A district court recently ruled in favor of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), stating the agency took a hard look and considered public input when it reauthorized grazing for the Stateline Range Project straddling the Arizona and New Mexico border.
Western Watersheds Project (WWP) and Wilderness Watch, represented by the Western Environmental Law Center, filed a suit in 2021 in the U.S. District Court for Arizona seeking to halt the renewal of grazing permits on the range project. The groups asserted that USFS violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not taking a hard look at a range of alternatives and their impacts when the agency issued an environmental assessment (EA) and findings of no significant impact (FONSI).
They further stated the grazing allotments are in the Greater Gila bioregion, an ecologically critical area that is the habitat for the Mexican wolf, several threatened or endangered species and the Blue Range Primitive Area.
The Stateline Range project area covers 14 allotments along and near the state line between Arizona and New Mexico, on the Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila National Forests. According to USFS, the 14 allotments are authorized for 45,867 animal unit months, with two of the allotments to be used seasonally, one to be closed, and the others to be used year-round with rotating use.
The area covers approximately 271,665 acres, with 126,243 acres in Arizona and 145,422 acres in New Mexico. It also includes over 30,000 acres in the Blue Range Primitive Area and almost 80,000 acres of inventoried roadless areas and cultural resource sites.
Ruling
The court ruled that USFS met its obligations of taking a hard look when the EA looked at the aspects of environmental consequences, despite stating the standard is “fraught with confusion because it relies on vague murky definitions that provide little guidance to the Court.”
The court found USFS evaluated the impact on Mexican wolves in the EA and while grazing occurs in the wolf recovery zone on one allotment, the wolf population is designated as an experimental, non-essential population.
“The court finds plaintiffs have not shown substantial questions exist as to whether the Project may have significant adverse effects on the Mexican wolves,” court documents show. “The Forest Service addressed this intensity factor in the three FONSIs it issued and concluded there would not be significant effects based on the information in the EA.”
The groups also argued that USFS failed to consider the effects on other endangered or threatened species. Still, the court found the agency consulted with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for each allotment on utilization and management plans.
The groups also contended they were not given access or the opportunity to comment on an analysis and management report for the Blue Range Primitive Area. The court concluded that USFS provided several opportunities for public comment on the reauthorization of grazing. The first was during the scoping period in 2017 when WWP commented, and then again in 2018 when a preliminary EA was issued, and in 2019 when the final EA was published.
The court also concluded that USFS determined structural improvements in the Blue Range Primitive Area would have a minimal effect, and should be implemented to provide a benefit to resources in the area.
Improvements were also found not to have an effect on the inventoried roadless areas. No new roads would be built or improved to install fencing, water pipelines, water storage tanks and troughs, wells and corrals. Therefore, the court ruled USFS looked at the roadless characteristics even though it was not required to do so, which belies the plaintiffs’ arguments.
Lastly, the court stated that USFS followed guidelines by not preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) when it determined in the EA the project would not impose substantial environmental impacts and issued a FONSI describing the decision. The court also found the FONSIs considered impacts on culturally sensitive areas and public health and safety; therefore, an EIS was not warranted.
“The administrative record shows the Forest Service considered data and public input and decided to reauthorize livestock grazing on these allotments of land based on the appropriate factors,” the ruling stated.
“In particular, the Court finds the lengthy 102-page Final EA, coupled with its reference in three FONSIs of approximately 20 pages each are more than sufficient to meet the ‘concise public document’ standard to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS,” the court concluded. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
