Case 6:20-cv-01395-MK Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 1 of 26
`
`Nicholas S. Cady (OSB # 113463)
`Cascadia Wildlands
`P.O. Box 10455
`Eugene, Oregon 97440
`Tel: 541-434-1463
`Fax: 541-434-6494
`Email: nick@cascwild.org
`
`Additional Counsel Identified on Signature Page
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF OREGON
`
`EUGENE DIVISION
`
`CASCADIA WILDLANDS, an Oregon non-profit
`corporation; OREGON WILD, an Oregon non-profit
`corporation,
`
`Civ. Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND
`MANAGEMENT, an administrative agency of the
`United States Department of Interior,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01395-MK Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 2 of 26
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs, Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild (collectively “Plaintiffs”), bring this
`
`civil action arising under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.,
`
`challenging the United States Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM”) issuance of the February
`
`2020 Thurston Hills Non-Motorized Trails and Forest Management Project (“Thurston Hills
`
`Project” or “the Project”) Environmental Assessment (“EA”)/Finding of No Significant Impact
`
`(“FONSI”) and Decision Record for violations of federal laws and regulations intended to
`
`protect the public’s natural resources and ensure informed, well-reasoned decision-making.
`
`2.
`
`This action seeks: 1) a declaration that the BLM violated the Federal Land Policy and
`
`Management Act (“FLPMA”), 43 U.S.C. §§ 302 et seq., by (a) authorizing regeneration
`
`harvesting of the Recreation Management Zone (“RMZ”) within the Willamalane Non-
`
`Motorized Trails Extensive Recreation Management Area (“ERMA”), and (b) allowing further
`
`logging within the Willamalane Non-Motorized ERMA that is incompatible with meeting
`
`recreation objectives, interferes with recreation opportunities, and fails to maintain the setting
`
`characteristics; 2) a declaration that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act
`
`(“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., and its implementing regulations by (a) failing to take the
`
`requisite ‘hard look’ at the Project’s potential environmental impacts, (b) proceeding under an
`
`unreasonably narrow purpose and need, (c) failing to consider a reasonable range of alternatives;
`
`and 3) the vacatur and remand of the Project to the BLM.
`
`3.
`
`The requested relief is necessary to preserve the status quo, to prevent illegal agency
`
`action, and to forestall irreparable injury to the environment.
`
`4.
`
`If Plaintiffs are the prevailing party in this action, they will seek an award of fees and
`
`costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01395-MK Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 3 of 26
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question), 2201
`
`(injunctive relief), 2202 (declaratory relief), and 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (United States as a defendant).
`
`This cause of action arises under the laws of the United States, including the Administrative
`
`Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.; the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
`
`(“FLPMA”), 43 U.S.C. §§ 302 et seq.; and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42
`
`U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. An actual, justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and
`
`Defendant, and the requested relief is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 and 5 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 701-06.
`
`6.
`
`Venue in this court is proper under 26 U.S.C. § 1391 because all or a substantial part of
`
`the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred within this judicial district,
`
`Plaintiffs and Defendant reside in this district, and the public lands and resources at issue are
`
`located in this district. The BLM official who authorized this decision is headquartered in
`
`Springfield, Oregon, which is located within this district. This case is filed properly in Eugene,
`
`Oregon pursuant to Local Rules 3.3 and 3.4 because the Thurston Hills Project is located within
`
`Lane County, Oregon.
`
`PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff CASCADIA WILDLANDS is a non-profit corporation headquartered in
`
`Eugene, Oregon, with approximately 10,000 members and supporters throughout the United
`
`States. Cascadia Wildlands educates, agitates, and inspires a movement to protect and restore
`
`wild ecosystems in the Cascadia Bioregion, extending from Northern California into Alaska.
`
`Cascadia Wildlands envisions vast old-growth forests, rivers full of salmon, wolves howling in
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01395-MK Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 4 of 26
`
`
`
`the backcountry, and vibrant communities sustained by the unique landscapes of the Cascadia
`
`Bioregion.
`
`20.
`
`Cascadia Wildlands’ members and supporters have used and will continue to use the
`
`Thurston Hills Project area for activities such as hiking, bird watching, and other recreational and
`
`professional pursuits. Cascadia Wildlands’ members and supporters also own real property that
`
`adjoins the Thurston Hills Project area and are justifiably concerned about impacts to that real
`
`property if the Project is allowed to proceed.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff OREGON WILD is a non-profit corporation with approximately 20,000
`
`members and supporters throughout the state of Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. Oregon Wild
`
`and its members are dedicated to protecting and restoring Oregon’s wild lands, wildlife, and
`
`waters as an enduring legacy.
`
`9.
`
`Oregon Wild’s staff and members regularly visit the Thurston Hills area and surrounding
`
`federal lands and seek to ensure that the BLM faithfully and fully implements and complies with
`
`federal law in managing the natural resources of the Project area as a means of protecting their
`
`interests. Oregon Wild’s staff and members hike, bike, photograph scenery and wildlife, use, and
`
`engage in other vocational, scientific, and recreational activities in and around the Thurston
`
`Hills Project area. Oregon Wild's staff and members derive recreational, inspirational, scientific,
`
`and aesthetic benefit from their activities within the Thurston Hills Project area. Oregon
`
`Wild’s staff and members intend to continue to use and enjoy the Thurston Hills Project area and
`
`surrounding forested lands, waters, and trails frequently and on an ongoing basis in the future.
`
`10. All Plaintiffs have organizational interests in the proper and lawful management of the
`
`Northwest District of the Bureau of Land Management’s public lands. Plaintiffs’ aesthetic,
`
`recreational, scientific, economic and religious interests have been and will be adversely affected
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01395-MK Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 5 of 26
`
`
`
`and irreparably injured if Defendant engages in activities detrimental to forest ecosystems and
`
`late-successional habitat in the Project area. Plaintiffs’ and their members use and enjoyment the
`
`Thurston Hills area will be degraded and impaired if the Thurston Hills Project is implemented
`
`as planned with aggressive logging. Plaintiffs’ members and supporters that own adjoining
`
`property to the Thurston Hills Project area will suffer aesthetic damages, increased wildfire
`
`hazard for the next forty years, and potential decreases in property value. Plaintiffs’ injuries are
`
`also predicated on unlawful BLM actions that have diminished the trust between BLM,
`
`Springfield residents, and the conservation community; facilitated the risk of unsupported and
`
`uninformed management and decision-making; increased the risk of actual, threatened, and
`
`imminent environmental harm and public safety risks; and created actual, concrete injuries to
`
`Plaintiffs and their interests. Because Plaintiffs seek to ensure informed decision-making,
`
`compliance with federal law, and the prevention of unacceptable harm to the Project area, the
`
`City of Springfield and the specific residences adjoining the Project area, Plaintiffs’ injuries
`
`would be redressed by the relief sought.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiffs submitted timely written comments, formal protest letters, and formerly
`
`litigated the Thurston Hills Project, alleging, among other issues, that the BLM’s failure to
`
`proceed under a reasonable purpose and need, adequately analyze the impacts of, or explore
`
`alternatives to, this timber sale and its failure to comply with the substantive requirements of
`
`FLPMA violated federal law.
`
`12. Defendant BLM is an agency or instrumentality of the United States and is charged with
`
`managing public lands and resources in accordance and compliance with federal laws and
`
`regulations.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01395-MK Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 6 of 26
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF LAW
`
`Administrative Procedures Act
`
`13.
`
`The APA confers a right of judicial review on any person that is adversely affected by
`
`agency action. 5 U.S.C. § 702. Upon review, the court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency
`
`actions…found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance
`
`with the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
`
`Federal Land Management and Policy Act
`
`14.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”), 43 U.S.C. §
`
`1732(a) and its implementing regulations, 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3(a), BLM must ensure that a site-
`
`specific project conforms to the Resource Management Plan (“RMP”) including any alterations
`
`or amendments thereto. The FLPMA requires that all BLM lands be managed for multiple uses
`
`and to protect a wide range of natural resource values. See, e.g., 43 U.S.C. § 1701; see generally
`
`id. §§ 1701–1782.
`
`15.
`
`The Thurston Hills Project was developed under the 2016 Northwestern and Coastal
`
`Oregon Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. Pursuant to direction to “provide a
`
`diversity of quality recreational opportunities,” the RMP designates a number of recreation areas
`
`including Extensive Recreation Management Areas (“ERMA”). Each designated ERMA must be
`
`managed in accordance with its specific planning framework.
`
`16.
`
`RMPs may go through plan “maintenance” without going to a formal NEPA process, but
`
`only to reflect minor changes in data. 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-4. This plan “maintenance” is not
`
`considered a plan amendment and is therefore limited to refining or adding documentation—it
`
`may not result in “expansion in the scope of resource uses or restrictions, or change the terms,
`
`conditions, and decisions of the approved plan.” Id.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01395-MK Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 7 of 26
`
`
`
`National Environmental Policy Act
`
`17.
`
`Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969, directing all
`
`federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of proposed actions that have the potential
`
`to significantly affect the quality of the environment. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). NEPA’s disclosure
`
`goals are two-fold: (1) to ensure that the agency has carefully and fully contemplated the
`
`environmental effects of its action, and (2) to ensure that the public has sufficient information to
`
`meaningfully participate in the decision-making process.
`
`18.
`
`The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) promulgated uniform regulations
`
`implementing NEPA that are binding on all federal agencies. 42 U.S.C. § 4342, 40 C.F.R. §§
`
`1500 et. seq.
`
`19.
`
`NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare, consider, and approve an adequate
`
`Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for “any major federal action significantly affecting the
`
`quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c); 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(a)(1).
`
`To determine whether an action requires an EIS as required by NEPA, an action agency may
`
`prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA). 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b). Id. To make a supportable
`
`determination of non-significance, NEPA documents must consider the direct, indirect, and
`
`cumulative environmental impacts of a proposed action. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8. Direct effects are
`
`caused by the action and occur at the same time and place as the proposed project. Id. §
`
`1508.8(a). Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in
`
`distances but are still reasonably foreseeable. Id. § 1508.8(b). Both types of impacts include
`
`“effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected
`
`ecosystems,” as well as “aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social or health [effects].” Id. §
`
`1508. Cumulative impact results when the “incremental impact of the action [is] added to other
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01395-MK Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 8 of 26
`
`
`
`past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions” undertaken by any person or agency. Id.
`
`§ 1508.7.
`
`20.
`
`NEPA requires that environmental information be available to public officials and
`
`citizens before agency decisions are made and before any actions occur to implement the
`
`proposed project. 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b). The information released must be of high quality and
`
`sufficient to allow the public to question the agency rationale and understand the agency’s
`
`decision-making process. Id.
`
`21.
`
`NEPA also requires agencies to consider a range of alternatives to each proposed action.
`
`The agency’s analysis must consider the underlying “purpose and need” for the proposed action,
`
`and “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate” the environmental impacts of “all reasonable
`
`alternatives” to the proposed action. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.13, 1502.14. The alternatives analysis is
`
`“the heart” of the NEPA process because it “present[s] the environmental impacts of the proposal
`
`and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear
`
`basis for choice among options by the decisionmaker and the public.” Id. § 1502.14. This
`
`requirement is critical to serving NEPA’s primary purposes of ensuring fully informed decisions
`
`and providing for meaningful public participation in environmental analyses and decision-
`
`making. Id. § 1500.1(b), (c).
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`The Willamalane Non-Motorized Trails Extensive Recreation Management Area
`
`22.
`
`The Willamalane Park and Recreation District (“Willamalane”) maintains and operates
`
`five recreation facilities and 46 parks and natural areas totaling nearly 1,500 acres around the
`
`City of Springfield. On November 6, 2012, Willamalane’s Bond Measure 20-199 was approved.
`
`The $20 million bond measure highlighted ten priority projects for Willamalane, one of which
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01395-MK Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 9 of 26
`
`
`
`was acquisition of the Thurston Hills Ridgeline. The project was described as acquiring property
`
`in Springfield to preserve natural areas and develop a hiking and biking trail along the south
`
`Thurston Hills Ridgeline, roughly from Bob Straub Parkway to 79th and Main Street for the dual
`
`reasons of nature conservation and outdoor recreation.
`
`23.
`
`The BLM also manages federal public land on the Thurston Hills Ridgeline area that
`
`borders both Springfield residences and Willamalane’s acquisition. Willamalane approached the
`
`BLM to coordinate on a connected trail system given the high demand for recreation and natural
`
`amenities and the nearby location of BLM managed sections. The BLM recognized the public
`
`demand and recreational benefits of the proposal.
`
`24.
`
`As the BLM was developing its new Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Record of
`
`Decision and Resource Management Plan (“RMP”) in 2015, it also completed a spatial analysis
`
`of recreational needs that supported the agency’s collaboration with Willamalane. Based on the
`
`recognized demand for new hiking and mountain biking opportunities, the regional RMP
`
`designated the Willamalane Non-Motorized Trails Extensive Recreation Management Area
`
`(“ERMA”) and identified the partnership with Willamalane in the development of hiking and
`
`mountain biking trails.
`
`25.
`
`According to BLM’s planning framework for the Willamalane Non-Motorized Trails
`
`ERMA, this area is intended for recreational development consistent with Willamalane’s
`
`proposal to preserve views; enhance wildlife habitat and sensitive natural areas; and provide
`
`walking, hiking, and mountain biking opportunities. While the ERMA was designed to be
`
`commensurate with the management of other resources and resource uses, it requires specific
`
`management considerations in order to address recreational use, demand, visitor experiences and
`
`related program investments. The BLM must manage ERMAs to support and sustain the
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01395-MK Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 10 of 26
`
`
`
`principal recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions for which each ERMA
`
`was designated.
`
`26.
`
`To these ends, the BLM’s planning framework sets forth management actions and
`
`allowable use restrictions specific to the Willamalane Non-Motorized Trails ERMA.
`
`Accordingly, fuel treatments or other vegetation modifications (i.e. logging activities) are
`
`allowed in this ERMA only if such actions are compatible with meeting recreation objectives, do
`
`not interfere with recreation opportunities, and do not alter the scenic setting characteristics of
`
`the area.
`
`27.
`
`The BLM is also required to designate a Recreation Management Zone (RMZ) around
`
`trails in the ERMA. Timber harvest within the RMZ is only allowed to the extent it is needed to
`
`protect/maintain recreation setting characteristics and/or to achieve recreation objectives.
`
`BLM’s Thurston Hills Non-Motorized Trails and Forest Management Project
`
`28.
`
`In 2016, following the finalization of the BLM’s new RMP, Willamalane approached the
`
`BLM about initiating NEPA review for a trail building project that would fulfill the vision for “a
`
`premier regional destination for nature observation and outdoor recreation (focused on hiking
`
`and mountain biking) that is greatly needed in the Eugene-Springfield area.”
`
`29.
`
`On March 17, 2017, the BLM issued its public “scoping” notice for the Thurston Hills
`
`Project. The scoping notice contemplated “forest management activities including sustainable-
`
`yield timber harvest and fuels-reduction” to the extent such harvest was in “harmony” with the
`
`non-motorized trail system being proposed in coordination with Willamalane.
`
`30. Willamalane requested to be a member of the interdisciplinary team that would develop
`
`the EA in order to better harmonize the proposed Project with its adjoining parcel. The BLM
`
`denied this request.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01395-MK Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 11 of 26
`
`
`
`31.
`
`At the public scoping meetings about the proposed Project and in numerous scoping
`
`comments submitted to the BLM, concerns were raised about the effects of timber harvest on the
`
`recreation opportunities and increased fire hazard in the area given its immediate proximity to
`
`homes within the City of Springfield. The BLM had a list of 341 addresses within and
`
`surrounding the Project area.
`
`32.
`
`The specter of timber harvest caused neighboring landowners interviewed by the BLM to
`
`oppose the Project and even consider selling their homes.
`
`33.
`
`Following the public scoping period, BLM increased its attention toward coupling the
`
`development of the non-motorized trails system with a timber sale that would generate
`
`substantial timber volume. The focus of the Project began to shift toward how the BLM would
`
`design the trails to facilitate long-term timber harvest and where the BLM could plan additional
`
`timber harvest within the next 10 years.
`
`34.
`
`The BLM also developed its proposal under the assumption that any logging that retained
`
`more than 15% live trees in the Project area would not be allowed.
`
`35.
`
`On April 23, 2018, the BLM issued its first Thurston Hills Non-Motorized Trails and
`
`Forest Management Project EA. The EA considered a No Action Alternative (as required by
`
`NEPA’s regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(d)) and four Action Alternatives. None of the
`
`alternatives considered the possibility of harmonizing goals related to recreation, timber
`
`production, and fire hazard by thinning instead of regeneration logging.
`
`36. Many public comments expressed concern that the proposed regeneration harvest would
`
`degrade the recreational experience. The mountain biking community specifically requested the
`
`BLM proceed with no logging and simply construct the trails.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01395-MK Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 12 of 26
`
`
`
`37.
`
`Numerous public comments also raised concerns that regeneration logging will increase
`
`fire hazard and urged the BLM to thoroughly evaluate in the Project EA how the regeneration
`
`harvesting would increase fire risk to adjacent homes and communities.
`
`38.
`
`On May 30, 2018, the BLM issued a revised EA to allegedly provide additional context
`
`for some of the issues raised in public comments. This revised EA was developed primarily in
`
`response to the official protests and concerns raised by the City of Springfield and Willamalane.
`
`While the new EA developed a new alternative (Alternative 4 – Trail Development and a 105-
`
`Acre Regeneration Harvest), which dropped 50 acres of logging to buffer the BLM’s logging
`
`from Willamalane’s Thurston Hills Natural Area, the BLM also developed (Alternative 5 – 155-
`
`Acre Regeneration Harvest only), which threatened to eliminate the trail construction altogether
`
`in order to force acquiesce from Willamalane and the mountain biking community.
`
`39.
`
`Public comments pointed to the current, relevant science on how different types of
`
`logging prescriptions can influence fire risk. Specifically, regeneration harvesting 85 to 90% of
`
`live trees from roughly 100-150 acres, as BLM’s proposal called for, would remove thousands of
`
`trees with thick bark and high canopies (characteristics that make forests less prone to severe
`
`fire), replacing forest stands currently on a trajectory to become older, larger and more resilient
`
`to wildfire, with a dense young plantation consisting of continuous dense fuels close to the
`
`ground (fuel characteristics that make forests more prone to severe fire).
`
`38.
`
`On May 30, 2018, the BLM also simultaneously issued its Finding of No Significant
`
`Impact (“FONSI”) for the Thurston Hills Project. The agency selected Alternative 3, which
`
`included a 155-acre regeneration harvest that would directly overlay the proposed trail network
`
`and border many residences in the Project vicinity.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01395-MK Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 13 of 26
`
`
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiffs, other recreationists, landowners, Willamalane, the City of Springfield, and
`
`Congressmen Peter DeFazio all expressed concerns over the selected alternative. The BLM
`
`subsequently decided to withdraw its FONSI and associated Decision Record.
`
`40.
`
`On August 15, 2018, without preparing a new EA or considering any additional
`
`alternatives, the BLM issued another FONSI, instead selecting a modified Alternative 4. This
`
`Alternative results in a 100-acre regeneration harvest within the ERMA, which would still
`
`directly overlay the proposed trail network but would retain more trees along the border with
`
`Willamalane’s property. This change did not alter the BLM’s underlying fire analysis because
`
`the change just involved overall acreage, not logging prescriptions.
`
`41.
`
`All Plaintiff organizations filed timely protests and an appeal with the Interior Board of
`
`Land Appeals (“IBLA”).
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiffs’ protest letters raised numerous concerns, chief among them being that the
`
`BLM’s stated “purpose and need” to conduct regeneration harvest was unreasonably narrow,
`
`precluding consideration of a thinning alternative that would have been consistent with the
`
`agency’s own RMP directives concerning fire hazard and risk around adjacent communities.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiffs and several other interested stakeholders also administratively challenged the
`
`regeneration harvest due to its negative effects on recreation, namely hiking and mountain biking
`
`opportunities. The BLM responded that logging will not conflict with recreation goals for the
`
`ERMA, because BLM plans to log first and before building the trails.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiffs made numerous attempts to meet with the BLM and the prospective timber sale
`
`purchaser, Seneca Sawmill Company, to resolve differences over the sale, but the parties were
`
`unable to reach a resolution.
`
`45.
`
`The BLM denied Plaintiffs’ protests on October 5, 2018.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01395-MK Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 14 of 26
`
`
`
`46.
`
`The BLM notified Plaintiffs, in response to their inquiries, that the agency intended to
`
`award the timber sale to the high bidder, Seneca Sawmill, on February 5, 2019. The BLM further
`
`indicated that the purchaser plans to begin logging operations that spring.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiffs filed suit against the BLM in the United States District Court for the District of
`
`Oregon on February 19, 2019.
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiffs claimed that the BLM violated FLPMA when it failed to ensure that the
`
`Thurston Hills Project conformed to the governing RMP and that it failed to manage the Project
`
`in accordance with the ERMA’s specific planning framework. Plaintiffs also alleged that the
`
`BLM violated NEPA because it proceeded under an unreasonably narrow purpose and need for
`
`the Project, it failed to thoroughly consider and objectively evaluate an adequate range of
`
`reasonable alternatives, and it failed to take the requisite hard look at the Project’s impacts,
`
`particularly regarding fire hazard and the ability of the Willamalane Non-Motorized ERMA to
`
`fulfill its objectives.
`
`49.
`
`The District Court ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor on September 18, 2019 on two counts and
`
`ordered the BLM on remand to: (1) designate and preserve a Recreation Management Zone prior
`
`to harvest; and (2) to fully analyze and publicly disclose the degree of fire hazard to adjacent
`
`communities that the Project is likely to increase as required by NEPA.
`
`50.
`
`In response to the opinion and order from the District Court, the BLM prepared a new
`
`EA, published on February 4, 2020. BLM prepared this new EA under the assumption that the
`
`contract with Seneca was still valid and the timber sold was Seneca’s property. BLM prepared
`
`this new EA under the assumption that the logging prescriptions could not be altered given that
`
`the already sold timbre was Seneca’s property.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01395-MK Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 15 of 26
`
`
`
`51.
`
`This February 2020 EA includes a fire risk analysis, but concludes that the fire hazard
`
`impacts from implementing the regeneration harvest would be similar to the no-action
`
`alternative. The BLM’s no-action alternative assumes a timber sale very similar to or the same as
`
`the current project being analyzed will occur in the near future.
`
`52.
`
`The BLM represented to members of the public and elected officials that there would not
`
`be an increase in fire hazard impacts stemming from the regeneration harvest. The BLM released
`
`a promotional video to the public on August 13, 2020 describing in part the fire impacts of the
`
`Thurston Hills timber sale. In the video, the BLM represents that there “there is going to be a
`
`short term increase in fire hazard in the immediate harvest area, however because there is a
`
`buffer between the harvest area and where the homes are, there will not be a risk increase to the
`
`neighboring homes.”
`
`53.
`
`Additionally, while the February 2020 EA does contain alternatives that designate an
`
`RMZ around the trails, the EA does not contain any alternatives or analysis that preserve the
`
`RMZ prior to harvest, as ordered by this Court.
`
`54.
`
`Further, the February 2020 EA does not analyze whether the logging within the ERMA
`
`maintains setting characteristics, interferes with recreation opportunities, meets recreation
`
`objectives, or violates the court order regarding the designation and protection of the trails from
`
`timber harvest.
`
`55.
`
`The EA provides a map of the proposed trails and establishes an RMZ, but again, it does
`
`not protect and preserve the RMZ as is required by the RMP and this Court’s order; rather, all of
`
`the proposed logging alternatives include clearcutting the RMZ.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01395-MK Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 16 of 26
`
`
`
`56.
`
`All of the proposed logging in the alternatives is identical to the proposed logging
`
`previously found by this Court to be unlawful. The logging prescriptions in 2020 Thurston EA
`
`are unchanged.
`
`57.
`
`Under the trails only alternative, the BLM will provide sustainable non-erodible surfaces
`
`that would hold up to biking as well as hiking and trail running. The proposed trail system would
`
`be designed to provide a range of difficulty that combines quality scenery, a diversity of natural
`
`features, a quality trail experience, and the opportunity for physical exercise. The trail would be
`
`open year-round and would be expected to be used year-round for non-motorized uses. The trail
`
`bed would be a single-track, on an organic layer that provides a natural “drift” feeling of the trail
`
`tread derived from the organic layer of soil found below dense canopies. This area is particularly
`
`conducive for trails because of its (existing) mature conifer forest and because the ERMA is
`
`primarily north-facing and forested with conifers, which makes for excellent trail conditions
`
`from late spring through fall.
`
`58.
`
`The trails in the regeneration harvest areas would lose the natural “drift” feeling of the
`
`trail tread derived from the organic layer of soil found below dense canopies. The loss of tree
`
`canopy associated with the timber harvest would result in a loss of natural variation in vegetation
`
`type and terrain, and loss of the natural “drift” feeling of the trail tread derived from the organic
`
`layer of soil found below dense canopies. The loss of mature tree canopy would lead to trail
`
`exposure reducing the trails availability and desirability for use in the late spring through fall.
`
`The trail segments in the regeneration harvest areas would be subject to increased direct rainfall,
`
`wind erosion, freeze-thaw, and seasonal over-drying. These conditions reduce the ability of the
`
`trail system to withstand heavy use during the preferred spring-to-fall season. The mountain
`
`biking experience would not have the highest quality tread, particularly for the Play experience.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01395-MK Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 17 of 26
`
`
`
`Logging would necessitate that additional construction efforts would be implemented to amend
`
`the soil with crushed rock and to manipulate the trail tread to accommodate more variable
`
`drainage conditions. Mountain biking on crushed rock or gravel and logging roads is less
`
`desirable than riding on natural organic trails. Trail hiking and running would also be less
`
`desirable on exposed, non-natural trails.
`
`59.
`
`During the public comment period on the February 2020 EA, Plaintiffs and stakeholders
`
`expressed their continued concern over the legality and impacts of the project. Among the chief
`
`concerns among were the continuing fire hazard implications of the project and the BLM’s plan
`
`to clearcut the RMZ and degrade the recreational experience.
`
`60.
`
`The BLM argues in the EA that logging the RMZ is permissible because a subsequently
`
`issued amendment to the RMP states that the agency need only “consider” project design
`
`features that would minimize adverse effects to recreational resources. The BLM did not
`
`consider any alternatives that buffered and preserved the RMZ. Further, commenters responded
`
`that this plan amendment, which changes the scope of resource uses and restrictions, did not go
`
`through the NEPA process and is therefore void and without legal effect.
`
`61.
`
`Commenters also expressed their continued concern that the BLM is not fulfilling its
`
`duties to protect public health and safety, citing the proposed harvest’s impact on climate change
`
`and fire risk to the adjacent Eugene-Springfield community. Commenters expressed their
`
`displeasure associated with the spread of noxious weeds, specifically blackberry throughout the
`
`clearcut.
`
`62.
`
`Stakeholders and Plaintiffs additionally asserted that t