Matt v. United States of America

Filing 162

CONSENT DECREE re 160 MOTION for Consent Decree filed by Terryl T. Matt. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 10/16/2017. (SLR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION

TERRYL T. MATT,
Plaintiff,
v.
Fort Belknap Indian Community,
Defendant.
TERRYL T. MATT,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 15-cv-00028-BMM
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00046-BMM

CONSENT DECREE

I. Background
1.

Plaintiff, Terryl T. Matt, filed a Complaint (Appendix A) in this

matter (15-cv-0028) pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. '1346(b)
and '2671, et seq. The Complaint alleged that Defendant, United States, through
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), carried out improper road building on a road

crossing Plaintiff=s property on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, Montana,
which is held in trust by the United States. Among other issues, Plaintiff
complained that the road, commonly known as Dan Healy Road (also known as
BIA Route 113 or Camp Creek Road), was built so that it obstructed and diverted a
creek away from its natural riparian corridor and across the Plaintiff=s land causing
significant damage to her land.
2.

On May 25, 2017, the Court ordered the Parties to mediation.

3.

Ms. Matt and the United States agree, and this Court by entering this

Consent Decree finds, that this Consent Decree has been negotiated by the Parties
in good faith, that settlement of this matter will avoid prolonged and complicated
litigation between the Parties, and that this Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and
in the public interest.
THEREFORE, with the consent of the Parties to this Decree, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:

Page 2 of 22

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of these actions

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '1346(b), 28 U.S.C. '2671, et seq., 28 U.S.C. '2201 and
28 U.S.C. '1331. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '1402(b)
because the Plaintiff resides in the judicial district and the acts and omissions
complained of occurred within this judicial district. The Plaintiff and the United
States shall not challenge entry of this Consent Decree or this Court’s jurisdiction
to enter and to enforce this Consent Decree, or venue in this judicial district.
III. SCOPE, APPLICABILITY, AND PURPOSE
5.

This Consent Decree shall apply to, and be binding upon Defendant,

United States of America, and Plaintiff, Terryl T. Matt.
6.

The provisions of this Consent Decree shall apply to, and be binding

upon, the Parties to this action, their officers, directors, agents, employees,
successors and assigns, and any person, firm, or corporation acting in concert or
participation with the Parties.
7.

This Consent Decree in no way affects or relieves Plaintiff and

Defendant of their responsibilities to comply with any applicable federal, state,
tribal, or local law, or regulation.
8.

A primary purpose of this Consent Decree is to enable the United
Page 3 of 22

States to fulfill its role as Trustee for Plaintiff; to remedy the damage to the lands
and natural resources identified in this Consent Decree and attached appendices;
and to resolve Plaintiff’s dispute with Defendant that is the basis of this civil
action.
IV. DEFINITIONS
9.

“BIA” shall mean the Bureau of Indian Affairs, an agency of the

United States Department of the Interior, and any of its successor departments or
agencies.
10.

“Biota Plan” shall mean the “Matt Property Reclamation Plan Cost

Estimate Report, Blaine County, Montana” prepared by Biota Research and
Consulting, Inc., of Jackson, Wyoming, dated September 30, 2015, Appendix B,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
11.

“Consent Decree” shall mean this Consent Decree and all appendices

attached hereto.
12.

“Creek” shall mean White Horse Canyon Creek on the Fort Belknap

Indian Reservation, Montana.
13.

“Dan Healy Road” (also known as BIA Route 113 or Camp Creek

Road) shall mean the road that begins at BIA Route 112 on the Fort Belknap
Indian Reservation, Montana, and continues south to cross a creek known as
Page 4 of 22

Lodgepole Creek toward the mountains along the creek known as White Horse
Canyon Creek across allotments 752-B, 752-C, and 751-D, among others.
14.

“Day” shall mean a calendar day. In computing any period of time

under this Consent Decree, where the last day would fall on a Saturday, Sunday, or
federal holiday, the period shall run until the close of business of the next working
day.
15.

“Defendant” shall mean the United States of America.

16.

“Delay” shall mean an event or series of events arising from required

licensing and permitting processes that are beyond the control of the Defendant,
including its employees, agents, consultants, and contractors, which could not be
overcome by due diligence and which delays or prevents the performance of an
action required by this Consent Decree and appendices attached hereto within the
specified time period.
17.

“Force Majeure” shall mean any event or series of related events

arising from causes beyond the control of Defendant, including its employees,
agents, consultants and contractors, which could not be overcome by due diligence
and which delays or prevents the performance of an action required by this
Consent Decree and appendices attached hereto within the specified time period.
18.

“Month” shall mean a calendar month.
Page 5 of 22

19.

“NEPA” shall mean National Environmental Policy Act. 42 U.S.C.

'4321, et seq.
20.

“Paragraph” shall mean a portion of this Consent Decree identified by

an Arabic numeral or a letter.
21.

“Parties” shall mean Terryl T. Matt and the United States, including

but not limited to the BIA, its officers, directors, agents, employees, successors,
and assignees and any person, firm, or corporation acting in concert or
participation with the United States.
22.

“Plaintiff” shall mean Terryl T. Matt, an enrolled member of the

Assiniboine Tribe of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, Montana.
23.

“Reclamation, Restoration, or Rehabilitation” shall mean the

manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of the
Restoration Site for the purpose of establishing ecologically stable and functioning
conditions at the Site.
24.

“Restoration Site” or “Site” shall mean the impacted area illustrated in

the Biota Plan (Appendix B, Exhibit 2) and the head cut that has migrated
upstream as illustrated in the Biota Plan (Appendix B, Exhibit 2 and Addendum 1).
25.

“Section” shall mean a portion of this Consent Decree identified by a

Roman numeral.
Page 6 of 22

26.

“United States” shall mean the United States of America, including its

departments, agencies, and instrumentalities.
27.

“Work Plan” shall mean the document detailing the completion of

tasks required for restoration pursuant to this Consent Decree, in accordance with
the principles of 33 C.F.R. 332.4(c)(7).
V. RESTORATION OF SITE AND WHITE HORSE CANYON CREEK
28.

Defendant shall perform restoration activities in accordance with the

scientific principles contained in the following publications:
A.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, National Engineering Handbook Part 654, Stream
Restoration Design, FISRWG, (10/1998).
B.

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group,

Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices (15 federal
agencies of the U.S. Government).
C.

Rosgen, Dave, Watershed Assessment of River Stability and

Sediment Supply (WARSSS), Wildland Hydrology, Fort Collins, Colorado
(2006).
29.

Defendant shall perform restoration activities in accordance with the

principles undergirding applicable laws and regulations that protect the
Page 7 of 22

environment including, but not limited to, those of 42 U.S.C. '4321, et seq.,
40 C.F.R. 1500, et seq., 33 U.S.C. '1251, et seq., and the laws, regulations,
guidelines, and requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (33 C.F.R.
Chapter II; 40 C.F.R. 230; United States Army Corps of Engineers 2017
Nationwide Permits, General Conditions, District Engineer’s Decision, Further
Information and Decisions (82 FR 1860, January 6, 2017); and those of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency
Compensatory Mitigation Regulations and Guidelines (33 C.F.R. 332, et seq.)).
30.

Defendant shall perform and achieve restoration activities at the

Restoration Site under the terms, conditions, and objectives set forth in the Biota
Restoration Plan in Appendix B, appended hereto and incorporated by reference,
with the exception that restoration to Dan Healy Road will occur in its current
location in accordance with the applicable standards found in the Guidelines for
Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT 400), American
Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2001, for
existing, unpaved roads in rural areas. Dan Healy Road will not be relocated as
indicated in the Biota Plan, Appendix B, pp. 8, 14, 15.
31.

Except as otherwise provided in this Consent Decree or ordered by the

Court, Defendant shall complete full restoration within eighteen (18) months from
Page 8 of 22

the date of entry of this Consent Decree.
32.

Defendant shall timely provide Plaintiff and this Court a detailed

Work Plan for the completion of tasks required for restoration pursuant to this
Consent Decree, in accordance with the principles of 33 C.F.R. 332.4(c)(7).
33.

Defendant shall timely secure funding or provide financial assurance

to Plaintiff and this Court for adequate staff and materials to complete obligations
under this Consent Decree, in accordance with the principles of 33 C.F.R.
332.3(n).
34.

Defendant shall timely obtain all federal, state, tribal, and local

permits necessary for performing any compliance obligation under this Consent
Decree, including but not limited to any permits required pursuant to 33 U.S.C.
'1251, et seq.
35.

Defendant shall timely develop and implement objective and

verifiable performance measures and reporting mechanisms for the duration of
restoration and the monitoring period in accordance with the principles of
33 C.F.R. 332.5.
36.

Pursuant to this Consent Decree, the publications, laws, guidelines,

and regulations referenced herein, and the Biota Plan, Appendix B, Defendant
shall, without limitation:
Page 9 of 22

A.

Rehabilitate agricultural lands at the Restoration Site, including

but not limited to removal, collection, and stockpiling of deposited material
such as rocks and sediment, reclamation of topsoil, treatment and removal of
weeds, and re-establishment of vegetative communities in pasture lands.
B.

Fill incised degraded channel of the Creek to stable topographic

conditions through the importation of topsoil, re-seeding, and reestablishment of vegetative communities characteristic of the area.
C.

Restore and stabilize incised upstream impacted reaches of the

Creek, including head cuts and nick points, and deliver the watercourse to
the natural downstream historic alignment.
D.

Restore and stabilize Dan Healy Road in its current location in

accordance with the recommendations of the Guidelines for Geometric
Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT 400), American
Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2001, for
existing, unpaved roads in rural areas.
37.

Defendant shall accept from the Fort Belknap Indian Community

materials provided in-kind for the purpose of restoration, including but not limited
to rip-rap and gravel.
38.

Defendant shall develop and implement a post-restoration monitoring
Page 10 of 22

plan to ensure that the project meets performance standards for a period of no less
than five (5) years in accordance with the principles of 33 C.F.R. 332.6.
39.

Upon completion of restoration of the Site as set forth in the detailed

Work Plan developed by the Defendant and approved by the Court, Defendant
shall not conduct work, construction, or maintenance or similar activities that
disturb soils, vegetation, or water resources in any manner at or around any area of
restoration except as in accordance with the terms of this Consent Decree.
40.

Until termination of this Consent Decree, and with timely written

notice to Plaintiff, Defendant and its authorized agents shall have authority at all
reasonable times to enter the Restoration Site to:
A.

Conduct activities required by this Consent Decree.

B.

Inspect, evaluate, and monitor activities required by this

Consent Decree.
C.

Obtain samples or take photographs or video specifically

related to the requirements of this Consent Decree.
41.

Plaintiff shall not interfere with or hinder Defendant’s performance of

the obligations described in this Consent Decree.
VI. NOTICES AND OTHER SUBMISSIONS
42.

For the first two (2) years following entry of this Consent Decree,
Page 11 of 22

within five (5) days of May 30 and November 30 of each year, Defendant shall
provide to the Court a written status report detailing its progress toward completing
all tasks required by this Consent Decree and the Work Plan. From the third year
following entry of the Consent Decree until the Consent Decree is terminated, on
an annual basis within five (5) days of November 30, Defendant shall provide to
the Court a written status report detailing its progress toward completing all tasks
or monitoring activities required by this Consent Decree and the Work Plan.
Defendant shall timely send a copy of each status report to Plaintiff via certified
mail to the address specified in Section X of this Consent Decree.
VII. RETENTION OF RECORDS
43.

During the term of this Consent Decree and until three (3) years after

the termination of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall preserve and retain the
records, documents, and information now in its possession or control or which
come into its possession or control that relate in any manner to the performance of
the tasks in this Consent Decree (including all Appendices), unless any retention
policy requires a greater retention period, and Defendant shall allow inspection of
the same by Plaintiff within sixty (60) days after receipt of written request to do so.
44.

Records, documents, and information to be retained shall include,

without limitation:
Page 12 of 22

A.

Final restoration plans submitted and supporting

documentation.
B.

Status reports submitted pursuant to Paragraph 42.

C.

All permits and supporting documentation.

D.

Subject to Paragraph 46, correspondence, including in

electronic format, between and among Defendant, Plaintiff, and the Fort
Belknap Indian Community related to activities required by this Consent
Decree.
E.

Records regarding payments or expenditures related to the

performance of the tasks required by this Consent Decree.
F.

Documents related to the transfer, rental, or leasing of any land

included within, or adjacent to, the Restoration Site, including payment
documentation associated therewith.
G.

Requests or motions for dispute resolution.

H.

Force majeure or Delay notifications and related

correspondence between or among Defendant, Plaintiff, and the Fort
Belknap Indian Community.
I.

Restoration monitoring records.

J.

Requests for termination and related filings.
Page 13 of 22

45.

Defendant shall instruct its contractors and agents to preserve all non-

identical copies of documents, records, and information identified in Paragraph 44
relating to the performance of the tasks in this Consent Decree (including
Appendices) for a period through three (3) years following the termination of this
Consent Decree.
46.

At the conclusion of the document retention period, Defendant shall

notify the Plaintiff pursuant to the Notification procedures in Section X at least
ninety (90) days prior to the destruction of any records or documents identified in
Paragraph 44, and, upon written request by Plaintiff, Defendant shall make
available to the Plaintiff any non-privileged, non-identical records or documents in
Defendant’s, its contractors’ or its agents’ possession, custody or control, as
applicable. If Plaintiff does not submit a written request for delivery of such
documents or records within the 90-day period, then the records or documents may
be destroyed. The Defendant may assert that certain documents, records, and other
information are privileged under the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege
recognized by the federal law. However, no document created or generated
pursuant to the requirements of this Consent Decree or correspondence between
the Parties or correspondence with the Fort Belknap Indian Community created or
generated pursuant to the requirements of this Consent Decree shall be withheld on
Page 14 of 22

the grounds that it is privileged.
VIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
47.

Unless otherwise expressly provided for in this Consent Decree, or

agreed to by the Parties in writing, any dispute that cannot be resolved informally,
shall be referred to the Court for resolution pursuant to this Court’s continuing
jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree. The
Parties agree that such disputes may be referred to the Magistrate Judge for
mediation.
IX. FORCE MAJEURE AND OTHER DELAYS
48.

If Defendant believes that a Force Majeure event or a Delay caused by

a licensing or permitting process has affected or will affect its ability to perform
any action required under this Consent Decree, Defendant shall notify Plaintiff in
writing, by certified mail, with no undue delay but no later than thirty (30) calendar
days after the Force Majeure event or Delay begins, at the address listed in
Section X. Such notice shall include, but is not limited to, a discussion of the
following:
A.

What action has been affected;

B.

The specific cause(s) of the Force Majeur event or Delay;

C.

The length or estimated duration of the Force Majeure event or
Page 15 of 22

Delay;
D.

Any measures taken or planned by Defendant to prevent or

minimize the effect of the Force Majeure event or Delay; and
E.
49.

The schedule for the implementation of such measures.

Defendant and Plaintiff shall negotiate in good faith to determine

when to begin or resume the activities that have been affected by a Force Majeure
event or Delay.
50.

If the Parties are unable to agree whether the conditions constitute a

Force Majeur event or Delay under this Section IX, or when to begin or resume the
activities that have been affected by Force Majeur event or a Delay, under this
Section IX, than Defendant or Plaintiff may seek a resolution of the dispute under
the procedures in Section VIII of this Consent Decree.
X. NOTICE
51.

Unless otherwise specified herein, whenever notifications,

submissions or communications are required by this Consent Decree, they shall be
made in writing and addressed to each of the following persons and addresses:
A.

To Defendant, United States:
i.

U.S. Attorney For the District of Montana
901 Front Street, Suite 1100
Helena, MT 59626
Page 16 of 22

ii.

B.

W. Adam Duerk
Assistant United States Attorney
U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana
105 E. Pine Street, 2nd Floor
Missoula, MT 59802
[e-mail]

To Plaintiff, Terryl T. Matt
Terryl T. Matt
310 E. Main Street
Cut Bank, MT 59427
[e-mail]

52.

A Party may change the mailing designation in this Section X by

providing written notice of the address change by certified mail to the other Party,
which address change will be effective seven (7) days after the notice is sent.
XI. CONTINUING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
53.

The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the purpose of

enforcing the provisions of this Consent Decree and appendices attached hereto,
including but not limited to full and complete restoration, and post-restoration
monitoring, and until the Consent Decree has been terminated pursuant to Section
XIII or otherwise by this Court.
XII. MODIFICATION
54.

Upon its entry by the Court, this Consent Decree shall have the force

and effect of a final order. Any material modification of this Consent Decree,
Page 17 of 22

except for modification of the notification addresses in Section X, shall be in
writing, and shall not take effect unless signed by Plaintiff and Defendant and
approved by the Court; provided, however, that the Work Plan for the completion
of tasks may be modified without Court approval by written agreement of Plaintiff
and Defendant.
XIII. TERMINATION
55.

This Consent Decree may be terminated as follows:
A.

Plaintiff and Defendant may at any time make a joint motion to

the Court for termination of this Consent Decree or any portion of it;
B.

After Defendant has fulfilled all of the obligations of this

Consent Decree and appendices attached hereto:
i.

Defendant may serve a Request for Termination on

Plaintiff. The Request for Termination shall state that Defendant has
satisfied all requirements of this Consent Decree. The Request for
Termination shall also include any additional supporting
documentation not already in the Court record or already provided to
Plaintiff sufficient to demonstrate that Defendant has satisfied the
Consent Decree. Following service of Defendant’s Request for
Termination, the Parties may confer informally concerning the
Page 18 of 22

Request.
ii.

If Plaintiff agrees that the Consent Decree may be

terminated, or if Plaintiff fails to respond within sixty (60) days after
service of Defendant’s Request for Termination on Plaintiff,
Defendant shall submit, for the Court’s approval, a Notice to
Terminate the Consent Decree.
iii.

If, within sixty (60) days after service of Defendant’s

Request for Termination on Plaintiff, Plaintiff notifies Defendant in
writing that Plaintiff does not agree that the Consent Decree may be
terminated, then Defendant may submit a motion to the Court asking
for termination of the Consent Decree without invoking Dispute
Resolution under Section VIII of this Consent Decree. Defendant
shall demonstrate to the Court’s satisfaction that it has satisfied all the
requirements of this Consent Decree.
XIV. INTEGRATION OF APPENDICES
56.

Appendices A and B attached hereto, are incorporated into this

Consent Decree.

Page 19 of 22

XV. EFFECTIVE DATE
57.

The effective date of this Consent Decree shall be the date upon which

it is entered by the Court.
XVI. SIGNATORIES / SERVICE
58.

Plaintiff, Terryl T. Matt, and undersigned counsel for the Defendant,

United States, each certifies that they are authorized to enter into the terms of this
Consent Decree and to execute and bind legally such Party to this document.
59.

This Consent Decree may be signed in counterparts, and its validity

shall not be challenged on that basis.
XVII. ORDER
60.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Consent Decree is entered this

Ooctober
______ day of _______________, 2017.
16th

___________________________________
Brian Morris
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 20 of 22

APPENDIX A

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 1 of 13

Mandi A. Vuinovich (Mt. Bar No. 13908) ([e-mail])
Baldwin, Crocker & Rudd, P.C.
P.O. Box 1229
Lander, WY 82520-1229
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION

TERRYL T. MATT,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. ______

COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Ms. Terryl T. Matt, by and through her counsel, and respectfully
submits this complaint as follows:
Introduction
1.

This action is based upon the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §1346(b) and

§2671, et. seq.
2.

This case arises on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation (“Reservation”), south of

the Town of Lodgepole, Montana, near the mouth of Whitehorse Canyon. Plaintiff owns a ranch
on the Reservation, which has been in her family for generations. The U.S. government, acting
by and through the U.S. Department of the Interior (“DOI”), U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
(“BIA”), and in concert with Fort Belknap tribal officials, built a road across the Plaintiff’s ranch

Page 1

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 2 of 13

property without her authorization or permission. The road was constructed without regard for
basic engineering or environmental considerations and without regard for laws and regulations
that serve to protect the environment. Among other issues, the road was constructed so that it
obstructs and diverts a creek away from its natural riparian corridor and across the Plaintiff’s
ranch. The diverted creek has and continues to cause extensive damage to the Plaintiff’s ranch,
including the riparian area, by carving a canyon through the land and causing significant and
ongoing erosion. Plaintiff seeks money damages to fund restoration to her property and
compensate her for damage caused by road building and maintenance activities.
Parties
3.

Plaintiff, Terryl T. Matt, is an enrolled member of the Assiniboine Tribe of the

Fort Belknap Reservation. Ms. Matt was, and remains, a resident of the State of Montana at all
times relevant to the facts alleged in this Complaint.
4.

The United States of America is a sovereign government that has consented to be

sued for civil liability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2871, et. seq.
5.

The BIA is the agency of the Defendant, the United States of America, under the

direct jurisdiction of the DOI, acting on behalf of the Defendant which has a federal trust
responsibility toward Tribes and tribal members, including the Plaintiff, Terryl Matt. Federal
officials are charged with administering the federal trust responsibility through the BIA, among
other agencies.
6.

Federal employees who acted on behalf of the Defendant include, but are not

limited to:
A.

Mr. Ed Parisian, at all times relevant herein before his retirement, was an

Page 2

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 3 of 13

employee with the BIA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2671, working as the Regional Director
for the BIA Rocky Mountain Regional Office in Billings, Montana. At all times material
herein, Ed Parisian was acting within the scope of his employment with the U.S.
government.
B.

Mr. Cliff Hall, at all times relevant herein, was an employee with the BIA

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2671, working as the BIA Superintendent of the Fort Belknap
Agency in Harlem, Montana. At all times material herein, Cliff Hall was acting within
the scope of his employment with the U.S. government.
C.

Mr. Mike Tolden, at all times relevant herein, was an employee with the

BIA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2671, working as the BIA Roads Manager on the Fort
Belknap Indian Reservation out of the BIA office in Billings, Montana. At all times
material herein, Mike Tolden was acting within the scope of his employment with the
U.S. government.
D.

Plaintiff does not know the true identities of additional federal employees

who were acting within the scope of their employment when they performed road
building and maintenance activities that damaged her property. These unknown
government employees or agents are named in their fictitious names, John Doe 1 and
John Doe 2.
Jurisdiction and Venue
7.

This United States District Court has exclusive jurisdiction over this action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1346(b) because Plaintiff is bringing a claim against the United States for
money damages for injury to property, and loss of property, caused by negligent or wrongful acts

Page 3

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 4 of 13

or omissions of employees of the government while acting within the scope of his/her office or
employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to
the claimant in accordance with the law.
8.

Venue is proper in the U.S. District Court of Montana pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1402(b) because the Plaintiff resides in the judicial district and the acts and omissions
complained of occurred within this judicial district.
9.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2680(a), this claim is not based upon the exercise or

performance or failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of the
Defendant or its employees.
10.

Procedural prerequisites to filing this action have been properly satisfied,

including compliance with 28 U.S.C. §2675(a).
11.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Claim in the proper form based on the facts set forth in

this Complaint. The Notice of Claim was filed on May 22, 2014, with the appropriate federal
agency, the BIA.
12.

The BIA denied Plaintiff’s claim on November 21, 2014.

13.

The amount in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interests and costs, the sum of

Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($75,000.00). Consistent with the amount presented
to the federal agency, the amount of the claim is Five Million Three Hundred Forty-Nine
Thousand Seven Hundred Forty-Four and no/100 dollars ($5,349,744.00) or whatever amount is
deemed necessary and appropriate to pay for removal of the unauthorized road, restoration of the
ecological damage caused by the road, restoration of agricultural lands damaged by the road,
restoration of the diverted water course, the cost of replacement of topsoil and other earthen

Page 4

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 5 of 13

materials lost as a result of construction or erosion, and all costs and damages associated with the
tortuous conduct in this case, all of which is ongoing.
Facts Common to All Causes of Action
14.

Plaintiff owns a ranch on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, south of the Town

of Lodgepole, Montana, near the mouth of Whitehorse Canyon. Ms. Matt’s ranch was, and
continues to be, damaged by the Defendant, United States, and is the subject of the Complaint.
15.

At all times mentioned in this Complaint, Ms. Matt has a 1/1 interest in Allotment

751-C; a 1/1 interest in Allotment 751-E; a 1/1 interest in Allotment 752-B; and a 1/2 interest in
Allotment 752-C. Upon information and belief, the other 1/2 interest in Allotment 752-C is
owned by the Bear family and the resident Tribe.
16.

Legal descriptions of Ms. Matt’s Fort Belknap allotments, are as follows:
A.

B.

751E (NE1/4 NE1/4, Sec. 29, T.26 N, R. 25 E.);

C.

752B (N1/2 NE1/4, N1/2 S1/2 NE1/4, Sec. 20, T. 26 N., R. 25 E.); and

D.
17.

751C (SW1/2 SE1/4, Sec. 20, T.26 N, R. 25 E & NW1/2 NE1/4, Sec. 29,
T.26 N, R. 25E.);

752C (N1/2 SE1/4, S1/2 S1/2 NE1/4, Sec. 20, T. 26 N., R. 25E.).

The ranch property was previously owned by Ms. Matt’s father and mother,

Daniel and Annabel Healy, from 1970 to 2010. Ms. Matt took possession of the ranch in late
2010 after her father passed away.
18.

Plaintiff is employed, and regularly resides, in Cut Bank, Montana. Cut Bank is

approximately 200 miles from Ms. Matt’s ranch property. For this reason, she is often away
from her property on the Reservation.
19.

Prior to his passing, Daniel Healy may have granted “permission” to community
Page 5

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 6 of 13

members to cross the family’s ranch for the purpose of gathering firewood in a timbered area
beyond the property.
20.

On various occasions, the BIA has asserted the right to cross the Plaintiff’s land

beyond the scope and purpose of any possible limited permission or right-of-way. None of these
assertions are clear to the Plaintiff.
21.

The Plaintiff is informed, and on the basis of that information alleges, that

sometime after her father passed away, Defendant performed maintenance to the road on
Plaintiff’s property in an attempt to improve the road.
22.

The road work was carried out without the Plaintiff’s knowledge and without the

Plaintiff’s authorization or permission.
23.

The Plaintiff is informed, and on the basis of that information alleges, that the

road is designated by the BIA as Route 113, which is located in or near Sections 17 and 20,
Township 26 North, Range 25 East, in Blaine County, Montana, within the Fort Belknap Indian
Reservation.
24.

Defendant maintained BIA Route 113 in a way that obstructed and diverted a

creek flow onto the Plaintiff’s property.
25.

The road work on BIA Route 113 was performed without regard for basic

engineering or environmental considerations that are typically related to road design and
construction or the moving of a waterway. The road was constructed without regard for the laws
and regulations that serve to protect the environment.
26.

The Plaintiff is informed, and on the basis of that information alleges, that the

road work on BIA Route 113 was performed to create convenient access for her neighbors,

Page 6

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 7 of 13

Theodore Bell and Kathy Wing, to come and go from their home.
27.

Kathy Wing obtained 40 acres by a questionable gift deed, which is where she has

a home on a parcel of land that is adjacent to Ms. Matt’s ranch property.
28.

Subsequent to original work and maintenance on BIA Route 113, on or about

June, 2011, the Fort Belknap area experienced a high-water event caused by significant rainfall
and spring runoff. During that time, the creek on Plaintiff’s property had very high water flows.
29.

The Plaintiff is informed, and on the basis of that information alleges, that

Defendant’s road work on BIA Route 113 prior to the high-water event caused the waterway to
jump out of its natural channel and to cross Ms. Matt’s pasture lands. It is further alleged that
the creek cut a canyon through Ms. Matt’s pastures and rendered impassable BIA Route 113.
This caused significant and ongoing damage to Plaintiff’s land, which has negatively affected the
overall value of her property.
30.

In response to the high-water event of June, 2011, Defendant brought heavy

equipment onto Plaintiff’s land and bulldozed a new temporary road across her property. This
second, temporary, road is located up-slope, and to the south of BIA Route 113, which was
impassable due to erosion caused by prior obstruction of the creek. Construction of the
temporary road was performed without Ms. Matt’s knowledge or authorization. It is further
alleged that construction of the temporary road was performed without regard for basic
engineering or environmental considerations that are typically related to road design and
construction.
31.

On or about August, 2011, and again without Plaintiff’s permission, Defendant

set about rebuilding BIA Route 113 by adding to it large volumes of road base and material fill,

Page 7

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 8 of 13

including gravel.
32.

On or about September, 2013, and again without Plaintiff’s permission,

Defendant performed construction and maintenance on BIA Route 113 on Ms. Matt’s property.
33.

The Plaintiff is informed, and on the basis of that information alleges, that

additional construction and maintenance to BIA Route 113 was also performed without regard
for basic engineering or environmental considerations that are typically related to road design
and construction or the moving of a waterway. In particular, these activities were performed
without regard for problems caused by prior obstruction of the creek.
34.

As a result of the Defendant’s construction and maintenance activities on BIA

Route 113, that road now acts as a coffer dam, which traps the creek on the uphill side of the
road and prevents the creek from entering its natural riparian corridor. This obstruction causes
significant and ongoing damage to Ms. Matt’s property, including soil erosion, environmental
degradation, and the invasion of noxious weeds.
35.

It is alleged that Defendant did not seek or obtain permission from the Plaintiff to

enter onto her land, or perform the projects described herein, which included obstructing a water
way and building roads, among other activities.
36.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that employees and agents of the

BIA collaborated with officials of the Fort Belknap tribal government in the process of building
and maintaining the roads described herein, among other activities that damaged her land.
37.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that BIA Route 113,

and the temporary road, were built and maintained on her land in a manner that is negligent, a
trespass, and a nuisance to her.

Page 8

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 9 of 13

38.

The Defendant owes a duty of care to the Plaintiff as a tribal member. BIA

employees, Ed Parisian, Cliff Hall, Mike Tolden, John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, negligently
breached that duty of care while acting within the scope of their employment with the U.S.
government.
39.

Ms. Matt is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the Defendant’s

conduct is the proximate cause of previous and ongoing damage to her land. This damage
prevents the Plaintiff from accessing large portions of her ranch or leasing her land for grazing or
agricultural purposes.
40.

Defendant continues to trespass on Ms. Matt’s land to use BIA Route 113 despite

repeated requests by her that the U.S. government, and its employees and agents, refrain from
entering onto, or altering, her land. The ongoing trespass poses a threat to the good and
marketable title to Ms. Matt’s land.
41.

Ms. Matt is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the serious and

continual damage to her land will take a number of years to repair and that damage will render
her property unusable for several years to come, resulting in a loss of income from hay fields and
grazing leases.
42.

Included as Exhibit 1 for the Plaintiff is a map which demonstrates the affected

portion of Plaintiff’s ranch property and extent of damage as of May, 2014.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Negligence)
43.

The Plaintiff hereby realleges each of the allegations set forth in the preceding

Page 9

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 10 of 13

paragraphs, and by this reference incorporates each such allegation herein as if set forth in full.
44.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant, its employees, and agents

owed a duty to Plaintiff, in light of all relevant circumstances, to exercise reasonable and due
care.
45.

Defendant, its employees, and agents, breached this duty of reasonable care by

directing that, or allowing for, heavy equipment to be brought onto Plaintiff’s land for the
purposes of performing road work and moving a creek, among other activities. Defendant
further breached its duty of reasonable care by allowing persons to enter into Plaintiff’s land
beyond the scope and purpose of any limited permission that may have been granted to
community members.
46.

Defendant’s breach of the duty of reasonable care was the actual and proximate

cause of damage to Ms. Matt’s property.
47.

As a result of the Defendant’s breach of its duty of care, Plaintiff has been

harmed.
48.

Defendant, its employees, and agents have a duty to protect tribal members and

their lands.
49.

Defendant breached its duty to protect Plaintiff as a tribal member, and her land,

by directing that, or allowing for, heavy equipment to be brought onto the Plaintiff’s property for
the purposes of performing road work and moving a creek, among other activities. Defendant
further breached its duty to protect Plaintiff as a tribal member, and her land, by allowing
persons to enter into Plaintiff’s land beyond the scope and purpose of any limited permission that
Page 10

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 11 of 13

may have been granted to community members.
50.

As a result of the Defendant’s breach of its duty to protect tribal members and

their lands, Ms. Matt has been harmed.
51.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendant, its

employees, and agents acting within the scope of their employment, Plaintiff’s land has been,
and continues to be, damaged.
52.

Damages for unauthorized use of the Plaintiff’s property will be proven at trial.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Trespass)

53.

Plaintiff hereby realleges each of the allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs, and by this reference incorporates each such allegation herein as if set forth in full.
54.

The Defendant, its employees, and agents, have entered onto Plaintiff’s land,

which has a title held in trust by the United States government, without Plaintiff’s consent or
authorization.
55.

The actions of the Defendant, its agents, and employees, has caused a road to be

built and a creek bed to change course, among other activities, all which constitutes a trespass
that continues to cause significant and ongoing damage to Plaintiff’s land.
56.

The Defendant, its employees, and agents, entered into the Plaintiff’s land beyond

the scope and purpose of any limited permission that may have been granted to community
members.
57.

The Defendant, its employees, and agents, knowingly and willfully continue to

Page 11

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 12 of 13

trespass on Plaintiff’s land despite repeated requests from Ms. Matt for the Defendant, its
employees, and agents to stop the trespass.
58.

Damages for the trespass will be proven at trial.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Nuisance)

59.

Plaintiff hereby realleges each of the allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs, and by this reference incorporates each such allegation herein as if set forth in full.
60.

The Defendant, its employees, and agents, have entered onto Plaintiff’s land,

which has a title held in trust by the U.S. government, without her consent or authorization.
61.

The actions of the Defendant, its employees, and agents, caused a road to be built

and a creek bed to change course, among other activities, on Plaintiff’s land, all which continue
to cause substantial and unreasonable interference with the land, including pasture lands and
riparian areas.
62.

The conduct of the Defendant, its employees, and agents related to the activities

described herein are offensive, inconvenient, and annoying to the Plaintiff.
63.

The conduct of the Defendant, its employees, and agents, has directly interfered

with Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of her land for several years with substantial damage resulting
from activities on or about September, 2013.
64.

The conduct of the Defendants, its employees, and agents, is severe and

unreasonable and outweighs any potential utility gained by the Defendants from their conduct.
65.

Damages for nuisance will be proven at trial.

Page 12

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 13 of 13

Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
A.

Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant.

B.

Award Plaintiff all damages that are fair and just to fully restore property damage

and riparian area.
C.

Award Plaintiff all damages in the amount of five million three hundred forty-

nine thousand seven hundred forty four and no/100 dollars ($5,349,744.00) or whatever amount
is deemed necessary and appropriate to pay for removal of the unauthorized road, restoration of
the ecological damage caused by the road, restoration of agricultural lands damaged by the road,
restoration of the diverted water course, the cost of replacement of topsoil and other earthen
materials lost as a result of construction or erosion, and all costs and damages associated with the
tortuous conduct in this case, all of which is ongoing.
D.

Award Plaintiff the costs of the lawsuit and attorneys fees; and any other and

further relief be provided that the Court considers proper.
Respectfully submitted this 20th day of March, 2015.
By:
/s/
Mandi A. Vuinovich
Baldwin, Crocker & Rudd, P.C.
P.O. Box 1229
Lander, WY 82520-1229
[phone]
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF TERRY T. MATT

Page 13

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 1-2 Filed 03/20/15 Page 1 of 1

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 1-1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX B

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 24

MATT PROPERTY RECLAMATION PLAN
COST ESTIMATE REPORT
BLAINE COUNTY, MONTANA

Prepared For

Baldwin Crocker & Rudd
PO Box 1229
Lander WY, 82520

Prepared By

P. O. Box 8578, 140 E. Broadway, Suite 23, Jackson, Wyoming 83002

September 30, 2015
© Copyright 2015, Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.

Matt
Provided by Biota
2252

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 2 of 24

CONTENTS
Introduction ......................................................................................................................1 
Project Area .....................................................................................................................1 
Project Background ..........................................................................................................1 
Proposed Project ..............................................................................................................3 
Agricultural Land Reclamation............................................................................4 
Incised Eroding Channel Reclamation.................................................................4 
Road Relocation ...................................................................................................5 
Historic Channel Restoration ...............................................................................5 
Project Administration .........................................................................................6 
Summary and Conclusions ..............................................................................................6 
Attachments .....................................................................................................................7 

Matt Reclamation Plan Report

Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.
Matt
Provided by Biota
2253

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 3 of 24

FIGURES
Figure 1. Time series aerial photography depicting site conditions on the Matt property ................2
Figure 2. Time series aerial photography depicting road maintenance and channel
confinement on the Matt property .....................................................................................3
Figure 2. Incised eroding stream channel, Matt property ..................................................................4
Figure 3. Road relocation plan, Matt property ...................................................................................5

Matt Reclamation Plan Report

Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.
Matt
Provided by Biota
2254

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 4 of 24
INTRODUCTION
Biota Research and Consulting, Inc. (Biota) has been retained by Baldwin Crocker & Rudd P.C. to
compile a cost estimate for the restoration of agricultural, forest, and riparian lands on the Matt property
in Blaine County Montana. Past roadway construction and maintenance activities on the property
resulted in the avulsion and capture of Whitehorse Canyon Creek within the road alignment, and the
subsequent destruction of the property. This report outlines conceptual treatments and costs to repair
damaged components of the property including the agricultural land, the incised eroding channel, the
historic channel alignment, and the relocation of the roadway.
PROJECT AREA
The Matt property is located in the Fort Belknap Reservation approximately 2.5 miles south of
Lodgepole, in Blaine County Montana (attached Exhibit 1). The project area includes approximately
5,000 feet of Whitehorse Canyon Creek that was captured by the roadway and approximately 10 acres of
agricultural lands, forested areas, and riparian lands were impacted by resultant erosion and
sedimentation. The project is located in a Federal Environmental Management Agency (FEMA) flood
Zone D, which is a flood hazard category assigned to sparsely populated areas that have possible but
undetermined flood hazard.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The project reach of Whitehorse Canyon Creek is a perennial stream with a drainage area of
approximately 4.2 square miles. Peak flows through the reach are typically associated with snowmelt
runoff. Historic road construction and maintenance activities that occurred on the property resulted in
the capture and confinement of stream flows along the road alignment, and the cessation of the natural
flow regime within the historic channel of Whitehorse Canyon Creek. The ensuing hydraulic conditions
and flow dynamics along the anthropogenically altered flow path resulted in severe channel degradation
(down-cutting), mobilization of sediment, and deposition of alluvium in a downstream agricultural field.
Sequential impacts to the creek and adjacent lands are depicted in time series aerial photography
spanning from September of 2009 to November of 2011 (Figure 1). Existing impact types and areas are
presented on the attached Exhibit 2.
The incised eroding channel has continued to mobilize sediment, and aerial photography from August
2013 depicts lateral migration that occurred as the confined channel eroded eastward through the
adjacent roadway toward the historic channel alignment (Figure 2). Aerial photography from July of
2014 (Figure 2) depicts contemporaneous roadway construction work that enforced the confinement of
the eroding channel and ensured isolation of the eroding channel alignment from the historic channel
alignment.

Matt Reclamation Plan Report

Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.
Matt
Provided by Biota
2255

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 5 of 24
9/1/2009

11/20/2011

Downstream
deposition

Creek confined
by roadway

Historic
channel
alignment

Figure 1.

Time series aerial photography depicting site conditions on the Matt property.

Matt Reclamation Plan Report

Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.
Matt
Provided by Biota
2256

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 6 of 24
Lateral migration of
incised eroding
channel (toward
historic channel
alignment)

8/31/2013

Road reconstruction
and continued
channel
confinement (and
isolation from
historic channel
alignment)

7/3/2014

Figure 2.

Time series aerial photography depicting road maintenance and channel confinement on the Matt
property.

PROPOSED PROJECT
The reclamation of the Matt property is comprised of four components pertinent to the agricultural land,
the incised eroding channel, the historic channel alignment, and the relocation of the road. The overall
project concept is to remove the deposited sediment from the pasture, place suitable processed material
to reclaim the eroded channel, return the creek to a restored historic channel alignment, and relocate a
section of the gravel road to uplands on the property.
Topographic survey data collected in 2014 (attached Exhibit 3) were used in conjunction with aerial
photography and site photos to generate conceptual reclamation plans (attached Exhibits 4 and 5).
Treatment and materials costs were specified based upon past project experience and information
obtained from multiple regional earthwork contractors. The estimated project implementation costs
(attached Exhibit 6) are therefore based upon the best available site data, but treatment quantities and
implementation fees could deviate from the estimate based upon continued site erosion and degradation.
Matt Reclamation Plan Report

Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.
Matt
Provided by Biota
2257

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 7 of 24
AGRICULTURAL LAND RECLAMATION
Material mobilized as a result of creek channel avulsion and incision were deposited in a downstream
agricultural field in an approximately 7.75-acre area. The composition and depth of the deposited
material varies, but the average depth of the material was estimated to be 1.5 feet for the purpose of
developing treatment quantities and costs. The conceptual reclamation plan for the impacted agricultural
land is to collect and stockpile the deposited material (estimated to be 18,750 cy). Similarly, material
comprising the unsuitable road alignment would be removed and stockpiled. All salvaged and stockpiled
material would subsequently be processed (screened) to separate rock and gravel from fine sediments
and soils. The rock and gravel would be used as fill to reclaim the incised and eroding creek alignment.
The fine sediments and soils would be used as fill or topsoil in specified locations. The impacted
agricultural land would then be reclaimed through placement of an estimated 10,400 cy (8,400 Tons) of
imported topsoil in a 10-inch thick cap layer. Drill seeding would then occur at a rate of 20 lbs/ac across
the 7.75-acre treatment area and tree and shrub plantings would be installed on 12-ft centers across 0.64
acres to re-establish vegetative communities characteristic of the pre-disturbance condition.
INCISED ERODING CHANNEL RECLAMATION
The road maintenance activities and associated direct channel modifications resulted in the avulsion of
Whitehorse Canyon Creek and establishment of a new channel alignment located west of the roadway.
The newly formed channel is incised by up to 13 feet (Figure 2) based upon available site survey data,
and ongoing erosion has impacted an estimated 2.2 acres to date. The conceptual reclamation plan is to
place a total of 23,800 cy (31,000 Tons) of fill in the incised degraded channel to restore pre-disturbance
topographic conditions. This material could be comprised of suitable gravel and cobble recovered from
the agricultural land impact area and from clean fill imported to the site, as necessary. An estimated
5,400 cy (4,400 Tons) of imported topsoil would then be placed across the disturbed area in an 18-inch
thick cap layer. Drill seeding would occur at a rate of 20 lbs/ac across the 2.2-acre treatment area tree
and shrub plantings would be installed on 12-ft centers across 0.47 acres to re-establish vegetative
communities characteristic of the pre-disturbance condition.

Figure 3.

Incised eroding stream channel, Matt property.

Matt Reclamation Plan Report

Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.
Matt
Provided by Biota
2258

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 8 of 24
ROAD RELOCATION
The gravel roadway in the southern portion of the Matt property is located in the Whitehorse Canyon
Creek riparian area and is expected to present a continued threat to the stability of the creek and the
health and functionality of the property. In order to achieve site reclamation, the road would be relocated
to a primarily upland alignment on the property (Figure 3). The proposed route is conceptual because
topographic and soils data are not available from the proposed alignment, but the treatment would
establish a 22-foot wide roadway through grubbing and grading of approximately 4,000 cy of existing
material, placement of 3,800 cy (4,500 Tons) of base material to a 12-inch compacted depth, placement
of 1,400 cy (1,600 Tons) of surface gravel to a 4-inch compacted depth, and installation of 6 culverts to
accommodate drainage and runoff. The realigned road would be approximately 3,500 feet in length and
encompass approximately 1.8 acres.

Conceptual Road
Alignment

Figure 4.

Road relocation plan, Matt property.

HISTORIC CHANNEL RESTORATION
The conceptual site reclamation plan is to restore Whitehorse Canyon Creek to the historic channel
alignment. The degradation and incision of the existing altered creek alignment occurred through the
formation of head-cuts, or nick points, where locally steep gradient resulted in severe sediment
entrainment and channel lowering. The upstream migration of those head-cuts has directly impacted an
unknown length of Whitehorse Canyon Creek located upstream of the channel avulsion. Available
survey data from 2014 indicate that the creek has been degraded as a result of the upstream migration of
head-cuts throughout the 400 feet of channel located on the subject Matt parcel, and throughout another
1,850 feet of channel located on upstream lands owned by Matt. These degraded reaches of Whitehorse
Canyon Creek located on the Matt property would be stabilized in profile and geometry through
installation of instream treatments (rock cross vanes, bioengineered bank stabilization) designed to
restore stream geomorphology. The effort would restore upstream impacted reaches of the creek and
would deliver the watercourse to the natural downstream historic alignment. Existing conditions in the
historic channel alignment are unknown. It is assumed that earthwork would not be required within the
Matt Reclamation Plan Report

Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.

Matt
Provided by Biota
2259

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 9 of 24
historic channel alignment, and such activities are not included in the reclamation plan or construction
cost estimate. Field investigation of the historic channel alignment should be completed prior to project
completion to ensure that the historic channel is clear of debris and would function properly under the
restored hydrologic regime.
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
The presented reclamation plan is conceptual in nature and should not be considered a final design.
Additional field data, topographic surveys, and design efforts would be needed to develop final design
specifications and construction plans. Reclamation treatments associated with wetlands or Waters of the
United States could require authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Construction
administration and supervision would be required to ensure that reclamation treatments are implemented
properly and in accordance with regulatory authorizations. Monitoring and adaptive management would
be required to assess project success and identify post-construction maintenance requirements.
Estimated costs associated with project implementation and oversight are presented in Figure 6, and a
20% contingency cost is added to the construction costs in an attempt to account for changes in site
conditions that could have occurred since the collection of topographic survey data.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Matt property reclamation plan was developed based on the best available site and topographic data.
Continued fluvial processes or direct land or roadway manipulations that have occurred since the
collection of utilized site topographic data could result in an increase in the scope or scale of reclamation
work required on the property. Plan details include treatments to reclaim impacted agricultural lands,
return Whitehorse Canyon Creek to the historic channel alignment, relocate the roadway from riparian
lands to uplands on the property, and restore reaches of Whitehorse Canyon Creek that were degraded as
a result of road construction and maintenance activities. The total estimated project cost is $2,930,113
and includes $2,286,011 in project construction costs, a 20% cost of $457,202 as a project contingency,
and project design, oversight, and permitting costs of $186,900.

Matt Reclamation Plan Report

Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.
Matt
Provided by Biota
2260

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 10 of 24
ATTACHMENTS

Exhibit 1

Title Sheet, matt Property reclamation Plan, Blaine County, Montana.

Exhibit 2

Impacted Area Plan, Matt Property Reclamation Plan, Blaine County, Montana.

Exhibit 3

Site Survey layout, Matt Property reclamation Plan, Blaine County, Montana.

Exhibit 4

Conceptual site Plan, Matt Property Reclamation Plan, Blaine County, Montana.

Exhibit 5

Typical Section, Matt Property Reclamation Plan, Blaine County, Montana.

Exhibit 6

Matt Property Reclamation Plan Implementation Cost Estimate.

Addendum 1

Headcut Stabilization Plan, Whitehorse Canyon Creek, Blaine County, Montana.

Addendum 2

Staff Resumes, Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.

Matt Reclamation Plan Report

Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.
Matt
Provided by Biota
2261

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 11 of 24
PO Box 8578. 140 E. Broadway, Suite 23
Jackson, WY 83002; ph: 307-733-4216

MATT PROPERTY
RECLAMATION PLAN
PREPARED FOR
Baldwin, Crocker, & Rudd
Lander WY
DRAWING INDEX

EXHIBIT 2

IMPACTED AREA PLAN

EXHIBIT 3

SITE SURVEY LAYOUT

EXHIBIT 4

CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN

EXHIBIT 5

TYPICAL SECTION

MATT PROPERTY RECLAMATION PLAN
BLAINE COUNTY, MONTANA
PREPARED FOR
BALDWIN CROCKER & RUDD

TITLE SHEET

TITTLE SHEET

EXHIBIT 1

Date: 09/28/2015
Description: CONCEPT
Scale: AS SHOWN
By:JTM

Project Vicinity Map
Quadrangle: Zortman & Lodgepole, Montana
Scale 1"=2000'

EXHIBIT 1
Matt
Provided by Biota
2262

N
MATT PROPERTY RECLAMATION PLAN
BLAINE COUNTY, MONTANA
PREPARED FOR
BALDWIN CROCKER & RUDD

IMPACTED AREA PLAN

PO Box 8578. 140 E. Broadway, Suite 23
Jackson, WY 83002; ph: 307-733-4216

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 12 of 24

Date: 09/28/2015
Description: CONCEPT
Scale: AS SHOWN
By:JTM

EXHIBIT 2
Matt
Provided by Biota
2263

N
MATT PROPERTY RECLAMATION PLAN
BLAINE COUNTY, MONTANA
PREPARED FOR
BALDWIN CROCKER & RUDD

SITE SURVEY LAYOUT

PO Box 8578. 140 E. Broadway, Suite 23
Jackson, WY 83002; ph: 307-733-4216

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 13 of 24

Date: 09/28/2015
Description: CONCEPT
Scale: AS SHOWN
By:JTM

EXHIBIT 3
Matt
Provided by Biota
2264

N
MATT PROPERTY RECLAMATION PLAN
BLAINE COUNTY, MONTANA
PREPARED FOR
BALDWIN CROCKER & RUDD

CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN

PO Box 8578. 140 E. Broadway, Suite 23
Jackson, WY 83002; ph: 307-733-4216

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 14 of 24

Date: 09/28/2015
Description: CONCEPT
Scale: AS SHOWN
By:JTM

EXHIBIT 4
Matt
Provided by Biota
2265

MATT PROPERTY RECLAMATION PLAN
BLAINE COUNTY, MONTANA
PREPARED FOR
BALDWIN CROCKER & RUDD

TYPICAL SECTION

PO Box 8578. 140 E. Broadway, Suite 23
Jackson, WY 83002; ph: 307-733-4216

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 15 of 24

Date: 09/28/2015
Description: CONCEPT
Scale: AS SHOWN
By:JTM

EXHIBIT 4 SECTION A-A
(TYPICAL)

EXHIBIT 5
Matt
Provided by Biota
2266

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 16 of 24

Exhibit 6
Matt Property Reclamation Plan
Implementation Cost Estimate

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

ITEM

QUANTITY

UNIT

UNIT COST

TOTAL COST

1

each

$60,000

$60,000

Miscellaneous
Mobilization and Demobilization
Subtotal

Agricultural Land Reclamation

$60,000

7.75
18,750

Processing Plant
Topsoil (delivered)

$6

$112,500

hrs

$200

$32,000

1

Loader

cubic yard

160

Excavate Sediment (30 cy scraper-2 passes/hr)

acre

month

$7,500

$7,500

8,400

tons

$42

$352,800

Spread & Grade Topsoil at 10-in Thickness

120

hrs

$198

$23,760

Drill Seeding, 20 lbs/acre

7.75

acre

$350

$2,713

Install 5-Gal Shrubs 12-ft Centers

100.00

ea

$95

$9,500

Install 5-Gal Trees12-ft Centers

95.00

ea

$200

$19,000

Subtotal

Degraded Channel Reclamation

$559,773

2.22

acre

Channel Fill - Misc Imported Material (delivered)

23,700

tons

$32

Channel Fill - Salvaged/Screened Material (on-site)

7,300

tons

$0

$0

340

hrs

$200

$68,000

4,400

tons

$42

$184,800

65

hrs

$198

$12,870

2.22

acre

$350

$777

Install 5 Gal Shrubs 12-ft Centers

100.00

ea

$95

$9,500

Install 5-Gal Trees12-ft Centers

42.00

ea

$200

Backfill, compact degraded channel
Top Soil (delivered)
Spread & Grade Topsoil at 18-in Thickness
Drill Seeding, 20 lbs/acre

Subtotal

Road Construction (Relocated Alignment)

$758,400

$8,400
$1,042,747

3,500

linear feet

Grub & Grade (blade)

4,000

cubic yard

$40

$160,000

Pit Run Subgrade Material (delivered)

4,500

tons

$32

$144,000

3/4" Gravel Surface (delivered)

1,600

tons

$37

$59,200

Grade & Compact Material (blade rollers water truck)
(blade, rollers,

40

hrs

$450

$18,000
$18 000

24" Culverts

4

each

$5,000

$20,000

48" Culverts

2

each

$7,000

$14,000

1,256

tons

$42

$52,731

21

hrs

$198

$4,158

1.15

acre

$350

$403

Reclaim Old Roadway- Topsoil (delievered)
Reclaim Old Roadway- Spread & Grade Topsoil 10-in
Reclaim Old Roadway-Drill Seeding, 20 lbs/acre
Subtotal

$472,492

Creek Channel Restoration
Plug & Reconstruct Channel, Connect to Historic Channel

400

linear feet

$100

$40,000

1,850

Reconstruct Channel on Upper Matt Property

linear feet

$60

$111,000

Subtotal

$151,000

Construction Implementation Subtotal

$2,286,011

Contingency (20% of Construction Cost)

20%

$457,202

Project Design and Permitting
Site Survey & Design

1

each

$40,000

$25,000

Site Reclamation Design & Oversight

1

each

$14,400

$14,400

Stream Channel Assesment

1

each

$10,000

$10,000

Stream Channel Design

1

each

$25,000

$25,000

Clean Water Act Permitting

1

each

$10,000

$10,000

Construction Supervision

1

each

$20,000

$20,000

Post-Construction Monitoring

5

year

$6,500

$32,500

5

year

$10,000

Post Construcion Maintenance
Subtotal

Project Total

$50,000
$186,900

$2,930,113

NOTICE:
The information contained hered was prepared in September 2015 and is based on information available at that time. Actual costs to complete
proposed project activities may vary depending on changing conditions, availability of materials and workforce, and the unique needs of the client at the
time of restoration and repair.

Matt
Provided by Biota
2267

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 17 of 24

ADDENDUM 1 - HEADCUT STABILIZATION PLAN
WHITEHORSE CANYON CREEK
BLAINE COUNTY, MONTANA

INTRODUCTION
Anthropogenic manipulation of Whitehorse Canyon Creek resulted in the destabilization of the
watercourse, and the channel correspondingly degraded (down-cut) and perpetuated severe bank erosion
that impacted adjacent lands. The channel degradation subsequently propagated upstream beyond the
location of the direct channel manipulations. The corresponding destabilization of upstream reaches could
jeopardize the success of future downstream restoration efforts by increasing sediment supply and
triggering channel aggradation, or by prompting avulsive channel realignments that could further degrade
the Matt property project area.
The generalized project approach and cost estimate presented herein summarize the scope and scale of
work that would be required to arrest the headcut and restore upstream channel degradation that has
occurred as a result of anthropogenic system manipulations on the Matt property.
PROJECT APPROACH
The headcut in Whitehorse Canyon Creek that has migrated upstream from the Matt property has dispersed
spatially into multiple ‘nick points’ that are each characterized by locally steep gradient and excess
hydraulic force that perpetuates channel lowering. Channel survey data from the upper reaches of the
creek are not available, but analysis of available aerial photography suggests that upstream channel
degradation extends at least 3,160 ft to the road culvert crossing of the creek. The reach of channel is
degraded (lowered), incised (confined), and enlarged. Morphologic stabilization of the reach could be
accomplished through installation of grade control structures and reconstruction of stable channel
geometry (cross sectional dimensions).
Grade control structures could include rock cross vanes or hardened riffle structures that are composed of
material that would be immobile under restored channel hydraulic conditions. Hardened structures should
be located regularly along the reach, but the drop in water surface elevation across any single structure
should not exceed ¾ ft in order to enable fish passage and achieve functional hydraulic conditions.
Channel reaches located between hardened grade control structures should be reconstructed to achieve
width and slope that ensures continuity in sediment transport capacity (the volume of material transported)
and competence (the size classes of the material transported) under the expected hydrologic conditions.
The reconstructed channel should incorporate multiple stages to promote proper fluvial function,
including:
1) An inner berm channel to convey the mean annual discharge while consolidating late season low
flows;
2) A bankfull channel to convey the bankfull discharge while maintaining stable hydraulic conditions
and a bankfull stage equivalent to the floodplain elevation;
3) A floodplain channel to convey up to the 50-year flow event while maintaining low velocities,
preventing erosion, and protecting riparian vegetation; and
Matt Reclamation Plan Report – Addendum 1

Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.
Matt
Provided by Biota
2268

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 18 of 24
4) A terraced flood channel to convey the 100-year flow event while maintaining appropriate flow
velocities and depths.
Bioengineering treatments including willow stingers and fascines, vegetative bundles, clump transplants,
and pole plantings incorporated into the bank keys of all rock structures will help ensure the long-term
stability of treatments. Bank toe wood protection is designed to accomplish bank stabilization,
construction of design channel geometry and plan form, establishment of floodplain benches, and
maintenance of channel layout. Wood revetment treatments are designed to protect vulnerable stream
banks on the outside of meanders.
The presented approach to restoring the incised and eroding reach of Whitehorse Canyon Creek was
recently applied in a similar setting in the Teton Mountain Range. Teton Creek was historically dredged,
and resulting hydraulic conditions initiated a headcut that propagated upstream and resulted in channel
degradation (lowering), incision, and enlargement. The restoration of 6,110 ft of Teton Creek (with design
channel width of 51 ft) was completed for approximately $2,600,000 and included installation of a series
of hardened grade control structures and reconstruction of a multi-stage channel through the reach. This
regional project example was used as a model with which to estimate costs associated with the Whitehorse
Canyon Creek effort.
The US Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a stream gauging station in Lodge Pole Creek (#06154430)
that is proximate to the Whitehorse Canyon Creek project area. Historic peak flow data and direct
discharge field measurement data were obtained from the gauge period of record spanning 1987 to 1997.
Statistical analysis of peak flow recurrence interval discharge rates indicates that the 1.4-year recurrence
interval flow (a statistical estimation of the bankfull discharge) at the site is 36 cubic feet per second.
Direct discharge measurement data obtained from the USGS were used to generate a power function
correlation between discharge and channel width (Addendum Figure 1). The analysis indicates that Lodge
Pole Creek has a channel width of 22 ft at the bankfull discharge.

Channel Width (ft)

100

y = 5.1239x0.4111
10

Width
Power (Width)
1
0.1

1

Discharge (cfs)

10

100

Addendum Figure 1.
Hydraulic relationship between channel width and discharge, USGS gauge site
(#06154430) in Lodge Pole Creek.

The Whitehorse Canyon Creek project area has a catchment (drainage basin) of approximately 1/3 that of
the USGS gauge site in Lodge Pole Creek. Therefore, it is estimated that the restoration of Whitehorse
Matt Reclamation Plan Report – Addendum 1

Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.
Matt
Provided by Biota
2269

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 19 of 24
Canyon Creek should achieve a bankfull channel width of about 1/3 that of Lodge Pole Creek, or about 7
ft.
The Teton Creek Restoration Project example presented herein was completed for a unit cost of $425/ft,
but the channel width (51 ft) was greater than that of Whitehorse Canyon Creek (7 ft). To scale project
costs, the unit cost of the Teton Creek restoration project was multiplied by the ratio of relative widths of
Teton Creek and Whitehorse Canyon Creek (51ft/7ft, or 14%). The estimated unit cost of headcut
stabilization and restoration in Whitehorse Canyon Creek is therefore estimated to be $60/ft. The estimated
project length extending upstream to the road crossing culvert is 3,160 ft, so the estimated cost of
restoration scaled from a regional example is $189,600. A 20% contingency cost is added to the estimate
to arrive at a reasonable estimate of project cost equal to $227,520. This cost estimate was prepared in
September 2015 and is based on the information available at that time. Actual costs of project activities
may vary depending on site conditions, availability of materials and labor, and the needs of the
landowner(s) at the time of restoration.
The construction of stable channel morphology in Whitehorse Canyon Creek, in conjunction with the
installation of grade control structures, would accomplish project objectives of channel stability, sediment
transport continuity, and fluvial system function. The project approach would create a self-maintaining
channel that would convey sediment and hydrologic inputs without severe erosion or changes in channel
form, and would increase the likelihood of success of downstream restoration efforts implemented on the
Matt project.

Matt Reclamation Plan Report – Addendum 1

Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.
Matt
Provided by Biota
2270

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 20 of 24

ADDENDUM 2 – STAFF RESUMES
BIOTA RESEARCH AND CONSULTING, INC.

Matt Reclamation Plan Report – Addendum 2

Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.
Matt
Provided by Biota
2271

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 21 of 24
Thomas M. Campbell III
Resumé
Title and Business Address
President/Chief Environmental Consultant
P.O. Box 8578, Jackson, Wyoming 83002-8578
[phone] (voice) [phone] (fax)
Email Address: [e-mail]

Education
Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas 1970-71
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 1971-74; B.S.; Wildlife and Fishery Biology
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 1977-79; M.S.; Wildlife and Fishery Biology

Bio Sketch
Mr. Campbell’s position is chief environmental consultant and senior staff fishery biologist and aquatic ecologist. He has
functioned as Project Manager on hundreds of fisheries and fluvial projects in the region. Mr. Campbell offers a wealth of
experience and knowledge regarding passage, spawning, and seasonal habitat preferences of native fish species. He has over
35 years of experience constructing fish passage and enhancement projects in the region. Projects have involved designing and
installing fish ladders, by-ways, plunge pool sequences, channel modifications to enable fish movement, treatments to increase
refuge or cover, and riverine system restoration. Mr. Campbell also has extensive experience developing and implementing
mitigation measures, environmental site and impact assessments, baseline ecological inventories, acquisition of environmental
permits, compliance with Federal and State environmental regulations (NEPA and ESA), conducting wildlife inventories and
impact assessments, providing expert testimony, developing and restoring wetlands and designing wetland mitigation projects,
conducting scientific field research, and writing scientific papers and technical project reports.
Mr. Campbell has a long-term interest and experience in studying wildlife and habitat throughout the United States and
excellent working relationships with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and various state game and fish management agencies.

Research
1975-1978
1979-1992
1981-1986
1981-1986
1989-1990

Pine Marten Ecological Studies near Jackson, Wyoming.
Long-term mule deer winter ecology study near Jackson, Wyoming.
Pygmy rabbit distribution study in southwestern Wyoming.
Black-footed ferret conservation studies, Meeteetse, Wyoming.
Lower Gros Ventre River Instream Flow Study, Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

Professional Affiliations and Certifications
Teton County WY Conservation District
Snake River Fund
The Wildlife Society - Certified Professional Wildlife Biologist, 1985
Ecological Society of America - Professional Ecologist, 1982
American Fisheries Society
American Society of Mammalogists
Xi Sigma Pi Honorary Society
Western Wetlands Development and Restoration Workshop

Non-Profit Organizations
Jackson Hole Wildlife Foundation – Emeritus Board Member
Grand Teton National History Association - Past Board Director
Trout Unlimited - Past Chapter President and Board Director
The Wolf Fund - Past Board Director

Matt Reclamation Plan Report – Addendum 2

Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.
Matt
Provided by Biota
2272

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 22 of 24
Ryan F Colyer
Resumé
Title and Business Address
Fluvial Morphologist/Fisheries Biologist
P.O. Box 8578, Jackson, Wyoming 83002-8578
[phone] (voice) [phone] (fax)
Email: [e-mail]

Education and Certifications
Bachelor of Science, Biology: Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation, University of Washington. 1997-2000
Post-baccalaureate Certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Pennsylvania State University, Nov 2006
Certified Rosgen Level IV Fluvial Geomorphologist, Wildland Hydrology, Sept 2011
Certified Fisheries Professional, American Fisheries Society, Feb 2010
Certified Professional Ecologist, Ecological Society of America, June 2010
Certified Technical Service Provider, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Aug 2007
Streambank Soil Bioengineering Technical Training, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Oct 2009
Stream Restoration and Geomorphology and Sediment Transport in Channel Design, Utah State University, Aug 2007
River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) computer training course. American Society of Civil Engineers, Apr 2006
Principles and Techniques of Electro-fishing courses. Smith-Root and USFWS training, Jun-Jul 2005
Max Rollefson Award of Merit, Colorado-Wyoming Chapter American Fisheries Society, Feb 2013

Bio-Sketch
Mr. Colyer is an AFS Certified Fisheries Professional and a Rosgen Level IV certified fluvial morphologist who has worked
for government, non-profit, and private sector entities to complete fisheries and fluvial projects on hundreds stream reaches
throughout the Intermountain West. Mr. Colyer has also attended advanced education in fluvial geomorphology through Utah
State University, and is familiar with the strengths and weaknesses inherent to both the Rosgen and anti-Rosgen approaches to
river restoration. Mr. Colyer’s experience includes running a basin-wide fish population investigation (using electro-fishing)
and geomorphic channel classification project in all tributaries of the Upper Teton River Basin. He also has the ability to
incorporate advanced fluvial geomorphic techniques from pro- and anti-Rosgen groups, NRCS, and USFS to complete
comprehensive fisheries and fluvial projects involving fish passage, channel stabilization, sediment transport, hydraulic
analysis, floodplain connectivity, flood hazard mitigation, wild fish spawning and utilization, and public infrastructure
protection. Mr. Colyer has worked on large scale high profile projects in the Snake River, Green River, Portneuf River, Big
Wood River, and Teton River basins. He has achieved project objectives of diverse interest groups including Trout Unlimited,
Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Idaho Fish and Game, USFS, Friends of the Teton River, private land owners, and
government entities including Teton County Engineering Departments in both Wyoming and Idaho.

Publications and Presentations
2012.
2010.
2007.

2006.
2006.
2005.
2005.

Morphologically Based River Restoration: Methods, Accomplishments, and Regulatory Hurdles. Presentation at the
Western Division American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting. Jackson, WY.
Understanding Habitat Enhancement Potential of Degraded Spring Creek Systems. Presentation to the Spring Creek
Workshop at the Idaho Chapter American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting. Pocatello, ID.
Spring Creek Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Projects Result in Increased Utilization by Wild Snake River
Fine-spotted Cutthroat Trout. Published in: Carline, R.F.; LoSapio, C., eds. 2007. Sustaining wild trout in a changing
world; proceedings of Wild Trout IX symposium; 2007 October 9-12; West Yellowstone, MT. pg 110-115
Upper Teton River Tributary Trout Population Assessment. Friends of the Teton River Final Report.
http://www.tetonwater.org/projects/TribAssessment/Teton%20Trib%20Report_longv.pdf Driggs, ID.
Modeled Hydrology Predicts Trout Species Composition of Upper Teton River Tributaries. Presentation to the Idaho
Chapter American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting. Idaho Falls, ID.
Watershed Status of Teton Basin Trout. Presentation to the Jackson Hole Wildlife Symposium, Teton Science School.
Jackson, WY.
Status of the Upper Teton River Tributary Trout Populations. Presentation to the US Fish and Wildlife Service during
status review of Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Bozeman, MT.

Matt Reclamation Plan Report – Addendum 2

Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.
Matt
Provided by Biota
2273

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 23 of 24
Jay T. Mazalewski, PE
Resumé
Title and Business Address
Professional Engineer
P.O. Box 8578, Jackson, Wyoming 83002-8578
[phone] (voice) [phone] (fax)
Email: [e-mail]

Education
University of Massachusetts, 1997, Bachelor of Science Civil Engineering
Saint Anselm College, 1996, Bachelor of Arts Co-op Engineering/Liberal Studies
 Professional Engineer, Wyoming (14694), Idaho (P-13506), Montana (19507, lapsed, renewal pending), Massachusetts
(46300)
 Region 6 Chair-Idaho Association of County Engineers and Road Supervisors
 City Council Member, Driggs, Idaho
 Advanced training and professional expertise in HEC-RAS, MS Project, AutoCAD, HydroCAD, HY-8

Bio Sketch
Mr. Mazalewski’s diverse experience ranges from designing morphologic channel restoration to directing the public works
department in Teton County, Idaho, with an annual budget of more than three million dollars. Jay’s diverse experience has
resulted in extensive technical expertise associated with fluvial condition assessment, river channel and topographic surveying,
hydrologic investigations, application of hydraulic models to assess channel or structure function, alternative design
development, final design advancement, engineering plan production, environmental permitting, construction staking and
supervision, and project administration. Jay is currently a licensed engineer in both Idaho and Wyoming, and he brings robust
interdisciplinary capabilities, project oversight, and public relations skills to the design and implementation of fisheries and
fluvial improvement projects.

Professional Experience
2011-2014

2006-2011

2001-2006

1999-2001

1998-1999
1993-1997

County Engineer and Public Works Director, Teton County, Idaho
Duties included management of the county Road and Bridge and Solid Waste Departments with an
annual budget of $3.4 million. Responsibilities included the planning, design, permitting,
contracting, and construction oversight of all public works projects including flood hazard
reduction, river stabilization and river restoration, improvement of river system and transportation
system interfaces, and restoration of fluvial processes while protecting public infrastructure.
Civil Engineer, Project Manager, Harmony Design & Engineering, Inc.
Duties included management of civil engineering projects in Idaho and Wyoming. Responsibilities
included development of the civil engineering department inclusive of client relations, site
assessment, design, implementation, and construction oversight.
Civil Engineer, Project Engineer, Nitsch Engineering Inc., Boston, MA
Supervisor during all phases of design. Development of innovative solutions to surface water issues.
Project management and relations with regional authorities including conservation commissions,
town planning boards, and county planning agencies.
Civil Engineer, Project Designer Scott, Cox & Associates Inc., Boulder, CO
Responsible for hydrologic studies, storm runoff designs, engineering plan production, construction
surveying, and project implementation.
Civil Engineer, Project Engineer, R&R Engineers-Surveyors, Englewood, CO
Responsibilities included design of water quality structures and erosion control measures.
Engineering Aide II, State of New Hampshire, Department of Fish and Game, Concord, NH
Responsibilities included topographic surveys and field data collection, site layout and design,
construction of riverine access, and erosion control.

Matt Reclamation Plan Report – Addendum 2

Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.
Matt
Provided by Biota
2274

Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 75-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 24 of 24
Kent B. Werlin
Resumé
Title and Business Address
Wetland Scientist/Restoration Ecologist, Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 8578, Jackson, Wyoming 83002-8578
[phone] (voice) [phone] (fax)
Email: [e-mail]

Education
South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota 2002; M.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 1999; B.A. Environmental Studies
Boston University – School for Field Studies, Atenas, Costa Rica 1998, Tropical Ecology

Bio-Sketch
Mr. Werlin is a Certified Professional Wetland Scientist with the Society of Wetland Scientists, and also has Rosgen training
in fluvial geomorphology. Specializing in wetland and aquatic ecology, he has more than 12 years of experience conducting
research, restoration, and rehabilitation of wetland/riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Mr. Werlin worked for
the Nez Perce Tribe as a Fisheries Habitat Biologist for 5 years, where he focused on stream, wetland, and watershed restoration
and protection to aid in the recovery of resident and anadromous salmonids in the Clearwater River basin of northern Idaho.
He is an active member of the Society of Ecological Restoration and Ecological Society of America and the Society of Wetland
Scientists. Additionally, Mr. Werlin has been certified as a Technical Service Provider for NRCS, and he has received advanced
training in jurisdictional wetland delineation, wetland creation and restoration, revegetation design, bioengineering, hydric
soils, fluvial geomorphology, NEPA/ESA compliance, and aquatic ecosystem monitoring/assessment. As the Wetland
Scientist/Restoration Ecologist for Biota, Mr. Werlin conducts wetland delineations, ecological assessments, federal and state
permitting, and the design and implementation of reclamation, revegetation, habitat enhancement, compensatory mitigation,
and riparian/wetland restoration projects.

Presentations and Publications
2012

Off-Site Wetland Mitigation in the Tetons: A Case Example. Presentation given at the Society of Wetland Scientists
– Northwest Chapter Annual Conference. Boise, ID. September 2012.
2005
Watershed Restoration in The Nez Perce Treaty Territory: A Holistic Approach. Paper presented at the 1st annual
Inland Northwest Restoration Conference. Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA. September 2005.
2005
Linking Restoration with Education in the 21st Century. Poster presented at the Society of Ecological RestorationNorthwest Chapter’s Annual Conference, Seattle, WA. April 4-8.
2002
A Floral Index of Biotic Integrity For Floodplain Wetlands. Paper presented at the 23rd annual Society of Wetland
Scientists Conference, Lake Placid, New York. June 2-7.
2001
Floodplain Wetland Index of Biotic Integrity. Poster presented at the 63rd annual Midwest Fish and Wildlife
Conference, Transitions in the Conservation Landscape, Des Moines, IA. Dec. 9-12.
2001
Floodplain Wetland Macrophyte Communities. Paper presented at the 5th annual Missouri River Natural Resources
Conference, 2001: A Missouri River Odyssey, Great Falls, MT. June 24-27.
Chipps, S. R., D. E. Hubbard, K. B. Werlin, N. J. Haugerud, K. A. Powell, J. Thompson, and T. Johnson. 2006. Association
between wetland disturbance and biological attributes in floodplain wetlands. Wetlands 26:2, 497-508.
Chipps, S. R., D. E. Hubbard, K. B. Werlin, N. J. Haugerud, and K. A. Powell. 2002. Development and application of
biomonitoring indicators for floodplain wetlands of the Upper Missouri River basin, North Dakota. Final Report to
the U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Mid-Continent Ecology Division. Duluth, MN. 104 pp.
Debates, T. J., S. R. Chipps, M. C. Ward, K. B. Werlin, and P. B. Lorenzen. 2003. Cladoceran zooplankton abundance under
clear and snow-covered ice. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 18:169-171.
Werlin, K. B. 2006. Protect and Restore the Lapwai and Big Canyon Creek Watersheds. Annual reports submitted to Bonneville
Fish and Wildlife Program. Portland, OR.

Matt Reclamation Plan Report – Addendum 2

Biota Research and Consulting, Inc.
Matt
Provided by Biota
2275