A group of Utah ranchers has filed suit against the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), alleging that newly imposed grazing restrictions in the Fishlake National Forest threaten their livelihoods and violate federal law.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, the lawsuit challenges the USFS’ grazing regulations on six allotments within the southern Monroe Mountain grazing district. The suit contends the agency failed to use the best available science for setting grass height standards in allotments that overlap with sage grouse habitat.
The plaintiffs argue the agency’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) signed in January 2024 violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to adequately consider the economic and environmental consequences of the grazing restrictions.
The Fishlake National Forest in south-central Utah spans 1.5 million acres across Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier and Wayne counties. The allotments in question include the Dry Lake, Forshea, Kingston, Koosharem, Manning Creek and Rock Springs allotments.
Allegations
The plaintiffs said the USFS continues to enforce a seven-inch grass droop height standard for sage-grouse habitat despite scientific evidence disproving its necessity. The lawsuit claims the seven-inch rule has been debunked and that the best available science suggests that a proper stubble height is between four and six inches. The plaintiffs maintain that USFS ignored local data from Utah State University and other sources to demonstrate that cattle grazing does not significantly impact sage grouse nesting success.
The lawsuit contends that USFS improperly increased the riparian stubble height standard from four to six inches without adequate scientific justification. The plaintiffs assert the best available science did not support the arbitrary move, contradicting previous forest management plans.
Background
The suit said that while USFS does not use uniform animal unit months (AUMs) and instead uses head month (HM) computation across all herbivores, it equates five sheep or goats to one cow, horse or mule for fee purposes. In 1992, the Forshea Allotment was converted from sheep to cattle without applying this five-to-one ratio, resulting in an erroneous loss of 261 AUMs/HMs.
In response to a request from the suit plaintiffs, the forest supervisor considered an immediate increase in the final EIS but ultimately denied it. The supervisor cited concerns about sage grouse habitat, including a six-inch average grass height—below the seven-inch threshold.
The lawsuit asserts that if USFS had used the best available science, it should have approved at least some of the requested increases in HMs, which would have rectified the improper HM conversion from 1992.
The plaintiffs argue USFS violated the management plan by arbitrarily altering forage utilization standards. A 2001 forest plan set a 40-60% utilization standard based on the entire growing season’s growth, but in the January 2024 EIS and ROD, officials improperly changed the measurement to reflect only growth up to that point in the season, the suit said. The ranchers assert the shift mirrors the flawed application of the seven-inch droop height rule for sage grouse. By measuring utilization prematurely, the ranchers continued, the Forest Service ignored that grass continues to grow throughout the season, leading to skewed assessments and unjustified reductions in forage availability for livestock.
The lawsuit said USFS violated NEPA by redefining “use” and “utilization” without proper justification. Since the 2001 resource management plan amendment, USFS has consistently measured utilization at the end of the growing season. The EIS and ROD introduced a new 50% “real-time use” standard without amending the management plan or analyzing its effects.
Ranchers contend that this shift significantly reduces available forage, with the estimated losses to be up to 45%. The EIS failed to quantify these impacts or explain why the reduction was considered “modest.” Furthermore, the ranchers contend the 50% real-time use standard was not evaluated as part of any proposed alternative, making its adoption arbitrary and outside the scope of the EIS analysis.
The suit asserts the ROD imposed a new and conflicting standard for the utilization of non-hydric sod-forming grass species in riparian areas, raising the stubble height requirement from 1.5 inches, as outlined in the management plan, to an arbitrary four-to-six-inch standard. This change is particularly problematic for ranchers, as Kentucky bluegrass, the dominant species in these areas, rarely grows to four inches, effectively placing the forage in perpetual non-compliance. The lawsuit argues that this shift was never analyzed in the EIS, violating NEPA by failing to consider its direct and indirect effects or allow for public comment.
Finally, the lawsuit claims that USFS overstepped its authority by eliminating certain discretionary powers traditionally held by the forest supervisor. According to the complaint, this removal of discretion is beyond the authority of the EIS and ROD and conflicts with established management practices.
The plaintiffs assert that USFS violated NEPA by failing to properly consider the best available science, adequately analyze environmental impacts and imposing arbitrary and capricious restrictions. The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order to nullify the final agency decision and require USFS to reevaluate the grazing authorization process in compliance with federal law. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
