Eight ranches holding grazing permits in sage grouse territory were granted the right to intervene in a lawsuit by environmental groups seeking to halt grazing in 13 eastern Oregon pastures.
U.S. District Judge Michael Simon for the District of Oregon ruled the ranches should be allowed to intervene, as the claims made by the Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) and two other organizations may affect their grazing rights.
The eight ranches—Mackenzie Ranch, Laird Ranch, Cow Creek Ranch, Burgess Angus Ranch, Rocking Club Cattle, V Box Land and Livestock, Mark Mackenzie LLC and Tree Top Ranches—have permits that contain research natural areas (RNAs). RNAs are plots used to provide baseline data for research on the effects of grazing, or not grazing, on sagebrush communities necessary to the sage grouse’s survival and recovery.
ONDA initially filed suit against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regarding implementing the 2019 Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA), which took away the RNAs and allowed grazing on the entire pasture. ONDA contends the ARMPA violates the National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
In 2017, Cahill Ranches near Adel, OR, filed a lawsuit challenging the 2015 ARMPA that established the RNAs. Shortly after the lawsuit, a new ARMPA was issued in 2019, making the RNAs available for grazing. Western Watersheds Project brought suit, and the Idaho District Court prohibited BLM from implementing the 2019 ARMPA and reinstated the 2015 ARMPA.
ONDA filed a temporary restraining order to stop grazing for the 2022 season.
Simon denied the request in late March, stating the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm to the sage grouse and stating any hardship to the plaintiffs was minimal, “especially in comparison to the burden on Cahill Ranches.”
The ranches intervened on the merit that BLM or Cahill Ranches “will not adequately represent their interests because the resolution of plaintiffs’ claims depends on facts specific to each pasture containing a key RNA.” Without intervention, the ranches argued the court may grant preliminary or permanent injunctive relief that accommodates BLM and Cahill’s interests but harms their grazing interests.
“The court agrees that any consideration of the balance of the equities in issuing a permanent injunction, if any, will depend on the private interests unique to each permit-holder for the pastures containing key RNAs. Thus, neither BLM nor Cahill will necessarily adequately represent the private interests of proposed intervenors,” Simon wrote.
In April, ONDA withdrew its motion for a preliminary injunction, and Simon ordered ONDA to file an amended motion for summary judgment by June 3.
ONDA, Audubon Society of Portland and Defenders of Wildlife filed a new motion for partial summary judgment on June 3. The groups contend BLM violated the FLPMA and APA by withholding the closure of the 13 RNAs to livestock grazing required by the 2015 ARMPA.
They assert the completion of the closure should have occurred within five years and compel BLM not to authorize grazing in the RNAs, “or the smallest fenced pasture necessary to guarantee that those areas will have no livestock grazing, to establish the ungrazed baseline reference areas required by the 2015 ARMPA.”
ONDA cited the decline of the Oregon sage grouse population by 80 percent since 1965 to fewer than 16,000 birds today and the occurrence of grazing on 99 percent of the 12 million acres of land BLM manages. ONDA stated BLM had not started construction on any of the 39 miles of fencing required to close off the RNAs or started any “site-specific RNA activity plans. Instead, BLM continues to authorize livestock grazing in all but one RNA.”
“This Court should grant partial summary judgment in favor of ONDA as a matter of law because the (BLM) failed to comply with the 2015 ARMPA’s mandated deadline for making the key RNAs unavailable to grazing by September 21, 2020,” court documents say.
BLM has until July 1 and the ranch intervenors have until July 15 to reply to the motion for partial summary judgment. — Charles Wallace, WLJ editor
