensen (Federal Bar No. 21-261)
`Karen Budd-Falen (pro hac vice pending)
`BUDD-FALEN LAW OFFICES, LLC
`Post Office Box 346
`300 East 18th Street
`Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003-0346
`(307) 632-5105 Telephone
`(307) 637-3891 Facsimile
`brandon@buddfalen.com
`karen@buddfalen.com
`
`
`
`Attorney for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00086-JB-CG Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 15 of 15
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on this 8th day of February 2022, I
`
`electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF
`
`system, which will send notification of such filing to all parties of record. I
`
`further certify that I also served the following individuals via email on this 8th
`
`day of February 2022.
`
`Sean C. Duffy, Trial Attorney
`U.S. Department of Justice
`Environment & Natural Resources Division
`Natural Resources Section
`150 M Street NE
`Washington, D.C. 20002
`sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov
`
`Emma Hamilton, Trial Attorney
`U.S. Department of Justice
`Environment & Natural Resources Division
`Natural Resources Section
`999 18th Street
`South Terrace, Suite 370
`Denver, Colorado 80202
`emma.hamilton@usdoj.gov
`
`Andrew Smith, Senior Trial Attorney
`United States Department of Justice
`Environment & Natural Resources Division
`c/o United States Attorney’s Office
`Post Office Box 607
`Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
`andrew.smith@usdoj.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brandon L. Jensen
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`