Forest Guardians - Grazing Reform - A summary and history of litigation

SOUTHWEST FORESTS

SOUTHWEST RIVERS

ENDANGERED SPECIES

DESERTS & GRASSLANDS

GRAZING REFORM

Public Lands Grazing Reform
▪ Ecological Impact

▪ Grazing in Protected Areas

▪ Economics - The True Costs

▪ Pathways to Recovery

▪ Litigation and Administration

▪ Legislative Solution - Buyouts

▪ Congress & Agency Headaches
▪ BLM Grazing

▪ Research Center

Specific Grazing Allotments
▪ Pleasant Valley

▪ Valles Caldera Preserve

▪ Yellowstone

RIVER RESTORATION

HOME

Grazing Reform > Research > Index Summary of Grazing Litigation

Dislodging the Sacred Cow

An Index and Summary of Significant Grazing Litigation

Federal land management agencies continue to violate federal environmental laws in order to accommodate ranching interests. Environmental activists in the West have increasingly turned to the courts to remedy grazing-caused destruction of endangered species habitat, violations of state water quality standards and ruination of recreational values. With more than 270 million acres of national forests and Bureau of Land Management lands open to grazing, including wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, it is no surprise that the different legal handles on livestock grazing are many and varied. With the political power of the livestock industry waning and federal land managers in a reactive pose there is no doubt the list of grazing litigation will continue to grow. Please send any additions, suggestions or edits to Billy Stern, Grazing Program, Forest Guardians.

NRDC et al. v. Morton
Filing Date: Oct. 29, 1973
Case Number: 388 F. Supp. 829 (D.D.C. 1974)
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Washington, DC
Decision Date:

NRDC et al. v. Andrus
Filing Date:
Case Number: 448 F. Supp. 802 (D.D.C. 1978)
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Washington, DC
Decision Date:

NRDC et al. Hodel
Filing Date: May 9, 1984
Case Number: 618 F. Supp. 848 (E.D. California. 1985)
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Sacramento, California
Decision Date:

NRDC v. Hodel
Filing Date:
Case Number: 624 F. Supp. 1045 (D.Nev. 1985)
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Reno, NV
Decision Date:

NRDC et al. v. Hodel and Lyng
Filing Date: May 9, 1986
Case Number: E.D. Cal. S-86-0548 EJG
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Sacramento, CA
Decision Date: October 13, 1987

Oregon Natural Desert Association and The Wilderness Society v. Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge
Filing Date: February 7, 1991
Case Number: 91-6041-HO
Court Type: U.S. District Court, District of Oregon
Decision Date: October 21, 1991

National Wildlife Federation, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Joe Feller v. BLM (Comb Wash Case)
Filing Date: April 5, 1991
Court Type: (1) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Office of Hearings and Appeals, U. S. Department of the Interior; (2) Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
Case Number: UT-06-91-1 (ALJ); IBLA 94-264
Decision Date: December 20, 1993 (ALJ); August 21, 1997 (IBLA)
Citation: 140 IBLA 85 (1997).

NRDC v. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt
Filing Date: January 27, 1993
Case Number: N.D. Cal. C-93-0301
Court Type: U.S. District Court, San Francisco, California
Settlement Date: October 28, 1993

National Wildlife Federation v. Beaverhead National Forest
Filing Date: March 30, 1994
Case Number: CV-94-23-BU
Court Type: U.S. District Court, District of Montana, Butte Division
Settlement Date: April 28, 1995

Oregon Natural Desert Association et. al. v. United States Forest Service.
Filing Date: May 11, 1994
Case Number: CV-94-522-ST
Court Type: U.S. District Court, District of Oregon
Decision Date: September 26, 1996

Pacific Rivers Council and The Wilderness Society v. United States
Forest Service
Filing Date: April 11, 1994
Case Number: CV-94-0159-S-HLR
Court Type: U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho
Decision Date:

American Wildlands, California Trout, CA Native Plant Society v. Sierra National Forest
Filing Date: November 2, 1994
Case Number: CV-94-0563-BAC
Court Type: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Settlement Date:

Michael Seidman v. Tonto National Forest, U.S. Forest Service
Filing Date: November 8, 1994
Case Number: CIV 94-2266 PHX-RGS
Court Type: United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Decision Date: January 16, 1996

Oregon Natural Desert Association et.al v. BLM, Oregon
Filing Date: Dec. 27, 1995
Case Number: CIV-95-2013-HA
Court Type: U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
Decision Date: January 31, 1997

Jeffries and Hobson v. Arizona State Land Department
Filing Date: April 20, 1995
Case Number: Maricopa County Superior Court, No. CV 95-06303, Judge Michael Dann
Decision: Granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on July 24,1997
Status: Final judgment pending submission of timetables for compliance by the parties

The Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club v. Prescott National Forest
Filing Date: August 5, 1996
Case Number:
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Phoenix, Arizona
Decision Date:

Forest Guardians v. Santa Fe National Forest
Filing Date: August 15, 1996
Case Number: CIV No. 96-1125 M
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Santa Fe, NM
Settlement Date: None yet

Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. BLM, Arizona
(Defendants); State of Arizona, Graham and Greenlee County, Norman & Loretta Brawley, and Jeff Menges (Intervenors).
Filing Date: January 8, 1996
Case Number: Civil No. 96-11 TUC RTT
Court Type: U.S. District Court, District of Arizona

Forest Guardians v. BLM, New Mexico
Filing Date: May 20, 1996
Case Number: CIV96-0693 JP
Court Type: U.S. District Court
Settlement Date: October 17, 1996

National Wildlife Federation v. BLM, Arizona
Filing Date: August 28, 1996
Case Number: IBLA 96-526
Court Type: Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
Decision Date: Stay granted on October 9, 1996

National Wildlife Federation v. BLM, Arizona
Filing Date: August, 1996
Case Number: IBLA 96-535
Court Type: Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
Decision Date: Stay granted on October 11, 1996

National Parks and Conservation Association v. The National Park Service
Filing Date: December 12, 1996
Case Number: 96-7412-WJR
Court Type: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Decision Date: Case was settled out of court

Idaho Watersheds Project and the Committee for Idaho's High Desert v. the BLM, Idaho
Filing Date: April 11, 1997
Case Number: CIV 97-0125-S-BLW
Court Type: U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho
Settlement Date:

Forest Guardians v. Prescott National Forest
Filing Date: February 13, 1997
Case Number: CIV-No. 97-310PCT SMM
Court Type: U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
Decision Date:

National Wildlife Federation v. BLM, Oregon
Filing Date: June 6, 1997
Case Number: Civ. No. 97-853-ST
Court Type: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Decision Date:

Forest Guardians and the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Service
Filing Date: September 28, 1996
Case Number: CV, 96 -2258-PGR
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Phoenix, Arizona
Decision Date: December 17, 1997

Idaho Watersheds Project and the Committee for Idaho's High Desert v. BLM, Idaho
Filing Date: October 31, 1997
Case Number: CV,
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Boise, Idaho
Decision Date:

Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service
Filing Date: December 12, 1997
Case Number: CIV, 97-2562 PHX SMM
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Phoenix, Arizona
Decision Date: April 17, 1998

Forest Guardians v US Forest Service
Case Number: CIV-99-615 LCS/KBM
Filing date: June 2, 1999
Attorney: Richard Meitz
Decision Date:

NRDC et al. v. Morton
Filing Date: Oct. 29, 1973
Case Number: 388 F. Supp. 829 (D.D.C. 1974)
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Washington, DC
Decision Date:

NRDC and other plaintiffs challenged failure of Bureau of Land Management to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act in administering grazing on the public lands under its jurisdiction. The District Court rejected the agency's claim that a programmatic environmental impact statement would suffice and ordered the preparation of NEPA documents that provided site-specific information about the impacts of current grazing practices and alternatives. The parties ultimately agreed to a 13-year schedule pursuant to which 212 statements would be prepared covering about 170 million acres. For more information contact Johanna Wald of NRDC at 415-777-0220.

NRDC et al. v. Andrus
Filing Date:
Case Number: 448 F. Supp. 802 (D.D.C. 1978)
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Washington, DC
Decision Date:

Defendants in prior case returned to court with proposal to greatly extend the agreed-upon schedule for complying with NEPA. Plaintiffs successfully challenged their proposal.

NRDC et al. Hodel
Filing Date: May 9, 1984
Case Number: 618 F. Supp. 848 (E.D. California. 1985)
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Sacramento, California
Decision Date:

Following notice and comment, the Interior Department made significant revisions to the Bureau of Land Management regulations applicable to livestock grazing on public lands. Plaintiffs, five environmental and wildlife organizations and one individual, challenged a number of features of the new rules, including, in particular, the new "cooperative management agreement" (CMA) program. The District Court struck down the CMA program, holding that the Secretary had unlawfully delegated his authority to manage the public's rangelands to livestock permittees. For more information contact Johanna Wald of NRDC at 415-777-0220.

NRDC v. Hodel
Filing Date:
Case Number: 624 F. Supp. 1045 (D.Nev. 1985)
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Reno, NV
Decision Date:

Plaintiffs challenged a BLM EIS and grazing management plan for public lands in the Reno, Nevada area on both substantive and procedural grounds. Among other claims, we contended that the EIS failed to comply with NEPA because it lacked a "no grazing" alternative and because it lacked the requisite site-specific impact analysis. We challenged the land use plan because it called for maintaining the status quo for livestock for the indefinite future while monitoring data were collected, even where available data revealed that overgrazing was occurring and significant resource damage was resulting. The court refused to set aside the BLM's EIS or its environmentally harmful plan, but did set a deadline of five years for remedial action. For more information contact Johanna Wald of NRDC at 415 777-0220.

NRDC et al. v. Hodel and Lyng
Filing Date: May 9, 1986
Case Number: E.D. Cal. S-86-0548 EJG
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Sacramento, CA
Decision Date: October 13, 1987

This case challenged the adoption, by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, of a formula for determining the annual fee to graze privately-owned livestock on the public's lands, following the expiration of the formula set by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act. Plaintiffs seven national environmental and conservation organizations, two statewide fishing organizations and two individuals - raised three issues: 1) failure to charge fair market value; 2) failure to comply with rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act and public participation requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act; and 3) failure to prepare an environmental impact statement or even an environmental assessment (EA), in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act. The Court held that the Secretaries were not obligated to charge fair market value, but that they were required to engage in notice and comment rulemaking and comply with NEPA (although it refused to specify that an EIS had to be prepared). For more information contact Johanna Wald of NRDC at 415 777-0220.

Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund filed suit on behalf of ONDA to stop domestic livestock grazing on the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge until the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) prepared an Environmental Impact Statement and made a compatibility determination for the refuge's grazing program. The FWS filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the issue was not ripe, ONDA objected. The parties entered into stipulation for dismissal without prejudice in which the FWS would prepare the Environmental Impact Statement and the compatibility determination for grazing and would not issue grazing permits until after the studies were completed.

As the stipulation progressed it was noted that the defendants had identified a problem with grazing on the refuge during a severe drought and had taken appropriate action by drastically reducing the amount of livestock grazing on the refuge and continued to evaluate the situation. The FWS began to develop a management plan for the refuge which called for the collection of biological data and ultimately decided to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement. The Fish and Wildlife Service was already beginning to conduct the studies the plaintiffs were requesting and therefore the issues raised by the plaintiffs were not ripe and the motion to dismiss without prejudice was allowed. The Fish and Wildlife Service developed a new management plan for the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge supplemented with an Environmental Impact Statements and a new compatibility determination. The new management plan determined that livestock grazing was harming the Refuge's antelope population and hundreds of other grassland and riparian dependent species. The grazing program was formally eliminated for at least a period of 15 years. For more information on this case contact Adam Berger of the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund at (206)-343-7340.

The National Wildlife Federation, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and Joseph Feller appealed the BLM's issuance of grazing permits for the Comb Wash Allotment in southeastern Utah. District Chief Administrative Law Judge John Rampton held that: (1) the BLM had violated NEPA by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that analyzed the specific environmental impacts of livestock grazing on the Comb Wash Allotment. Judge Rampton found that the EIS accompanying the BLM's land use plan for the area did not satisfy the requirements of NEPA because it lacked site-specific information about the Comb Wash Allotment; (2) the BLM had violated FLPMA's multiple use mandate by authorizing cattle grazing in five canyons on the Comb Wash Allotment without weighing and balancing the grazing's harms and benefits to determine whether it is in the public interest; (3) the BLM had violated FLPMA by determining authorized livestock numbers on the allotment solely on the basis of utilization and trend data and ignoring other environmental factors; (4) the BLM had violated the grazing regulations by refusing to consult with affected interests about its annual grazing authorizations for the allotment. As a remedy for the BLM's violations of NEPA and FLPMA, Judge Rampton prohibited the BLM from authorizing grazing in the five canyons on the allotment unless and until the BLM prepares an EIS and makes a reasoned and informed decision that grazing in the canyons is in the public interest.

Judge Rampton's Decision was affirmed by the Interior Board of Land Appeals on August 21, 1997. For further information, see Joseph M. Feller, The Comb Wash Case: The Rule of Law Comes to the Public Rangelands, 17 Public Land & Resources Law Review 25 (1996), or call Joe Feller at (602) 965-3964. 19. National Wildlife Federation v. BLM (Comb Wash Case)

NRDC v. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt
Filing Date: January 27, 1993
Case Number: N.D. Cal. C-93-0301
Court Type: U.S. District Court, San Francisco, California
Settlement Date: October 28, 1993

NRDC challenged failure of the Bureau of Land Management to comply with consultation requirements of the Endangered Species Act prior to permitting ephemeral grazing by sheep in prime desert tortoise habitat in the California Desert. We also challenged the failure of the Fish and Wildlife Service to designate critical habitat for the threatened Mojave tortoise population. After defendants agreed to consult and to designate critical habitat, a stipulation for final dismissal of the case and entry of final judgment was filed on 10/28/93. For more information contact Johanna Wald of NRDC at 415 777-0220.

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and the Montana Wildlife Federation filed suit against the United States Forest Service and Beaverhead National Forest for failing to comply with federal law by authorizing illegal livestock grazing in the Beaverhead National Forest. The suit charged the defendants with failure to meet requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and sought an injunction on grazing on effected livestock allotments. The suit claimed that 156 of the forests' 166 active grazing allotments fail to meet NEPA or NFMA standards; in fact no analysis of the environmental impact of grazing had ever been conducted on 136 of the allotments.

NWF alleged livestock grazing at the current levels adversely affects the recreational, conservation, and wildlife values in the forest. Grazing is especially harmful in the riparian areas of the forest. Riparian areas in natural ecosystems collect, store and meter out water as well as provide shade, stabilize stream banks, and sustain diverse vegetation and wildlife species. Grasses and vegetation found most palatable by livestock are located in riparian areas. These areas are also heavily grazed because they are cool and near water, this high impact grazing can have irreversible effects on riparian habitats. The defendants were found to be in violation of the NEPA and the NFMA although no injunctions were granted. The Forest Service agreed to amend the Beaverhead National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan with revised riparian guidelines that would result in better protection of riparian habitat. The Forest Service also committed to complete environmental assessments and environmental impact statements mandated by the NEPA and NFMA. The Forest Service was also required to monitor the grazing allotments to ensure that they comply with the new forest plan standards

For more information on this case contact the lawyers of the National Wildlife Federation: Thomas France at (406)-721-6705, Peter Frost at (503)-222-1429, or Thomas Lustig at (303)-786-8001.

Oregon Natural Desert Association, Rest the West, Oregon Natural Resources Council, Oregon Wildlife Federation, The Pacific Rivers Council, Portland Audubon Society, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, and Trout Unlimited v. United States Forest Service.
Filing Date: May 11, 1994
Case Number: CV-94-522-ST
Court Type: U.S. District Court, District of Oregon
Decision Date: September 26, 1996

The Oregon Natural Desert Association, et. al., filed suit against the Forest Service for violations of section 401 of the Clean Water Act for failing to obtain certification from the state of Oregon before issuing a livestock grazing permit for the Camp Creek allotment in the Malheur National Forest. The John Day River flows through the Camp Creek allotment and is in violation of state water quality standards. According to section 401 of the Clean Water Act state authorization must be granted before pollutants may be discharged into all navigable waters. ONDA was able to prove in court that livestock discharge pollutants into rivers endangering the rapidly dwindling number of salmon in the area. In addition to depositing livestock wastes in the river livestock grazing is known to increase sedimentation, reduce the natural vegetation found on streambanks, and trample streambanks all of which lead to increased water temperatures which is deadly to salmon. The ruling recognized the serious degradation of water quality occurring in Camp Creek, a tributary of the John Day river.

Judge Ancer Haggerty ruled that state certification is required before the Forest Service issues a livestock grazing permit. The ruling means that the U.S. Forest must have the states assurance that grazing on federal lands will not pollute rivers and streams. This case prompted a motion by the National Association of Attorneys General to work with the Department of Justice to settle concerns about section 401 of the Clean Water Act and how to clarify the difference between point source and non point source discharges and how they should be policed. For more information on this case contact Michael Axline of the Western Environmental Law Center at (503)-485-2471.

Pacific Rivers Council and The Wilderness Society v. United States Forest Service
Filing Date: April 11, 1994
Case Number: CV-94-0159-S-HLR
Court Type: U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho
Decision Date:

The Pacific Rivers Council and The Wilderness Society alleged the Forest Service violated sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act for its failure to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the effects of on-going Land and Resource Management Plans on salmon species listed under the Endangered Species Act. PRC and The Wilderness Society filed suit to protect the threatened salmon from further harm from the activities taking place under the current LRMP's. Between June of 1987 and April of 1990 the Forest Service adopted Land and Resource Management Plans for the Boise, Challis, Nez Perce, Payette, Salmon, and Sawtooth National Forests. Subsequently, the Snake River sockeye salmon and the Snake River spring/summer and fall chinook salmon were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. According to the ESA the Forest Service was required to reinitiate consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure that the existing Land Resource Management Plans were not likely to jeopardize the continued survival of the endangered salmon. The Snake River salmon are affected by the ongoing land use allocations established in the LRMP's such as logging, grazing, mining, road-building, and other activities. Although a Federal Judge granted an injunction on all activities pending completion of the ESA mandated consultation, the plaintiffs actually sought a stay, allowing damaging activities to continue during the consultation.

More information on this case is available from Todd True, Adam Berger, and Kristen Boyles of the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund at (206)-343-7340.

The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund filed suit on behalf of the American Wildlands, California Trout, and California Native Plant Society against the Sierra National Forest to force the Forest Service to study the environmental effects of livestock grazing in the Sierra National Forest. In the 25 years since the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) became law the Sierra National Forest had not completed a single site-specific environmental analysis on any of its 45 livestock allotments. Many of these allotments include habitat for imperiled native trout and songbirds. A settlement required the Forest Service to complete environmental assessments on seven allotments over the next seven years. NEPA analysis will allow for increased public input and should ensure compliance with other federal environmental laws including National Forest Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act. For more information contact the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund at (415)-627-6700, Brett Matzke of California Trout at (209)-542-2523, or Emily Roberson of the California Native Plant Society at (510)-649-0460.

Michael Seidman filed suit against the Tonto National Forest after repeatedly appealing the environmental assessment for the Pole Hollow allotment, located in Arizona's Mazatzal Mountains wilderness. Seidman alleged the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to consider alternatives with different stocking rates and NFMA by failing to determine if grazing was a suitable use of the land. Despite concluding that the carrying capacity of the allotment was 112 livestock yearlong, each of the Forest Service alternatives, aside from the no-grazing alternative, kept the permitted numbers firm at 175. Each of the alternatives included different water development proposals enabling livestock to use uplands. According to the Forest Service's most recent analysis of the allotments 36,461 acres 70.6% of the land is in poor condition, 26.3 is in very poor condition, only 3.1% is in fair condition. None of the land on the allotment is in good condition and 60% of the land is exhibiting a downward trend in condition. The Pole Hollow allotment is home to the bald eagle, black hawks, the peregrine falcon and other sensitive species as well as deer, elk, javelina, bear, lion, and quail. Seidman sought to enjoin further cattle grazing on the Pole Hollow allotment or at least limit the stocking rate to 112 : the number the Forest Service identified in its "production/utilization" study.

Judge Roger Strand ruled from the bench that he was in agreement with Mr. Seidman and that further study by the Forest Service was in order. However, Strand did not call for injunction of the grazing currently in progress but did remand further study of other stocking rates. The Forest Service has since undertaken a cursory analysis of stocking rates and concluded that grazing levels below 100 cattle would have the same impacts as no grazing! Attorneys are currently evaluating follow-up litigation. For further information contact David Rosenbaum of Meyer, Hendricks, Victor, Osborn, and Maledon at (602)-640-9000 or Ted Zukoski, Land and Water Fund. (303) 444-1188 x 213.

Oregon Natural Desert Association, Oregon Trout Inc., Oregon Natural Resources Council, Oregon Wildlife Federation, Oregon Chapter Sierra Club, Central Oregon Audubon Society, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Rest the West, American Rivers Inc., National Parks and Conservation Association, and National Wildlife Federation v. BLM, Oregon
Filing Date: Dec. 27, 1995
Case Number: CIV-95-2013-HA
Court Type: U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
Decision Date: January 31, 1997

ONDA et. al. filed suit against the Bureau of Land Management alleging the river management plan for the Donner und Blitzen Wild and Scenic River violated the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the National Environmental Policies Act. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) was established to protect selected rivers and their immediate environments around the nation which are in outstanding condition possessing "scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values." ONDA argued that the BLM adopted a river management plan that failed to protect and enhance the river and surrounding environment. ONDA identified four specific violations: 1) continued grazing of cattle, 2) construction of new parking lots, 3) the improvement of a secondary access road, and 4) implementation of a water resource project to divert water to irrigate hay fields.

In its environmental assessment on the proposed river management plan, the BLM failed to consider whether limiting or excluding grazing from the area was necessary to protect and enhance the values of the Donner und Blitzen River. The river management plan prepared by the BLM ignored the unanimous recommendation of a team of botanists to remove grazing from the entire river corridor. ONDA also claimed that the BLM violated NEPA by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement to assess the cumulative effects of grazing, parking lots, improved roads, and water diversions which could all significantly effect the river corridor. The environmental assessment was also inadequate because it failed to analyze reasonable alternatives and the impacts of those alternatives. Judge Ancer Haggerty ruled that the river plan prepared by the BLM violated the WSRA and the BLM violated NEPA by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement to analyze impacts of actions in the river area. Haggerty also ordered that no grazing be allowed until the BLM completed a plan that complied with both the WSRA and NEPA. For more information contact Peter Frost of the National Wildlife Federation at (503) 230-0421.

The complaint in this case alleged that the Arizona State Land Dept. is violating its trust duties by failing to generate price competition for grazing leases on state trust lands. The state fails to advertise the leases, never receives sealed bids as authorized by statute, uses preference rights to suppress competition and fails to exact any return from profitable subleases. In the last 50 years, the evidence showed that the state had failed to renew a lease only once when there was a competing application and had never taken sealed bids in any case in which a renewal was involved.

The judge ruled that these were de facto long term leases and that if the state did not take appropriate steps to make the leases competitive, each of them would have to be put to public auction under the terms of the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act. For more information contact Tim Hogan of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest at 602 258-8850.

The Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club v. Prescott National Forest
Filing Date: August 5, 1996
Case Number:
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Phoenix, Arizona
Decision Date:

Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund filed suit on behalf of the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club alleging the Prescott National Forest had violated the substantive requirements of the National Forest Management Act to determine if livestock grazing is a "suitable" or appropriate use of the land. The NFMA suitability mandate has long been ignored by the Forest Service because the agency believes its "multiple-use" mandate requires all uses - or at least livestock grazing- to occur in all places. NFMA includes very specific language requiring the Forest Service to weigh the costs and benefits of grazing through "an analysis of the economic and environmental consequences and alternative uses foregone." (NFMA regulations 36C.F.R. 219.3)

Although the Prescott National Forest admitted that 99% of the critically important streamside habitats on the Forest were in poor or very poor condition at the time the Forest Plan was issued in 1987, nearly 95% of the Forest is still open to livestock grazing, and historic grazing patterns and levels have been largely maintained.

The suit's requested relief includes an injunction on the Crooks Canyon, Maverick and Brady Butte allotments, each of which has been severely degraded due to historic and ongoing livestock grazing. In addition, the suit seeks an order requiring the Forest Service to revise its Forest Plan and establish site-specific suitability determinations for the entire forest. A hearing on the case is expected in the upcoming months. For more information contact Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund at 415 627-6700.

Forest Guardians v. Santa Fe National Forest
Filing Date: August 15, 1996
Case Number: CIV No. 96-1125 M
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Santa Fe, NM
Settlement Date: None yet

Forest Guardians alleged violations under the National Forest Management Act for the Santa Fe National Forest's failure to protect the Arizona Willow, an imperiled plant species, from domestic livestock grazing. Small, unhealthy, and isolated populations of the Arizona Willow survive in the San Pedro Parks wilderness, an area with four grazing allotments and over 1,000 head of summer livestock. The Forest Service's failure to provide for a diversity of plant communities and the conservation of the Arizona willow, and failure to develop standards and guidelines for livestock grazing violate both the NFMA and the Administrative Procedures Act. A settlement which calls for greater protection of the willow and wilderness values is forthcoming. For more information contact John Horning of Forest Guardians at (505)-988-9126.

The Southwest Center for Biological Diversity (Tucson) filed suit against the United Stated Bureau of Land Management and the Safford District of the BLM in Southwest Arizona, alleging two violations of the Endangered Species Act. The first claim alleged a failure to consult on the impacts of the district-wide grazing program in the Safford District on several threatened and endangered species and their habitats. Shortly after the filing of the lawsuit, BLM requested initiation of Section 7 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Plaintiffs dismissed this first claim, retaining the right to challenge the contents and substance of the final Biological Opinion at the conclusion of the consultation process. Due to the large scale of the grazing program, and the complexity of the programmatic consultation, the consultation has taken longer than anticipated. FWS released its final Biological Opinion in October, 1997.

The second claim alleges a violation of section 9 of the ESA, asserting that the Safford District grazing program was unlawfully "taking" threatened and endangered species through the destruction and adverse modification of those species' habitat. The Court granted BLM's motion to stay proceedings on this remaining claim pending completion of the section 7 consultation, reasoning that the ongoing consultation between the BLM and FWS will address the only issue remaining in the lawsuit; that is, whether current grazing arrangements on the BLM's Safford District constitute an unlawful taking of endangered or threatened species in violation of the ESA. The contents of the final Biological Opinion, including its "jeopardy" or "no jeopardy" determination, its inclusion/exclusion of an "incidental take permit," and any mitigation recommendations and requirements, will determine the future course of the lawsuit. For more information contact Geoff Hickcox at 970 382-5902.

Forest Guardians v. William Caulkins (New Mexico Bureau of Land Management)
Filing Date: May 20, 1996
Case Number: CIV96-0693 JP
Court Type: U.S. District Court
Settlement Date: October 17, 1996

All seven New Mexico BLM District Offices violated Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act by failing to initiate formal consultation over the effects of land-use plans on seven streamside dependent species: the Southwest willow flycatcher, Spikedace, Loach minnow, Colorado Squawfish, Razorback sucker, Pecos Gambusia, and the Pecos Bluntnose Shiner. A settlement agreement required the BLM to complete its biological assessments and submit them for formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service then issuing its final biological opinions by March 31, 1997. All seven final biological opinions were finalized and released by May 1, 1997. The FWS determined that four BLM resource management plans - Mimbres, Farmington, Roswell, and Taos - would 'jeopardize' species. The final BO's determined domestic livestock grazing permitted in the Mimbres, Farmington, and Taos resource areas jeopardize the flycatcher, due primarily to the cowbird parasitism. Reasonable and prudent measures issued for the BO's require the BLM to monitor populations and assess impacts, but no five mile livestock-free buffer zone was established. Oil and gas activities in the Farmington and Roswell resource areas are jeopardizing the Colorado Squawfish, Razorback sucker, Pecos Gambusia, and Pecos Bluntnose Shiner. Forest Guardians is considering additional litigation in this matter. For more information contact John Horning of Forest Guardians at (505)-988-9126.

National Wildlife Federation v. BLM, Arizona
Filing Date: August 28, 1996
Case Number: IBLA 96-526
Court Type: Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
Decision Date: Stay granted on October 9, 1996

Four environmental groups appealed the BLM's Range Improvement Maintenance (RIM) Plan for the Arrastra Mountain Wilderness in Arizona. Appellants alleged that the RIM Plan violated the Wilderness Act by authorizing the reconstruction of abandoned jeep roads within the Wilderness, and by authorizing the destruction of spring riparian areas through their use as livestock watering areas. Appellants also alleged that the BLM had violated NEPA by failing to consider the alternative of excluding grazing from some portions of the Wilderness. The IBLA has issued a stay of the RIM Plan, but, as of July, 1997, has not yet decided the merits of the case. For further information contact Joe Feller at (602) 965-3964.

National Wildlife Federation v. BLM, Arizona
Filing Date: August, 1996
Case Number: IBLA 96-535
Court Type: Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
Decision Date: Stay granted on October 11, 1996

Four environmental groups appealed the BLM's decision to authorize the use of a wilderness desert spring as a holding and watering area for cattle. The appellants alleged violations of NEPA, FLPMA, the Wilderness Act, the Clean Water Act, and Arizona water quality regulations. The IBLA has issued a stay of the BLM's decision, but has not yet decided the merits of the case. For further information contact Joe Feller at (602) 965-3964.

The National Parks and Conservation Association alleged that the National Park Service has restricted public access and failed to protect native habitat and wildlife from livestock grazing on Santa Rosa Island- a unit of the Channel Island National Park- in violation of the Endangered Species Act, the Historic Preservation Act and its own Organic Act.

Santa Rosa Island was added to the Channel Island National Park in 1986 when it was purchased by the National Park Service from the Vail and Vickers Cattle Company for approximately $30 million. Vail and Vickers introduced cattle to the Santa Rosa Island in 1902. Until that time the largest native herbivore to be found was the spotted skunk. In the 1920's the owners introduced elk and deer and later opened a game hunting business. When they sold the Island to the Park Service Vail and Vickers declined the right of occupancy and use of the entire island but instead applied for and received a special use permit to continue commercial grazing and hunting on the island. The commercial game hunting business closes the park regularly to the public, and cattle grazing continues to pollute streams and destroy riparian habitats while removing and weakening native vegetation and introducing foreign vegetation in its place.

The National Parks Conservation Association seeks changes in the management practices of Santa Rosa Island which would better protect native wildlife and public access and safety. Prior to litigation, several management options had been presented based on compatibility studies, environmental impact statements and other federally funded studies. However, neither party was able to reach an agreement on which plan was optimal. For more information contact Brian Huse of the National Parks and Conservation Association at (805)-963-1622.

The Idaho Watersheds Project and the Committee for Idaho's High Desert filed suit against the BLM for issuing of grazing permits in violation of the Clean Water Act and Federal Land Policy Management Act. In addition, the suit alleges permitted numbers on the Castle Creek allotment exceed grazing capacities determined by the BLM in their own management plan, causing serious degradation of streams and other sensitive habitats. The Castle Creek allotment occupies 260,000 acres in southern Idaho. Since 1959 the BLM has determined that substantial portions of the allotment were in poor condition due to overgrazing and the condition worsened by the year.

In 1983 the BLM completed an Environmental Impact Statement and Management Framework Plan for the Bruneau Resource Area which includes the Castle Creek allotment. A 1997 assessment of the allotment's condition showed degradation of habitat for a number of sensitive species, wet meadows, riparian areas and water quality in violation of the standards set in the 1983 management plan.

Despite the recommendations of the data the BLM made no changes in the proposed grazing system for the 1997-98 year. Because of the lack of action Idaho Watersheds Project and the Committee for Idaho's High Desert initiated litigation. Violations of the Clean Water Act stemmed from degradation of water quality, such as increased sedimentation and water temperature and fecal coliform contamination in literally every stream on the allotment. In addition the BLM violated the Federal Land Policy Management Act by failing to meet the management standards set forth in the 1983 management plan.

The parties reached a settlement in which temporary management actions for 1997 grazing on the Castle Creek allotment were to be implemented. The agreement includes the construction of fences inside the allotment to restrict grazing in many riparian areas. Also included are provisions requiring maintenance of existing pastures and fences by the permittees as well as more precise plans for trailing cattle and grazing rotation throughout the allotment. For more information contact Jon Marvel of IWP at (208) 788-2290 or Laird Lucas of the LAW Fund at (208) 342-7024.

Forest Guardians v. Prescott National Forest
Filing Date: February 13, 1997
Case Number: CIV-No. 97-310PCT SMM
Court Type: U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
Decision Date:

Forest Guardians filed suit against the U.S. Forest Service alleging violations of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act in conjunction with livestock grazing on the West-Bear/ Del Rio allotments which are bisected by the Verde River. The first claim alleged a failure to consult on the impacts of grazing on several threatened and endangered species and their habitats, especially the Spikedace. The Forest Service had withdrawn its original request for formal consultation on the allotments after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a 9/19/95 draft biological opinion which determined that livestock grazing on the allotments would jeopardize the federally endangered Spikedace, a small minnow which has been eliminated from 95% of its historical habitat. Forest Service and FWS documents recognize the "damaging effects on the riparian vegetation, channel morphology, and stream bank caused by cattle grazing." The second claim, alleging a violation of section 9 of the ESA, through unlawful "take" of spikedace through the destruction and adverse modification of its habitat on the Verde River has been resolved through a formal settlement agreement which calls for no-grazing on the Verde River until the Forest Service has received a final biological opinion. For more information contact John Horning of Forest Guardians at (505)-988-9126.

National Wildlife Federation, Oregon Natural Desert Association, Northwest Rafters Association, Native Fish Society v. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Filing Date: June 6, 1997
Case Number: Civ. No. 97-853-ST
Court Type: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Decision Date:

This suit - filed by the National Wildlife Federation and others - alleges violations of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the National Environmental Policy Act as well as other provisions of the federal law. NWF points to the fact that the BLM failed to issue a comprehensive management plan and delineate the boundaries of the river and adjacent land to clearly establish a "river area"for the John Day wild and scenic river within the required three year limit allotted by the WSRA. The NWF alleges that the BLM has impeded the free flow of the John Day river by diverting water from it and its tributaries, as well as allowing the construction of reservoirs and water impoundments in the river basin. The BLM is also assisting water resource projects above and below the John Day river area which have had a negative impact on the values present in the river area. Both of these allegations are in violation of the WSRA. Grazing and mining are permitted by the BLM in the John Day river area which damages the natural values of the area and violates the intent of the WSRA. The suit also alleges the BLM has violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement which would allow for adequate public input. For more information contact Peter Frost of the NWF at (503)-230-0421.

Forest Guardians and the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Service
Filing Date: September 28, 1996
Case Number: CV , 96 -2258-PGR
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Phoenix, Arizona
Decision Date: December 17, 1997

Forest Guardians sued the Forest Service under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) alleging existing logging and grazing projects violated forest plan amendments adopted in June 1996. The amendments were in partial response to the listing of the Mexican spotted owl under the Endangered Species Act. The amendments added significant new protection for old growth forests, grasslands, streamside areas, Northern goshawks and Mexican spotted owls in Arizona and New Mexico's 11 national forests. NFMA requires that "all new permits , contracts, and other new instruments for the use and occupancy" of national forest be consistent with the new forest plans.

In July, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction resulting in the shut down of at least two dozen timber sales. The court also enjoined all other actions in violation of the newly amended forest plans - including livestock grazing. During the injunction the Forest Service identified 715 allotments in violation of the new standards The injunction on grazing, although completely ignored by the Forest Service, resulted in Senator Pete Domenici-led rider exempting the Forest Service from compliance with the judge's order until March 1, 1998.

On December 17, a panel of Ninth Circuit Court judges ruled that the newly amended forest plans did not apply retroactively to contracts and permits issued prior to June 1996 amendments, thus allowing grazing permits and timber sales that fail to meet new standards to proceed. The panel did rule that all permits, contracts etc. issued after the June, 1996 amendments must be consistent with the new standards. For more information contact Steve Sugarman at 983-1700 or John Talberth at 988-9126.

Idaho Watersheds Project and the Committee for Idaho's High Desert v. BLM, Idaho
Filing Date: October 31, 1997
Case Number: CV,
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Boise, Idaho
Decision Date:

The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies filed suit on behalf of the Idaho Watersheds Project and the Committee for Idaho's High Desert alleging the BLM is in violation of the Clean Water Act and the Federal Land Policy Management Act and other federal laws which require that grazing management must be altered promptly whenever grazing abuse occurs, and that public lands must support a wide variety of uses beyond livestock grazing.

The lawsuit asserts that the BLM has amassed voluminous data showing that overgrazing and livestock mismanagement in the 1.8 million acre Owyhee Resource Area has polluted rivers and streams, degraded crucial streamside habitat, and led to significant declines in populations of native trout, sage grouse, and other species. The lawsuit seeks to force BLM to comply with the Clean Water Act and the Federal Land Policy Management Act.

The lawsuit asks the federal court to set a strict timetable for BLM to revise grazing permits beginning in 1998 and to halt grazing completely after March 1998 until BLM has performed the necessary environmental studies to determine how grazing levels should be changed. For more information contact Jon Marvel of IWP at (208) 788-2290 or Laird Lucas of the LAW Fund at (208) 342-7024.

Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service
Filing Date: December 12, 1997
Case Number: CIV, 97-2562 PHX SMM
Court Type: U.S. District Court, Phoenix, Arizona
Decision Date: April 17, 1998

The Forest Service is violating the National Forest Management Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act according to a suit filed in Federal District Court in Phoenix, Arizona by Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund on behalf of Forest Guardians. The suit alleges the Forest Service is allowing grazing to damage streamside habitat critical to the survival of four of the most critically endangered fish and wildlife species in the Southwest; the Southwest willow flycatcher, Loach minnow, spikedace and Mexican spotted owl. According to the suit livestock grazing on 110 allotments on the Apache-Sitgreaves, Gila, Carson, Cibola, Prescott, and Santa Fe national forests violates the law.

The centerpiece of the lawsuit is the National Forest Management Act's requirement that the Forest Service ensure that "fish and wildlife habitat.... be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native...vertebrate species in the planning area." In 1996, Forest Guardians submitted a petition to the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service requesting that the agency protect dozens of imperiled native fish and wildlife dependent upon Southwestern streams and aquatic ecosystems. That petition asked the Forest Service to amend Forest Plans and eliminate livestock grazing from watersheds and streams that were critical to numerous imperiled amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds. Although the agency has had ample time to act on the petition, it has not , giving the group no choice but litigation. The suit also alleges the Forest Service is violating the Clean Water Act by failing to obtain certification from state water quality bureaus to ensure that permitting grazing will not result in violations of state water quality standards.

The suit seeks an injunction against grazing on portions of the Gila, San Francisco, Blue and Verde rivers until measures are taken to protect water quality and give streams the opportunity to heal from a century of overgrazing. For more information contact John Horning of Forest Guardians at 505 988-9126 or Robert Wiygul at 303 623-9466.

Update: The FS agreed to a settlement with Forest Guardians requiring close monitoring of impacted riparian areas, and some construction of exclosures to keep cattle out of springs and streams. A request for a TRO by the NM Cattle Growers Ass. was denied.

For specific questions about our efforts to reduce grazing on public lands, contact Melissa Hailey, Grazing Reform program director.