A federal court on Sept. 17 ruled that the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) violated the law when it authorized the expansion of livestock grazing on public lands allotments in the Absaroka Beartooth Mountains, just north of Yellowstone National Park.
A coalition of environmental groups had challenged the agency’s 2021 grazing decision, alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and a failure to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana determined that USFS must revise its plan and vacated the agency’s authorization to expand grazing on the allotments.
“Although many of the same environmental advantages that exist under the Decision can be realized even if vacatur occurs, the threat to grizzly bears posed by earlier stocking dates and expansion of the Sixmile North allotment into the Hellroaring-Bear #1 Recovery Zone exist solely under the proposed action,” U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy wrote in an order. “Vacatur is therefore the appropriate remedy.”
Environmental groups celebrated the move, saying the best available science calls for steps to be taken to facilitate grizzly bear movement and connectivity between subpopulations, and that the agency should take a closer look at these issues before authorizing activities in linkage areas like the Absaroka Range.
“Despite knowing that livestock conflict remains a leading cause of death for grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the Forest Service sought to expand cattle grazing on public lands surrounding the National Park,” said Patrick Kelly, Montana director with Western Watersheds Project, a plaintiff in the case. “Judge Molloy’s decision has thankfully halted this misguided and illegal effort, likely preventing the deaths of many more grizzly bears.”
Case details
USFS expanded the livestock grazing area and season for several allotments in its East Paradise Range Allotment Management Plan finalized in December 2021, which includes about 21,000 acres. Several of the allotments include designated grizzly recovery zones and areas that the environmental groups said contain important habitat linkages for grizzly bears.
The groups argued the USFS failed to take a hard look under NEPA when it approved the plan. They said USFS used inadequate baseline information, downplayed the effect of earlier stocking dates, failed to assess potential effects to habitat connectivity, did not sufficiently consider cumulative effects and failed to prepare an EIS.
“Increased grizzly bear mortality in areas on the outskirts of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem would slow the bears’ recovery and keep the Yellowstone grizzly population isolated,” the groups contended.
While the plan encompasses six grazing allotments, USFS only authorized grazing on three allotments.
“The Pine Creek, Elbow Creek, and North Sixmile allotments have been grazed for years and show good range health,” said Alex Sienkiewicz, Yellowstone district ranger, in a 2021 news release. “These allotments have co-existed with wildlife and recreation with minimal conflicts. In contrast, the South Sixmile, Mill Creek, and Suce Creek allotments have been vacant for many years, and each have unique management issues that should be mitigated before livestock grazing is authorized.”
The grazing season and animal unit months were expanded in the Pine Creek, Elbow Creek and Sixmile allotments. While the remaining three allotments were authorized to remain vacant, the groups contended that they could be restocked at a future date.
The groups filed cross-motions for summary judgment and a hearing was held in October 2024. In March 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathleen DeSoto recommended the groups’ NEPA claims be granted and denied in part. DeSoto recommended a finding in favor of the plaintiffs with the exception of their challenge that USFS used inadequate baseline information. The groups filed objections, triggering a higher court review.
Molloy determined that the plaintiffs’ cross-motions for summary judgment were granted, with the exception of the claims that USFS failed to adequately set the project baseline.
USFS argued the plan should not be vacated because the NEPA errors identified were minor, and to vacate the East Paradise Plan would cause disruption to many benefits for the landscape.
“While the Forest Service may be able to offer better reasoning on remand and adopt the same decision it has, the errors identified above specifically and directly impact grizzly bear recovery,” Molloy wrote. — Anna Miller Fortozo, WLJ managing editor
