A coalition of nine environmental organizations has filed suit against the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), challenging the expansion of grazing in Paradise Valley, MT, just north of Yellowstone National Park.
The coalition contends the decision by USFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on the East Paradise Range Allotment Management Plan violates the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The agencies looked at six grazing allotments in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness mountain range along the eastern edge of Paradise Valley. The allotments comprise 20,900 acres and range in elevation from 5,400 feet to 11,000 feet.
The allotments consist of the 697-acre Elbow, 771-acre Pine Creek and 4,313-acre Sixmile North allotments—which are currently active. The other three allotments—the 5,424-acre Suce Creek, 2,906-acre Mill Creek and 6,784-acre Sixmile South allotments—had been vacant.
Alex Sienkiewicz, USFS district ranger for the Yellowstone Ranger District, looked at three alternatives for the management plan and decided on an adaptive management plan to not allow grazing on the Suce Creek and Sixmile South allotments and to reopen the Mill Creek allotment once noxious weeds have been reduced.
The current open allotments would remain but with alterations, including the installation of fencing, a change in acres on some allotment, and a change in the season of use from July 1 to June 1 through Oct. 15, with the on/off date variable based on range conditions.
The environmental groups stated that USFWS, in the grizzly species status assessment conducted in January 2021, acknowledged livestock grazing on forest lands as an “ongoing threat and stressor to grizzly bears and grizzly bear recovery.” They continued in court documents USFWS said the main impact on grizzly bears is human-caused mortality from management removals in response to livestock depredations.
The suit also cites the number of grizzly bears removed from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem has jumped from nine removals from 1980-2001 to 128 removals from 2002-2020 “due to management removals from conflicts with livestock grazing.” Since 2000, the bears have expanded their range beyond the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem due to a decline of two food sources—whitebark pine nuts and Yellowstone cutthroat trout. This has led to an increase in bears’ overall consumption of meat, including livestock, according to the suit.
“Conflict with livestock is a leading cause of death for grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem,” said Jocelyn Leroux, Washington and Montana director with Western Watersheds Project—one of the plaintiffs in the case. “Expanded grazing in these allotments is irresponsible and will stymie connectivity between the grizzlies of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and those of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. A better choice would be to keep livestock out of public lands grizzly habitat entirely.”
The suit states there is whitebark pine in the Sixmile North allotment, and both the Sixmile North and Sixmile South allotments are located within the recovery zone for grizzly bears. The other allotments are located outside the bear recovery zone, within the Mill Creek bear analysis unit. The group asserts USFS acknowledged in the environmental assessment the expansion of grazing “has the potential to result in greater conflicts with grizzly bears and increase grizzly bear mortality, but the agency justified this decision on the grounds that, in its view grazing would remain below the 1998 baseline levels.”
The 1998 baseline levels are USFS’ goals for maintaining grizzly bear habitat in the recovery zone. The recovery zone seeks to maintain a secure habitat (areas greater than 10 acres), the number and capacity of developed sites, and the number and acreage of active grazing allotments.
The groups allege the East Paradise decision violated Section 7 of the ESA, as it “imposes a substantive duty on the Forest Service to ensure the East Paradise decision does not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, including grizzly bears.” If the decision affects a species, USFWS must prepare a biological opinion to determine whether it would jeopardize the species. If a no jeopardy decision is made, then USFWS has to specify measures to minimize the impact of any incidental take resulting from the action.
USFWS issued a no jeopardy decision, but the environmental groups state the agencies did not evaluate the effects on grizzly bears as required by Section 7 of the ESA. The coalition also asserts the agencies violated the ESA by increasing the acreage of grazing allotments in violation of the 1998 baseline, and the coalition said the baseline is outdated and has never been subject to consultation under Section 7.
Lastly, the groups allege the agencies violated NEPA for failing to consider “a reasonable range” of the alternatives proposed in the environmental assessment for the East Paradise decision. They contend USFS’ failure to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives and/or a proper no action alternative is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the NEPA.”
They are asking the court to vacate USFS’ decision to authorize grazing under the East Paradise decision and vacate USFWS’ biological opinion for the allotments.
The Western Environmental Law Center filed the suit on behalf of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Western Watersheds Project, Native Ecosystems Council, Center for Biological Diversity, Wyoming Wildlife Advocates, Sierra Club, Friends of the Bitterroot, WildEarth Guardians and Gallatin Wildlife Association.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathleen DeSoto of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana has ordered a case management plan containing deadlines for pretrial motions and events to be filed on or before Nov. 17. — Charles Wallace, WLJ editor
