A coalition of environmental groups is suing the U.S. Forest Service over livestock grazing in northeastern Washington’s Colville National Forest. The groups claim ongoing grazing threatens the habitat of wolves, Canada lynx, grizzly bears, bull trout and other wildlife, in addition to impairing streams, meadows and recreational use.
“The impacts to wildlife especially to wolves and sensitive fish species are unacceptable and the Colville must follow its own scientific analysis and reduce or eliminate livestock grazing from areas where it does not belong,” said Patrick Kelly of Western Watersheds Project, a group involved in the suit.
The lawsuit challenges the U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS) 2019 Colville National Forest Land Management Plan, including the reissuance of grazing permits for 25 grazing allotments.
Grazing authorization
In its final land management plan released in the fall of 2019, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) found that grazing in the national forest is a valuable industry and that grazing would continue to be a viable use of vegetation on the forest. All management areas in a revised land management plan were found to be suitable for livestock grazing, except in research natural areas, administrative areas and the Salmo-Priest Wilderness.
“Some people want to end grazing on national forests altogether,” USFS said in the final plan. “Eliminating grazing is inconsistent with Forest Service policy.”
Livestock grazing in the national forest supports about 29,500 animal unit months on about 787,000 acres. Grazing contributes to about 98 local jobs and an estimated annual labor income of $1,524,000, according to USFS.
Lawsuit
The environmental groups filing suit contend that USFS previously found livestock grazing was not suitable on nearly 70% of land in the forest’s grazing allotments, but ignored these findings in its revised plan.
“Despite knowing that livestock grazing is unsuitable for the majority of acres on the Colville National Forest, the agency continues to permit this damaging form of resource extraction on the public lands it manages,” Kelly said.
The groups claim the federal agency failed to adjust the intensity of grazing, properly evaluate the suitability to sustain grazing, take a hard look at habitats and consider a reasonable range of grazing alternatives.
“We’ve sued because the Forest Service has prioritized the private interests of a favored industry over the interests of the public,” said Chris Krupp, a public lands attorney for WildEarth Guardians.”
The groups requested the court find the final plan unlawful and remand the documents without vacatur, with instructions to revise the plan. The groups also asked for the court to determine the USFS’ allotment-specific grazing authorizations to be unlawful, and enjoin the USFS from continuing to authorize grazing in the forest until the plan is revised accordingly.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington by the Western Watersheds Project, Kettle Range Conservation Group and WildEarth Guardians.
The groups have sued since the plan’s finalization, including a case last year alleging grazing would lead to an increase in the number of wolf attacks on livestock, leading the state to kill more wolves. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately determined that a district court was correct in dismissing the suit for lack of standing. — Anna Miller Fortozo, WLJ managing editor
