Case 3:21-cv-05202-RJB Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 1 of 67
`
`
`
`SUSAN JANE BROWN (WSB #31224)
`Western Environmental Law Center
`4107 NE Couch Street
`Portland, OR. 97232
`(503) 914-1323 | Phone
`brown@westernlaw.org
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`TACOMA DIVISION
`
`
`
`CASCADE FOREST CONSERVANCY,
`GREAT OLD BROADS FOR WILDERNESS,
`WASHINGTON NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY,
`SIERRA CLUB, DR. JOHN BISHOP, DR.
`JAMES E. GAWEL, AND SUSAN SAUL,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` vs.
`
`UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Civ. Case No. 3:21-cv-5202
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`(Violations of the National Environmental
`Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq;
`National Forest Management Act, 16
`U.S.C. §§ 1600 et seq.; and the
`Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
`§§ 701 et seq)
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`As an active volcano in the Pacific Ring of Fire, Mount St. Helens in Washington state is a
`
`1.
`
`powerful mountain—historically, geologically, culturally—for the United States and the world. The
`
`youngest and most violent of all the Cascade volcanoes, it is also the volcano most likely to erupt
`
`again. It is a place that has commanded the attention and resources of all levels of government—city,
`
`county, state and federal—and continues to command respect, curiosity, creativity and awe from
`
`humans who come in contact with its unpredictable, explosive potential.
`
`2.
`
`Since 1800, only two volcanoes have erupted in the contiguous United States: Lassen Peak in
`
`May 1915 and Mount St. Helens in May 1980. When Lassen Peak erupted, few people witnessed it
`WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
`PAGE 1 - COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`4107 NE Couch Street
` Portland, Oregon 97232
` (503) 914-1323
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05202-RJB Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 2 of 67
`
`
`
`and no humans died—and yet within a year the area became a national park. When Mount St. Helens
`
`erupted, the cataclysmic eruption killed 57 people and altered its surrounding forested landscape for
`
`230 square miles. Fifty bridges and miles of roads were destroyed as well as homes, lodges, youth
`
`camps and cabins. Countless animals—including black bears, elk, mountain goats, fish, beavers, river
`
`otters, cougars, martens, marmots and many species of birds and insects—were killed by the searing
`
`blast winds and suffocating ash. The area’s topography itself was changed: river drainages were filled
`
`with sediment and debris, new lakes were formed by blocked creeks, Spirit Lake was inundated with
`
`the volcano’s avalanching north face, and the mountain itself lost most of its glaciers and 1,300 feet
`
`in elevation. The May 18, 1980 eruption was viewed on television around the globe and consequently
`
`entered into Americans’ and foreigners’ imaginations alike as a powerful symbol of nature’s
`
`awesome force.
`
`3.
`
`The volcano continued to erupt for six years, until 1986, then went dormant until 2004, when
`
`again news crews from around the world convened at Johnston Ridge Observatory. Erupting
`
`frequently from 2004 to 2008, the volcano added height to its dome at the heart of its crater. To this
`
`day, Mount St. Helens attracts thousands of visitors from around the world, and the ongoing 40-year-
`
`old scientific research conducted in the volcano’s blast zone is internationally significant. And yet
`
`this volcano is not a national park; it is administered by the U. S. Forest Service, whose main mission
`
`historically has been to oversee resource extraction such as logging in America’s national forests.
`
`4.
`
`In 1982, the U.S. Congress created the 110,000-acre Mount St. Helens National Volcanic
`
`Monument (MSHNVM) to protect the main features of the blast zone—including Spirit Lake, the
`
`Pumice Plain, the Mount Margaret Backcountry, and the volcano itself. The monument’s mission is
`
`to protect the “geologic, ecologic, and cultural resources” and to allow “geologic forces and
`
`ecological succession to continue substantially unimpeded.” Another primary mission, according to
`
`PAGE 2 - COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
`
`4107 NE Couch Street
` Portland, Oregon 97232
` (503) 914-1323
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05202-RJB Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 3 of 67
`
`
`
`the language of the 1982 act, is to “permit the full use of the Monument for scientific study and
`
`research.” This mission was supported by the creation of a scientific advisory board that convened for
`
`ten years, as per the act.
`
`5.
`
`Almost forty years later, the result of Congress’ designation is world-renowned research that
`
`has caused biology textbooks to be rewritten. The study of ecology has been turned upside down by
`
`research conducted in Mount St. Helens’ blast zone, especially on the Pumice Plain, the area between
`
`the volcano and Spirit Lake. Scientists’ previous hypotheses about how ecosystems get started from
`
`zero (which is what happened on the Pumice Plain, where all life was literally cooked to death by
`
`1,000-degree F. temperatures and buried by pyroclastic flows) had to be revised once scientists began
`
`documenting post-eruption life. For instance, old ecosystem models claimed that first plants arrived,
`
`then animals that ate those plants, then animals that ate animals. But one of the first organisms found
`
`on the Pumice Plain was a carnivorous beetle. Time and again, the study of ecology had to be revised
`
`with new and often startling discoveries scientists made at Mount St. Helens. Within several years of
`
`the monument’s creation, Mount St. Helens became an internationally known outdoor classroom that
`
`attracted entomologists, botanists, wildlife biologists, forest ecologists and other researchers from
`
`universities and research agencies around the United States.
`
`6.
`
`The quality and quantity of research at the volcano has been unparalleled in the world, as well
`
`as the length of some of the studies—specifically, studies done on the Pumice Plain and Spirit Lake.
`
`For instance, numerous 40-year, ongoing studies on the Pumice Plain regarding how birds, small
`
`mammals, amphibians and mycorrhizae respond to explosive volcanism are unique in the world; no
`
`other research of this kind is done except at Mount St. Helens. A study on soil development (which
`
`began in 1980) is also unique in the world. Two new species of insects have been discovered on the
`
`Pumice Plain. Most compelling, perhaps, is the story of the first known plant to colonize the Pumice
`
`PAGE 3 - COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
`
`4107 NE Couch Street
` Portland, Oregon 97232
` (503) 914-1323
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05202-RJB Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 4 of 67
`
`
`
`Plain—the prairie lupine (Lupinus lepidus). Discovered in July 1981, this little wildflower has
`
`become the center of many other studies and has ignited the curiosity of the media, who have told its
`
`story in journals, books, magazines, newspapers and film documentaries. The study of lupine
`
`colonization is ongoing and, like other Pumice Plain research, is expected to continue for many
`
`decades. Scientists’ goals at Mount St. Helens are to understand how a universal feature of the Earth -
`
`large-scale volcanic disturbance - is linked to the formation and function of ecosystems and the
`
`services they provide to humans. Mount St. Helens is a unique opportunity to realize this goal, which
`
`can only be met by undertaking long-term research that spans several human generations.
`
`7.
`
`Over the last decade, millions of dollars have been spent on Pumice Plain research. The U.S.
`
`Forest Service has funded significant portions of the research, as well as the National Science
`
`Foundation and universities around the world. Mount St. Helens’ research is globally significant,
`
`with scientists sharing data with their peers in other countries such as Chile, Argentina, Indonesia,
`
`and Iceland.
`
`8.
`
`Today, in 2021, research continues on the Pumice Plain as well as in Spirit Lake and the
`
`streams draining into the lake from the plain. Studies concerning hydrology, environmental
`
`chemistry, biogeochemistry, limnology, phycology, aquatic entomology, fish genetics, and freshwater
`
`ecology are bringing dozens of undergraduates as well as several PhD candidates to the area to
`
`expand human knowledge of how organisms adapt and evolve in newly created aquatic ecosystems
`
`set in regenerating watersheds. Scientists are conducting cutting-edge research on the ecological role
`
`of floating woody debris, freshwater biofilms, invasive species impacts, and riparian ecology. Other
`
`scientists continue to document the development of bird, mammal, amphibian, insect, and plant
`
`communities of the Pumice Plain and conduct observations and experiments to identify the
`
`mechanisms that control their assembly, include novel work on topics such as the role of soil
`
`PAGE 4 - COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
`
`4107 NE Couch Street
` Portland, Oregon 97232
` (503) 914-1323
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05202-RJB Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 5 of 67
`
`
`
`microbiomes and anthropogenic nitrogen pollution. The cumulative knowledge gained at Mount St.
`
`Helens is nothing less than astounding—and its future is intellectually endless, as the volcano’s
`
`dynamic, ever-evolving landscape offers up new questions each year.
`
`9.
`
`That the Forest Service would propose cutting a road through these studies and constructing
`
`an outsized beach landing in a sensitive riparian area is not only shocking but potentially tragic.
`
`Alternative B would destroy the 40-year sites, including the much-loved lupine site, where in 1981
`
`one wildflower announced to the world that life could return to the volcano’s hellish, blast-fired, ash-
`
`choked land. The proposed road would also destroy the site of the first willow to colonize a stream on
`
`the Pumice Plain near Willow Springs. The proposed road would not only harm the scientists’
`
`taxpayer-funded work and professions, it would be an incomprehensible, irreparable loss of an
`
`irreplaceable landscape, a loss to science itself, to the United States, and to the pursuit of human
`
`knowledge.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`10.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question), 1346
`
`(United States as a defendant), 2201 (injunctive relief), and 2202 (declaratory relief). The current
`
`cause of action arises under the laws of the United States, including the Administrative Procedure
`
`Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.; the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.; and
`
`the National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600 et seq.. An actual, justiciable controversy
`
`exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants.
`
`VENUE
`
`11.
`
`Venue in this Court is proper under 28 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. The Forest
`
`PAGE 5 - COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
`
`4107 NE Couch Street
` Portland, Oregon 97232
` (503) 914-1323
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05202-RJB Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 6 of 67
`
`
`
`Service official who authorized and approved the decision is headquartered in Vancouver,
`
`Washington, which is located within this district. Plaintiffs have offices within this district.
`
`12.
`
`This case is properly filed in Tacoma, Washington pursuant to Local Rule 3(e)(1) because the
`
`Gifford Pinchot National Forest Supervisor’s Office and Mount St. Helens National Volcanic
`
`Monument are located in Skamania County, Washington, and the Spirit Lake Tunnel Intake Gate
`
`Replacement and Geotechnical Drilling Project (“Spirit Lake Project” or “Project”)) is located on
`
`lands located in Skamania County, Washington.
`
`PARTIES
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff CASCADE FOREST CONSERVANCY (“CFC”) is a non-profit organization that
`
`supports the biological diversity and communities of the Southwest Washington Cascades through
`
`protection, conservation, and restoration of forests, rivers, fish, and wildlife. CFC has over 12,000
`
`members who reside in Oregon and Washington and has offices in Vancouver, Washington, and
`
`Portland, Oregon. CFC members hike, camp, view wildlife, conduct research, and enjoy the solitude
`
`and quiet of the public lands and waters at the project site, and otherwise use, enjoy, and learn from
`
`the land that will be impacted by the Project’s road construction, trail closures, drilling, noise, heavy
`
`machinery, and impacts on research, wetlands, and watersheds. CFC members recreate and conduct
`
`research on the sites proposed for road construction and drilling, and the surrounding rivers and trails.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff GREAT OLD BROADS FOR WILDERNESS (“GREAT OLD BROADS”) is a
`
`national, non-profit organization led by women, that engages and inspires activism to preserve and
`
`protect wilderness and wild lands. Formed in 1989, Great Old Broads now has over 3,500 members
`
`in all 50 states who believe that wild places are valuable in their own right, who value the spirit and
`
`intent of national conservation legislation such as the Wilderness Act and the National Environmental
`
`Policy Act, and who support sound science as a basis for informed decisions. A primary goal of Great
`
`PAGE 6 - COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
`
`4107 NE Couch Street
` Portland, Oregon 97232
` (503) 914-1323
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05202-RJB Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 7 of 67
`
`
`
`Old Broads is to ensure that there will still be remote, untrammeled places left not just for our own
`
`grandchildren, but for those of all species. Throughout the country, Great Old Broads have
`
`conducted educational and advocacy activities on the conservation and stewardship of public lands,
`
`including monitoring of impacts of illegal motorized use, evaluating rangeland health, working with
`
`federal and state land management agencies on conservation stewardship and restoration projects,
`
`providing comments during public land planning processes, litigating on issues related to land use
`
`and cultural resource protection, participating in collaborative public land management efforts, and
`
`educating our members and the public about values of wilderness and public lands. Great Old Broads
`
`has members throughout the state of Washington, including four active grassroots chapters in the
`
`state. Members of the Great Old Broads were active in the formation of the Monument and have
`
`remained active in actions to protect the Monument from mining and other dangers. Great Old
`
`Broads members regularly visit the Mt. St. Helens National Volcanic Monument (Monument) and
`
`have hiked, camped and snowshoed in and around the Monument. Great Old Broads have monitored
`
`and worked to restore the Monument and the land around it, both in group activities and as
`
`individuals. Great Old Broads hiked in the Monument during their annual campout in 2014. Great
`
`Old Broads organized stewardship projects around the Monument in 2017 and 2019, including
`
`measuring trees subject to timber sales, setting cameras to document wildlife, and monitoring beaver
`
`habitat for potential release.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff WASHINGTON NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY (“WNPS”) is a non-profit
`
`organization that promotes the appreciation and conservation of Washington’s native plants and their
`
`habitats through study, education, advocacy, and stewardship. WNPS has over 2,100 members who
`
`reside primarily in Washington State. It has an office in Seattle and twelve chapters throughout the
`
`state, including the southwest Washington Suksdorfia Chapter which covers the Mount St Helens
`
`PAGE 7 - COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
`
`4107 NE Couch Street
` Portland, Oregon 97232
` (503) 914-1323
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05202-RJB Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 8 of 67
`
`
`
`area. WNPS members are native plant enthusiasts, from amateurs to professionals. WNPS members
`
`are botanists, ecologists, foresters, teachers, naturalists, historians, photographers, foragers,
`
`gardeners, artists, poets, and writers. Members share their expertise with the residents of Washington
`
`through publications, public meetings, webinars, and field trips to view and study native plants on the
`
`state’s public lands. They explore the outdoors and are inspired by Washington’s sublime habitats,
`
`including the iconic landscapes of Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument. Their activities
`
`will be affected by the Project’s road construction, trail closures, drilling, noise, heavy machinery,
`
`and impacts on research, wetlands, and watersheds. WNPS has members who teach and conduct
`
`research on the sites proposed for road construction and drilling and the surrounding rivers and trails.
`
`Further, WNPS is funding research that will be impacted, possibly permanently destroyed, by the
`
`Project.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff SIERRA CLUB (“Club”) is a non-profit organization that was formed in 1892 to
`
`explore, enjoy, and protect the planet. The Club supports the biological diversity of the Earth through
`
`protection, conservation, and restoration of forests, rivers, fish, and wildlife, and advocates for
`
`protecting wild lands such as at Mt. St. Helens National Monument. The Club has over 750,000
`
`members, of which 30,000 reside in Washington State and has offices in Seattle, Washington, and
`
`Portland, Oregon. Club members hike, camp, view wildlife, and enjoy the solitude and quiet of the
`
`public lands and waters at the Project site, and otherwise use, enjoy, and learn from the land that
`
`would be harmed by the Project’s road construction, trail closures, drilling, noise, heavy machinery,
`
`and impacts on research, wetlands, and watersheds. Club members recreate on the sites proposed for
`
`road construction and drilling, and the surrounding rivers and trails.
`
`17.
`
`The Club has advocated for protection of the natural area around Mt. St. Helens since the
`
`1930s. The Club participated in Forest Service land management planning for the area in the 1970s
`
`PAGE 8 - COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
`
`4107 NE Couch Street
` Portland, Oregon 97232
` (503) 914-1323
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05202-RJB Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 9 of 67
`
`
`
`and was a leader in the successful campaign to pass legislation establishing the National Monument
`
`in 1982. The Club advocated for provisions that ensured protection of natural ecological and
`
`geological processes, along with recognizing the importance of research and education in the
`
`management of the Monument. The Club was involved in early efforts to provide protection from
`
`flooding to downstream communities without compromising the natural landscape of the Monument,
`
`and continues to emphasize the need for ecologically and socially responsible public safety projects.
`
`The Club has continued to monitor the management of the Monument and has commented on
`
`numerous projects within and around the Monument, and has opposed proposals for open pit mines,
`
`highways across the Monument, and the currently proposed access road.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff DR. JOHN BISHOP is Professor of Biological Sciences at Washington State
`
`University’s campus in Vancouver, Washington. Dr. Bishop began conducting research activities on
`
`the Pumice Plain in June 1990, with an initial focus on the genetics of colonizing plants, and his
`
`research program there has run continuously for nearly 31 years. He has published 21 peer reviewed
`
`scientific articles from his work at Mount St. Helens, with many more in progress, has supervised or
`
`co-supervised 21 graduate students whose thesis or dissertation research focused on the Pumice Plain,
`
`and involved more than 140 other college students in this work. His research focuses on the
`
`mechanisms controlling the de novo development of plant communities and soils of the Pumice Plain
`
`and involves the regular survey of several hundred permanent plots on the Pumice Plain. Many of
`
`these same plots are used by collaborating Forest Service researchers to monitor bird populations.
`
`The proposed project would directly destroy or permanently alter the processes in dozens of these
`
`plots, effectively ending the effort to monitor long term evolution of this system. Dr. Bishop has been
`
`a board member of the MSHNVM’s non-profit partner, the Mount St. Helens Institute, since 1999,
`
`twice serving as the president of its board of directors, with the goal of promoting the use of the
`
`PAGE 9 - COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
`
`4107 NE Couch Street
` Portland, Oregon 97232
` (503) 914-1323
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05202-RJB Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 10 of 67
`
`
`
`Mount St. Helens for STEM and cultural educational activities. Dr. Bishop and his family and friends
`
`also visit the project area frequently for recreational purposes, including climbing to the crater rim,
`
`skiing, botanizing, bird watching, and exploring the Monument’s trails. Therefore, his career’s work
`
`in research and education, and his personal well-being, would be irreparably harmed by the proposed
`
`actions.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff DR. JAMES E. GAWEL is Associate Professor of Environmental Chemistry and
`
`Engineering in the School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences at the University of Washington
`
`Tacoma. Research is an expectation for his position, and Dr. Gawel has carried out research on Spirit
`
`Lake since 2005, developing a nutrient mass balance model for Spirit Lake that quantifies external
`
`sources that feed the lake from the surrounding watershed. He currently leads an interdisciplinary,
`
`multi-university collaboration investigating the role of floating woody debris on the chemistry and
`
`ecology of Spirit Lake. Dr. Gawel’s position also includes a significant undergraduate teaching
`
`expectation. He has brought students from the Tacoma campus, an institution with 56% first-
`
`generation college students and 59% students of color, to Spirit Lake and the Pumice Plain since
`
`2005 as a life-changing educational experience designed to motivate them to start careers in the
`
`natural sciences. Therefore, his research and education work is impacted by the proposed actions.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff SUSAN SAUL is a volunteer citizen scientist and conservation activist who has been
`
`involved with Mount St. Helens for over 45 years. She first visited Spirit Lake and Mount St. Helens
`
`after moving to Longview, Washington, in 1974. She joined the Mount St. Helens Club in 1975 and
`
`hiked, backpacked, camped, berry-picked, cross-country skied, swam, and canoed at Mount St.
`
`Helens and Spirit Lake. As she explored the Mount St. Helens area, Ms. Saul became alarmed by the
`
`Forest Service’s extensive road-building and logging creeping ever closer to the mountain and the
`
`Spirit Lake basin. She learned to be an activist as she wrote letters to the Forest Service and the local
`
`PAGE 10 - COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
`
`4107 NE Couch Street
` Portland, Oregon 97232
` (503) 914-1323
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05202-RJB Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 11 of 67
`
`
`
`newspaper regarding land management around Mount St. Helens. In 1977, Ms. Saul joined the Mount
`
`St. Helens Protective Association, an 80-member group that had formed in 1970 to press for national
`
`monument legislation for Mount St. Helens, and worked with the Association to seek political
`
`support for federal legislation. By 1980, she had taken a leadership role in the Association.
`
`21.
`
`After Mount St. Helens erupted on May 18, 1980, Ms. Saul led the grassroots campaign to
`
`convince Congress that it needed to act quickly to protect the volcano and blast zone. As she told a
`
`reporter, “Land management decisions are being made with the bulldozer and chainsaw.” By autumn
`
`1981, Ms. Saul had convinced Representative Don Bonker, member of Congress for Washington’s
`
`Third District, that legislation would be the only way to settle the competing interests around Mount
`
`St. Helens. Under Bonker’s leadership, legislation moved quickly. Susan testified at congressional
`
`hearings in Washington, D.C. in March 1982, and field hearings in Kelso and Vancouver,
`
`Washington, in June 1982. By August 1982, compromise legislation for the 110,000-acre Mount St.
`
`Helens National Volcanic Monument had passed Congress with overwhelming bi-partisan support
`
`and was signed by President Reagan. The final bill incorporated language from the Association that
`
`made research a priority purpose of the monument and directed that the Forest Service “shall manage
`
`the Monument to protect the geologic ecologic, and cultural resources … allowing geologic forces
`
`and ecological succession to continue substantially unimpeded.” Ms. Saul remains involved with
`
`management of Mount St. Helens, including leading campaigns to stop a proposed state highway in
`
`2000-2004 that would have crossed the Pumice Plain and to stop the State of Washington from
`
`opening Spirit Lake to recreational fishing in 2009. She hikes in the project area and enjoys botany,
`
`birding, observations of ecological succession, and the wildness of the landscape. She would be
`
`irreparably harmed by the project’s road construction and use, noise, dust, trail closures, and
`
`destruction of scientific research.
`
`PAGE 11 - COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
`
`4107 NE Couch Street
` Portland, Oregon 97232
` (503) 914-1323
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05202-RJB Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 12 of 67
`
`
`
`22.
`
`Defendant UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE (“Forest Service”) is an agency within the
`
`U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Forest Service manages the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and
`
`Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument.
`
`LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`The Administrative Procedure Act
`
`23.
`
`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).
`
`The National Environmental Policy Act
`
`24.
`
`Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) in 1969, directing all
`
`federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of proposed actions that significantly affect the
`
`quality of the environment. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).
`
`25.
`
`NEPA’s disclosure goals are two-fold: (1) to insure that the agency has carefully and fully
`
`contemplated the environmental effects of its action; and (2) to insure that the public has sufficient
`
`information to challenge the agency’s action.
`
`26.
`
`The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) has promulgated uniform regulations to
`
`implement NEPA that are binding on all federal agencies, including the Forest Service. 42 U.S.C. §
`
`4342; 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500 et seq. (1978).
`
`27.
`
`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.
`
`PAGE 12 - COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
`
`4107 NE Couch Street
` Portland, Oregon 97232
` (503) 914-1323
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05202-RJB Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 13 of 67
`
`
`
`28.
`
`If an agency is unsure if a federal action will have a significant effect on the human
`
`environment, it must prepare an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) to determine if a more detailed
`
`Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) is required. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4.
`
`29.
`
`For an agency’s decision not to prepare an EIS to be considered reasonable, a decision notice
`
`and finding of no significant impact (“DN/FONSI”) must contain sufficient evidence and analysis to
`
`show the decision is reasonably supported by the facts. The agency must show a rational connection
`
`between the facts found and the decision rendered. If the agency fails to consider important aspects of
`
`the problem in its EA, its decision is arbitrary and capricious.
`
`30.
`
`To support a 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. 40
`
`C.F.R. § 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. 40 C.F.R. § 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].” 40 C.F.R. §
`
`1508. Cumulative impact results when the “incremental impact of the action [is] added to other past,
`
`present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions” undertaken by any person or agency. 40 C.F.R. §
`
`1508.7.
`
`31.
`
`In determining whether a proposed action may “significantly” impact the environment, both
`
`the context and intensity of the action must be considered. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27.
`
`32.
`
`In evaluating intensity, the Forest Service must consider numerous “significance” factors
`
`including impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse; the degree to which the proposed action
`
`affects public health or safety; unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to
`
`PAGE 13 - COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
`
`4107 NE Couch Street
` Portland, Oregon 97232
` (503) 914-1323
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05202-RJB Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 14 of 67
`
`
`
`historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or
`
`ecologically critical areas; the degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment
`
`are likely to be highly controversial; the degree to which the possible effects on the human
`
`environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks; the degree to which the action
`
`may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in
`
`principle about a future consi