Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 1 of 21
`
`Tate Justesen, Ore. Bar #083741
`Aaron Bruner, Ore. Bar #133113
`Western Resources Legal Center
`9220 SW Barbur Blvd., Suite 119-327
`Portland, OR 97219
`Telephone: (503) 768-8500
`E-Mail: tjustesen@wrlegal.org
`E-Mail: abruner@wrlegal.org
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF OREGON
`MEDFORD DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`CAHILL RANCHES, INC.,
`an Oregon Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - Page 1
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 2 of 21
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This case challenges the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) Director’s 2015
`
`decision to eliminate grazing on the Sucker Creek pasture of the Rahilly-Gravelly allotment in
`
`the BLM Lakeview Resource Area in Oregon. As discussed in more detail below, the 2015
`
`decision was made in the Oregon Sub-Regional Greater Sage Grouse Resource Management
`
`Plan Amendment (“2015 RMPA”). In the intervening years since the 2015 decision, the BLM
`
`issued a scoping notice in 2017 regarding its intent to amend the 2015 RMPA and, in March
`
`2019, issued a final environmental impact statement (“2019 FEIS”). Additionally, in March
`
`2019, BLM issued final Resource Management Plan Amendments (“2019 RMPA”), which
`
`included a reversal of the decision to close the Sucker Creek pasture to grazing. However, the
`
`2019 RMPA was enjoined in October 2019 by Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the U.S. District Court
`
`for the District of Idaho (in Western Watersheds Project v. Schneider, Case No. 1:16-cv-00083-
`
`BLW). Judge Winmill’s 2019 injunction leaves the 2015 RMPA as the legally governing land
`
`use directive for an enormous swath of federal land in the Great Basin Region, which includes
`
`reinstatement of the grazing prohibition on the Sucker Creek pasture. Plaintiff is negatively
`
`affected by the resurrected 2015 RMPA as it prohibits Plaintiff’s use of the Sucker Creek pasture
`
`for livestock grazing, as discussed in more detail below.
`
`2.
`
`This is a classic case in which a federal agency, driven by pressure to make a
`
`decision at a national level, ignored a decision by the same agency at the local level on the same
`
`matter. In its haste to make a decision at the very highest levels of the BLM in Washington D.C.
`
`to constrain livestock grazing for the greater sage grouse, the headquarters’ 2015 decision
`
`completely reverses a prior decision made to allow grazing on the Rahilly-Gravelly grazing
`
`allotment consistent with conservation of sage grouse. The headquarters’ decision was made
`
`COMPLAINT - Page 2
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 3 of 21
`
`without any apparent consideration of the local allotment-level decision, the localized facts
`
`supporting the local decision, and without any explanation that supports the reversal of position.
`
`This is contrary to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), which holds that an agency
`
`decision is arbitrary and capricious if the agency “entirely failed to consider an important aspect
`
`of the problem” or offered an explanation “that runs counter to the evidence before the agency,
`
`or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency
`
`expertise.” Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983); 5 U.S.C. § 706.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Cahill Ranches, Inc. ("Cahill Ranches") challenges the BLM Director’s
`
`September 2015 decision to eliminate grazing entirely on the Sucker Creek pasture on the
`
`Rahilly-Gravelly grazing allotment where Cahill Ranches holds a permit to graze cattle. The
`
`Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment is 18,678 acres located in the BLM Lakeview Resource Area in
`
`Oregon. The 8,282-acre Sucker Creek pasture is in the heart of the allotment and elimination of
`
`grazing there virtually eliminates grazing on the entire allotment because grazing the Sucker
`
`Creek pasture in alternate years is vital to allow the other pastures in the allotment to be rested as
`
`part of the rotational grazing scheme. The decision to eliminate grazing on the 8,282-acre
`
`Sucker Creek pasture was made in Washington D.C. by the Director of the BLM in the Oregon
`
`Sub-Regional Greater Sage Grouse Resource Management Plan Amendment (“2015 RMPA”)
`
`and Record of Decision (“ROD”) covering over 125,000,000 acres of federal land for the Great
`
`Basin Region.
`
`4.
`
`Grazing was eliminated on the Sucker Creek pasture not because grazing was
`
`harming sage grouse. In fact, at the time of the 2015 RMPA, it is understood that sage grouse
`
`were doing well in the Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment. Rather, grazing was eliminated to provide
`
`for a study control area, where vegetation would be allowed to develop naturally to determine
`
`COMPLAINT - Page 3
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 4 of 21
`
`how it would affect sage grouse relative to areas where vegetation is being managed. The 2015
`
`RMPA did not authorize or fund such a study and such a study is not necessary in the area
`
`because there was already a large cooperative scientific vegetation study of the relationship
`
`between sage grouse productivity and juniper removal in the area that occurred from 2007 to
`
`2014. Study participants included the Bureau of Land Management, the Natural Resource
`
`Conservation Service, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and private ranchers,
`
`including Cahill Ranches. The study concluded that there was a significant improvement in sage
`
`grouse reproduction and survival in areas where juniper is removed relative to areas where
`
`juniper is left untreated.
`
`5.
`
`Thus, the decision to eliminate grazing from the Sucker Creek pasture for the sake
`
`of research is: (1) not needed; (2) will be detrimental to sage grouse as juniper grows and
`
`expands on unmanaged pasture; and (3) does not provide for the orderly use, improvement, and
`
`development of the range within the grazing district in violation of the Federal Land Policy and
`
`Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301 et seq. and The Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U.S.C. §
`
`315.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`6.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action
`
`arises under the laws of the United States, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
`
`(FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq.; the Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U.S.C. § 315 et seq.; the APA,
`
`5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.; and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq. There also
`
`is jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (declaratory judgment) and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (injunctive
`
`relief).
`
`///
`
`COMPLAINT - Page 4
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 5 of 21
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff fully participated at every stage of this agency action by commenting on
`
`the 2015 RMPA and exhausted its administrative remedies by filing a protest of the decision. An
`
`actual, justiciable controversy now exists between plaintiff and defendant because the land use
`
`decision to eliminate grazing from the Sucker Creek pasture is final agency action ripe for
`
`judicial review. The requested relief is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 and 5
`
`U.S.C. §§ 701-06. Defendant has waived sovereign immunity pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702.
`
`VENUE
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because defendant,
`
`Bureau of Land Management, maintains offices in this District, the Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment
`
`is located in the District, and plaintiff’s ranch is in the District. For the same reasons, divisional
`
`venue lies in the Medford Division. LR 3-2.
`
`PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Cahill Ranches is an Oregon corporation that grazes livestock, on private
`
`land and on BLM-owned public lands, in southeast Oregon within the Lakeview Ranger District.
`
`For over 50 years, Cahill Ranches has held a permit to graze cattle on the Rahilly-Gravelly
`
`Allotment. The allotment became a part of a Research Natural Area when BLM adopted the
`
`2003 Lakeview Resource Management Plan and grazing continued as a compatible use.
`
`However, the Oregon Sub-Regional Greater Sage Grouse 2015 RMPA directed the elimination
`
`of grazing from 8,282 acres of the allotment’s 18,678 total acres—a reduction of 44 percent of
`
`Cahill Ranches’ permitted use.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant, the United States Bureau of Land Management, is a federal agency
`
`within the Department of the Interior and is responsible for the management of approximately
`
`COMPLAINT - Page 5
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 6 of 21
`
`264 million acres of federal lands across the West and 15.7 million acres in Oregon (nearly one-
`
`fourth of the state’s total land area).
`
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`
`Taylor Grazing Act.
`
`11.
`
`Under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1937 (“TGA”), the Secretary of the Interior is
`
`authorized to establish grazing districts on unreserved lands “which are chiefly valuable for
`
`grazing and raising forage crops.” 43 U.S.C. § 315. To that end, BLM is directed to “make
`
`provision for the protection, administration, regulation and improvement of . . . grazing
`
`districts,” and it must “provide for the orderly use, improvement, and development of the range.”
`
`Id.
`
`12.
`
`Once established, the dominant purpose of these grazing districts must be grazing
`
`and the Secretary must ensure that grazing districts are “adequately safeguarded.” 43 U.S.C. §§
`
`315, 315b. “Congress intended that once the Secretary established a grazing district under the
`
`TGA, the primary use of that land should be grazing.” Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d
`
`1287, 1308 (10th Cir. 1999), aff’d on other grounds, 529 U.S. 728 (2000). Put simply, the TGA
`
`limits BLM’s discretion to devote grazing districts for purposes other than grazing.
`
`13.
`
`To “terminate” grazing on an allotment within a grazing district, the BLM must
`
`find that those lands are no longer chiefly valuable for grazing. United States Dept. of the
`
`Interior, Office of the Solicitor, Clarification of Solicitor Opinion M-37008 at 3 (2003) (“BLM
`
`must express this determination and support it by proper findings in the record of decision that
`
`concludes the land use planning process.”). If, on the other hand, the lands remain chiefly
`
`valuable for grazing, “the lands must remain in the grazing district.” Id.
`
`///
`
`COMPLAINT - Page 6
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 7 of 21
`
`Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
`
`14.
`
`In enacting the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (“FLPMA”),
`
`Congress declared that “it is the policy of the United States that . . . the public lands be managed
`
`in a manner which recognizes the Nation's need for domestic sources of . . . food.” Id. §
`
`1701(a)(12). In accordance with that policy, FLPMA requires that that BLM “use and observe
`
`the principles of multiple use and sustained yield” in developing and revising land use plans for
`
`public lands. 43 U.S.C. §§ 1712(a), (c). FLPMA defines “sustained” yield as the “achievement
`
`and maintenance of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable
`
`resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use.” Id. § 1702(h). Multiple use is
`
`defined as management of “balanced and diverse resource uses . . . , including, but not limited to,
`
`recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and
`
`historical values.” Id. § 1702(c). Such management seeks a balance between all uses and “takes
`
`into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable
`
`resources” as well as the “relative values of the resources.” Id.
`
`15.
`
`FLPMA directs that “the public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes
`
`the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public
`
`lands.” Id. at § 1701(a)(12). FLPMA authorizes BLM to issue grazing permits and leases for
`
`domestic livestock grazing. Id. at § 1752. The grazing permits and leases specify the numbers
`
`of animals to be grazed and the seasons of use and significant changes to the permits and leases
`
`must be based on a reexamination and finding “that the condition of the range requires
`
`adjustment in the amount or other aspect of grazing use.” Id. at § 1752(e).
`
`16.
`
`FLPMA works in concert with other federal laws, including the TGA, to regulate
`
`federal lands. Id. § 1701(b). FLPMA did not repeal the TGA, and FLPMA provides that
`
`COMPLAINT - Page 7
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 8 of 21
`
`“[FLPMA] shall be construed as supplemental to and not in derogation of the purposes for which
`
`public lands are administered under other provisions of law.” Id. FLPMA considers domestic
`
`livestock grazing a principal or major use of the public lands. Id. § 1702(l).
`
`Administrative Procedure Act.
`
`17.
`
`The APA establishes a process for judicial review of agency decisions for those
`
`seeking redress of their grievances as the result of a final agency action. 5 U.S.C. § 704.
`
`18.
`
`A court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and
`
`conclusions found to . . . arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
`
`accordance with law; . . . in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of
`
`statutory right . . . [or] without observance of procedure required by law.” Id. § 706(2)(A) and
`
`(C)-(D).
`
`FACTS
`
`Cahill Ranches and Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment
`
`19.
`
`Cahill Ranches has, over the past 50 years, successfully managed the Rahilly-
`
`Gravelly Allotment in a way that promotes both grazing and sage grouse habitat consistent with
`
`the BLM’s multiple use management mandates.
`
`20.
`
`Cahill Ranches has worked cooperatively with BLM on a sage grouse - juniper
`
`research project to ensure that the range is meeting ecological and wildlife goals on both private
`
`and federal lands. The BLM conducted a sage grouse radio telemetry study in the Warner
`
`Mountains and the Rahilly-Gravelly area in partnership with the Natural Resource Conservation
`
`Service (“NRCS”), the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (“ODFW”), the BLM, and
`
`Cahill Ranches. Cahill Ranches deferred juniper removal on its property and on its BLM grazing
`
`COMPLAINT - Page 8
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 9 of 21
`
`allotment to serve as a control area to compare sage grouse productivity relative to study areas
`
`where juniper was removed.
`
`21.
`
`After conclusion of the research project, Cahill Ranches, in cooperation with
`
`NRCS, has removed over 1,200 acres of juniper on its private lands. Cahill Ranches also has
`
`implemented sage grouse habitat improvement projects on its property, including fence removal
`
`and water development. The decision to eliminate grazing from the Sucker Creek pasture fails to
`
`consider the overall impact on the economic viability of Cahill Ranches and, consequently,
`
`whether Cahill Ranches can afford to continue sage grouse habitat improvement projects.
`
`22.
`
`As concerns over the species have heightened, sage grouse habitat had improved
`
`over the past 15 years on the Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment preceding the issuance of the 2015
`
`RMPA. Sage grouse populations also have remained stable or improved on the allotment over
`
`the same time period. In part, this success is due to a rest-rotation grazing strategy that the local
`
`BLM office approved for use by Cahill Ranches.
`
`23.
`
`A rest-rotation grazing strategy limits grazing of a particular pasture to alternate
`
`years. In a given year, one pasture is rested from grazing, and other pastures within the allotment
`
`are grazed, and in the following year, grazing is shifted and a different pasture is rested. Thus,
`
`each pasture in an allotment managed with a rest-rotation grazing strategy is an integral part of
`
`the entire allotment. Elimination of grazing on a pasture will significantly reduce or eliminate
`
`the ability to graze on the remaining pastures within the allotment.
`
`24.
`
`In the case of the Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment, the elimination of the Sucker Creek
`
`pasture, which comprises 44% of the allotment, renders it impossible to maintain the permitted
`
`grazing levels on the allotment.
`
`COMPLAINT - Page 9
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 10 of 21
`
`25.
`
`The Oregon Sub-Regional Greater Sage Grouse 2015 RMPA and ROD provides
`
`for the elimination of grazing from 8,282 acres of the 18,678 total acres on the Rahilly-Gravelly
`
`Allotment and a corresponding reduction of 630 Animal Unit Months (“AUMs”) of permitted
`
`use from the Cahill Ranches permit. 2015 RMPA at 2-18. In particular, the BLM plans to
`
`eliminate grazing from the Sucker Creek pasture of the allotment, despite the agency’s own
`
`findings that the Sucker Creek pasture and the Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment as a whole are in
`
`good health.
`
`26.
`
`The Sucker Creek pasture, where the BLM’s 2015 RMPA eliminates grazing, has
`
`been well managed. Cahill Ranches has ensured that the pasture is grazed only every other year
`
`and, that when the pasture is grazed, utilization of the available forage does not exceed 51
`
`percent. Records show that grazing also is low intensity in areas of the pasture where the BLM
`
`has identified sage grouse breeding and nesting areas or “leks.” Furthermore, the BLM has
`
`found that the Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment is: (1) making significant progress towards meeting
`
`the Oregon Standards for Rangeland Health; (2) conforming to the Guidelines for Livestock
`
`Grazing Management; and (3) that sage grouse habitat is improving, including on the Sucker
`
`Creek pasture.
`
`27.
`
`In the experience of Cahill Ranches, under good grazing management practices,
`
`sage grouse conservation and livestock grazing can beneficially co-exist.
`
`Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment Strategy
`
`28.
`
`In response to the 2010 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s recommendation to list
`
`the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act, ODFW developed an Oregon Greater Sage
`
`Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy in 2011 (“ODFW Strategy”).
`
`COMPLAINT - Page 10
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 11 of 21
`
`29.
`
`The ODFW Strategy recognized that “[f]rom a habitat fragmentation standpoint,
`
`ranching was the most environmentally benign land use and accumulated fewer human features
`
`than landscapes that also contained tillage agriculture, energy development, or both in Wyoming
`
`and Montana (Naugle et al 2011). Ranching as a land use generally supported greater
`
`biodiversity as measured by native plant species and shrub/grassland nesting birds than exurban
`
`developments or reserves (Stohlgren et al. 1999, Maestas et al. 2002; 2003).” ODFW Strategy at
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`The ODFW Strategy defined “development actions,” which triggered specific
`
`mitigation for sage grouse. A development action “means any activity subject to regulation by
`
`local, state, or federal agencies that could result in the loss of fish and wildlife habitat.” Id.
`
`31.
`
`Significantly, “[d]evelopment action does not include activities associated with
`
`the continued maintenance and operation of livestock ranching operations which manage for
`
`sustainable native rangelands, as determined by BLMs Rangeland Health Assessment or other
`
`recognized monitoring techniques appropriate for shrub steppe habitats in Oregon.” ODFW
`
`Strategy at 29 (emphasis added).
`
`32.
`
`The ODFW has written a letter stating it does not support removing grazing from
`
`the Research Natural Area in the Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment. ODFW explained that removal of
`
`grazing will not improve sage grouse habitat quality and that juniper encroachment reduces
`
`habitat quality.
`
`Environmental Assessment for The Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment
`
`33.
`
`BLM prepared an environmental assessment (“EA”) under the National
`
`Environmental Policy Act for the Cahill Grazing permit renewal for the Rahilly-Gravelly
`
`Allotment.
`
`COMPLAINT - Page 11
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 12 of 21
`
`34.
`
`Based on the environmental assessment, BLM issued a proposed decision in May
`
`2014 permitting grazing to continue on a rest-rotation grazing scheme for the Rahilly-Gravelly
`
`Allotment for 10 years.
`
`35.
`
`The proposed decision provided thirty days for an administrative protest, but no
`
`one protested the proposed decision. (“Allotment Decision”). There were no protests by anti-
`
`grazing groups, or anyone else, of the decision to continue grazing on the Rahilly-Gravelly
`
`Allotment. Under the BLM regulations, in the absence of a protest, the proposed decision
`
`became the final decision without further notice. 43 C.F.R. § 4160.3; Allotment Decision at 18.
`
`36.
`
`As part of the environmental analysis to support the Allotment Decision on the
`
`grazing permit renewal, “[e]xisting sage grouse habitats were assessed in accordance with
`
`several protocols, including the Sage Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework. . . . Grazing
`
`practices addressed within the range of alternatives considered both livestock management
`
`objectives and potential impacts to greater sage grouse habitat. The EA addressed the potential
`
`direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of vegetation treatments on greater sage grouse habitat.”
`
`Allotment Decision at 16.
`
`37.
`
`The Allotment Decision concluded that, “[b]ased on the analysis of potential
`
`impacts contained within the EA, there is no reason to consider deferring the issuance of the term
`
`grazing permit or deferring implementation of the proposed projects, as the decision would not
`
`result in sage grouse population loss within PPH.” Id.
`
`38.
`
`Furthermore, the BLM Field Manager in his Allotment Decision considered the
`
`ODFW sage grouse strategy and concluded that:
`
`Off-site mitigation was not deemed necessary for several reasons. First, as stated
`earlier my proposed decision conforms with ODFW (2005) livestock grazing
`management guidelines. Further, the ODFW’s current sage grouse plan (2011,
`page 79) “recognizes that livestock ranching operations which manage for
`
`COMPLAINT - Page 12
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 13 of 21
`
`ecologically sustainable native rangelands are compatible with sage grouse
`conservation, and necessary management activities to maintain a sustainable
`ranching operation are not considered ‘development actions’ under the application
`of the Mitigation Policy to sage grouse habitat.” As a policy matter, ODFW does
`not consider issuing a grazing permit or associated range improvement projects to
`be actions that require mitigation.
`
`
`Id.
`
`39.
`
`Sixteen months later, the Oregon Greater Sage Grouse 2015 RMPA and ROD
`
`concluded that grazing had to be significantly curtailed on the Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment.
`
`RMPA and ROD
`
`40.
`
`The Oregon 2015 RMPA and ROD are an outgrowth of the 2010 decision by the
`
`U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (“FWS”) that listing of the greater sage grouse (“GRSG”) was
`
`“warranted, but precluded” by higher listing priorities. 75 Fed. Reg. 13910 (Mar. 23, 2010). In
`
`the 2010 FWS proposed listing decision (“2010 Finding”), FWS reached a general conclusion
`
`that "absence of adequate regulatory mechanisms is a significant threat to species." Id. at 13982.
`
`Crucially, the FWS did not conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms relating to livestock
`
`grazing and range management were inadequate. Although in some cases, it was unclear
`
`whether existing regulatory mechanisms were being implemented in a manner to conserve sage
`
`grouse. Instead, FWS concluded that the existing regulatory framework of "RMPs, AMPs
`
`[Allotment Management Plans], and the permit renewal process provide an adequate regulatory
`
`framework.” Id. at 13977.
`
`41.
`
`In response to the 2010 Finding, the Department of Interior announced its
`
`National Planning Strategy to amend some 88 Resource Management Plans ("RMPs") pursuant
`
`to FLPMA (BLM) and National Forest Management Act (Forest Service), and through a NEPA
`
`process to include sage grouse specific direction by September 2014. See Bureau of Land
`
`Mgmt., Dep't of Interior, Instruction Memorandum 2012-044, BLM National Greater GRSG
`
`COMPLAINT - Page 13
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 14 of 21
`
`Land-Use Planning Strategy (December 2011). That process has been coordinated under two
`
`administrative planning regions: The Rocky Mountain Region and the Great Basin Region. The
`
`Great Basin Region at issue here includes the land use plan amendments in California, Nevada,
`
`Oregon, Idaho, and portions of Utah and Montana. After a concurrent 30-day protest period and
`
`60-day Governors' Consistency Review under FPLMA, the BLM finalized the agency action
`
`with the execution of ROD(s) on or about September 21, 2015 (“Great Basin ROD”) signed by
`
`the Director of BLM and the Assistant Secretary of Interior for Lands and Minerals
`
`Management.
`
`42.
`
`The Great Basin ROD approves amendments to the Oregon Sub-Regional RMP
`
`that eliminates 8,282 acres from grazing on the Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment. The Great Basin
`
`ROD is the regional planning-level conclusion of this sage grouse decision-making process.
`
`That top-down process, being geared toward regional and national issues, ignored significant on-
`
`the-ground facts at the local level that indicated sage grouse habitat and populations are steady or
`
`improving on the Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment.
`
`Research Natural Area
`
`43.
`
`The Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment is part of a Research Natural Area (“RNA”)
`
`designated by BLM in 2000, in part because it is representative of the Western juniper/big
`
`sagebrush-bitterroot community. Grazing was allowed to continue within the Rahilly-Gravelly
`
`RNA pastures after the RNA was established.
`
`44.
`
`The local BLM Office, in evaluating RNAs in the Lakeview District, expressed
`
`concern about creating an RNA in the Sucker Creek pasture. They noted that "juniper
`
`encroachment is a serious threat to habitat and could not be treated under proposed RNA
`
`COMPLAINT - Page 14
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 15 of 21
`
`management; If you do not drop entire allotment from key RNA list, then recommending
`
`dropping this pasture so that juniper treatment/habitat restoration could be conducted."
`
`45.
`
`RNAs are a special sub-type of Area of Critical Environmental Concern
`
`(“ACEC”) subject to certain regulatory mechanisms. Designation of an RNA means that
`
`“special management attention is needed to prevent irreparable damage to important values, fish
`
`or wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes.” BLM ACEC Guidance Manual
`
`1613; see 43 C.F.R. § 1610.7-2. BLM’s new “special management” to eliminate grazing aimed
`
`at sage grouse conservation in the RNA requires a finding that such “special management” is
`
`needed to prevent “irreparable damage” to sage grouse. By eliminating grazing, the BLM has, in
`
`effect, re-designated the purpose of the RNA without making this necessary finding.
`
`46.
`
`The 2015 RMPA decision to eliminate grazing from the Rahilly-Gravelly
`
`Allotment and the RNA to provide an unmanaged control that will allow unfettered juniper
`
`expansion also ignores the existence of the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge and
`
`Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge in the vicinity of the allotment where grazing is already
`
`prohibited. These refuges have about a half million acres of habitat that have been unavailable
`
`for grazing for over two decades. The Sheldon Refuge in particular has topography, elevation,
`
`and vegetation similar to the RNA and is only 12 miles from the Rahilly-Gravelly
`
`Allotment. Thus, the features of the RNA and the Sucker Creek pasture do not have substantial
`
`significance and are not unique since the Department of Interior already has thousands of acres
`
`of ungrazed sage grouse habitat. Eliminating grazing is not necessary to prevent irreparable
`
`damage to sage grouse or sage grouse habitat and the best available science shows that
`
`eliminating management will increase the risk of loss of habitat from rapidly spreading and
`
`intense wildfire and juniper expansion.
`
`COMPLAINT - Page 15
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 16 of 21
`
`47.
`
`The Oregon 2015 RMPA is an artifact of a top-down decision process that fails to
`
`account for the local conditions on the ground. The direct elimination of livestock grazing on
`
`individual allotments or pastures through a regional 2015 RMPA is unprecedented. Existing
`
`regulatory mechanisms provide that local land managers make decisions regarding permitted use,
`
`seasonal restrictions, and other issues related to grazing permits, not regional or national
`
`policymakers. That management structure is, in part, designed to recognize the important role
`
`and cooperation of local ranchers, such as Cahill Ranches, which devoted significant amounts of
`
`time, money, and energy into acquiring and maintaining its Rahilly-Gravelly grazing permits,
`
`including working with BLM on sage grouse/juniper removal research, and conserving and
`
`managing the public lands covered by the permit.
`
`48.
`
`As applied to livestock grazing and range management, the BLM - through its
`
`2015 RMPA process - failed to find that existing range management adopted through the
`
`EA/ROD for the permit renewal poses a threat to sage grouse habitat or populations. Nor did
`
`BLM find that the elimination of grazing on the Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment is necessary to avoid
`
`destruction or unnecessary injury to range resources.
`
`49.
`
`By eliminating grazing on 8,282 acres of the Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment, BLM
`
`has violated the Taylor Grazing Act, FLPMA, and the APA.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
`VIOLATION OF THE TAYLOR GRAZING ACT, 43 U.S.C. § 315 et seq.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in all preceding paragraphs.
`
`The 2015 RMPA has improperly changed the primary use of lands within a
`
`
`
`grazing district from livestock grazing to sage grouse conservation and research in violation of
`
`the TGA. The purpose of the TGA was “to promote the highest and best use of public lands”
`
`COMPLAINT - Page 16
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 17 of 21
`
`and Congress authorized the creation of grazing districts, which are chiefly valuable for grazing,
`
`in order to fulfill this purpose. 43 U.S.C. § 315.
`
`52.
`
`The TGA states that "grazing privileges recognized and acknowledged shall be
`
`adequately safeguarded." 43 U.S.C. § 315b. Furthermore, the Act states that "the Secretary of
`
`Interior shall . . . do any and all things necessary to accomplish the purposes of this subchapter,
`
`and to ensure the objects of such grazing districts, namely, to regulate their occupancy and use,
`
`to preserve the land and its resources from destruction or unnecessary injury, [and] to provide for
`
`the orderly use, improvement, and development of the range." 43 U.S.C. § 315a.
`
`53.
`
`The elimination of grazing from the 8,282-acre Sucker Creek Pasture covering
`
`44% of the Rahilly-Gravelly Allotment defeats the rotational grazing scheme for the allotment as
`
`a whole, effectively eliminating grazing on the allotment. Eliminating grazing will increase the
`
`risk, spread, and intensity of wildfire. Establishing an RNA reserve as a control that precludes
`
`any vegetation management will promote juniper encroachment. Eliminating grazing and
`
`vegetation management will reduce sagebrush and be detrimental to perennial native grasses.
`
`The 2015 RMPA also fails to consider the range health assessment indicating that grazing on the
`
`Sucker Creek pasture is meeting range health standards. Consequently, the 2015 RMPA
`
`decision fails to preserve the range and its resources from destruction or unnecessary injury and
`
`precludes orderly use, improvement, and development of the range in violation of the TGA,
`
`which is arbitrary and capricious under the APA, 7 U.S.C § 706(2).
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`COMPLAINT - Page 17
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01363-CL Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 18 of 21
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
`FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT
`
`COUNT 1
`Failure to Conduct S