Plaintiffs allege that they have an interest under the NHPA in preserving the historical quality of the areas named in the first amended complaint. Plaintiffs also allege that the USFS violated prior agreements by not seeking plaintiffs’ comments and by ignoring plaintiffs’ input before undertaking the activities that allegedly damaged the cultural value of the affected areas. These general factual allegations, if sufficient to state a claim, are sufficient to show injury-in-fact. See Bennett, 520 U.S. at 168, 117 S.Ct. 1154 (“on a motion to dismiss, we presume that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim” (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130)); see also Mont. Wilderness Ass’n v. Fry, 310 F.Supp.2d 1127, 1151 (D.Mont.2004) (<HOLDING>). 2. Sovereign Immunity Defendants further
holding that the plaintiff could not show surprise when the plaintiff had received the additional terms from the defendant prior to the agreement holding that plaintiff had not stated an equal protection claim where plaintiff had not alleged that the defendant treated him differently from anyone else who both had problems with alcohol and had been arrested holding so where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had colluded to claim falsely that the plaintiffs physician had informed the claims adjuster that the plaintiff had been released to work and where the plaintiff was later discharged from employment and denied workers compensation benefits holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged injuryinfact based on impact to sites that the plaintiff had visited in the past and planned to revisit each year in the future