A coalition of environmental groups has sent a letter of intent to sue the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for failing to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) over the decision to allow grazing in the Custer Gallatin National Forest.
The letter states the USFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) decision to continue and expand livestock grazing may affect threatened grizzly bears and grizzly bear recovery on the East Paradise Range allotments in the forest.
The allotments are located in the Absaroka-Beartooth mountain range along the eastern edge of Paradise Valley, north of Yellowstone National Park and southeast of Livingston, MT. The allotments comprise 20,900 acres and range in elevation from 5,400 feet to 11,000 feet.
The finding of no significant impact (FONSI) stated three allotments—the 697-acre Elbow Creek, 771-acre Pine Creek and 4,313-acre Sixmile North allotments—were 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.
The environmental assessment report considered three alternatives. The first was a no grazing alternative, the second was to keep the current allotment management and the last was an adaptive management strategy.
USFS began a scoping period in 2013 but was postponed due to the Emigrant fire and other priorities. In 2020, USFS revived the proposal and received over 23,000 email messages during the public comment period.
Alex Sienkiewicz, USFS district ranger for the Yellowstone Ranger District, said in the FONSI the comments were summarized into four main points: grazing of livestock in wilderness zones, reintroduction of livestock in the vacant Suce Creek and Sixmile South allotments, the potential impacts on grizzly bears and other carnivores, and potential effects to bison and elk from commercial livestock grazing.
Sienkiewicz decided on the third alternative of an adaptive management strategy to not allow grazing on the Suce Creek and Sixmile South allotments. The Mill Creek allotment will be authorized for grazing, but it will remain vacant until noxious weeds have been reduced and enough suitable range becomes available to sustain at least 73 animal unit months.
The current active grazing allotments would remain but with alterations, including the installation of fencing, a change in acres on some allotments and a change in the season of use between June 1 to Oct. 15, with the on/off date variable based on range conditions.
“The new actions I have decided to implement, including adaptive management, the inclusion of the Trailhead pasture into the Sixmile North allotment, the earlier turn-out date, and other actions are designed to address specific management needs and provide additional flexibility while resulting in little to no additional impact on project area resources,” Sienkiewicz wrote in the FONSI.
The letter asserts that USFS acknowledged there would be more conflicts with bears and other predators, and allowing livestock to graze in the “primary conservation area” would result in more grizzly deaths.
“One of the leading causes of grizzly bear deaths in the Yellowstone ecosystem is management removals of bears that come into contact with livestock,” Andrea Zaccardi, carnivore conservation legal director for the Center for Biological Diversity, told WLJ. “Dropping livestock into prime grizzly bear habitat just north of Yellowstone National Park is a recipe for disaster and is likely to lead to more dead bears.”
The letter states that science affirms livestock grazing in areas occupied by grizzly bears “is a serious and substantial threat to the species and its recovery, often resulting in the mortality and removal of bears and family units, including females with cubs.”
The letter also cites the number of grizzly bears removed from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem “to protect livestock interests” has jumped from nine removals from 1980-2001 to 128 removals from 2002-2020. “And these numbers are only the reported mortalities attributed to livestock grazing,” the letter states.
The letter notes the increase in mortalities is attributed to the loss of two essential food sources—the whitebark pine and cutthroat trout—increased reliance on a “meat-based diet” and the expansion of the bear’s range.
The FONSI disputes these findings, citing studies that show changing the grazing season to June will have little effect on grizzly bear conflict. It also states the impact of cattle grazing on forage conditions would be minor because areas outside the allotments and other areas not used by cattle would “yield herbaceous forage for grizzly bears.”
“Grizzly bears have a varied diet; cattle are not expected to deplete food sources such as berries, roots, and small mammals, among others,” the FONSI states.
Under Section 7 of the ESA, the letter asserts that USFS must consult with USFWS to ensure any actions it carries out are “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of any listed species. Grizzly bears were listed under the ESA in July 1975. The letter continues that both agencies’ biological opinions and biological assessments are arbitrary and capricious and violate Section 7 of the ESA because they failed to use the best science to evaluate how the decision affects grizzly bear recovery.
The Western Environmental Law Center sent the letter on behalf of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, the Western Watersheds Project, Native Ecosystems Council, the Center for Biological Diversity, Wyoming Wildlife Advocates, the Sierra Club, the Friends of the Bitterroot and WildEarth Guardians.
USFS and USFWS have 60 days to reply to the notice of intent before the suit is filed under the ESA.
“The purpose of the 60 day notice is to give the government 60 days to fix the problem to avoid litigation. We hope the Forest Service takes the time to amend their East Paradise decision so they are no longer violating the law,” Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, told WLJ.
