Federal judge stops grazing in grizzly habitat near Yellowstone
A federal judge in Missoula last week found that the U.S. Forest Service violated the law when authorizing expanded commercial livestock grazing leases north of Yellowstone National Park.
In an order handed down Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy found that an Environmental Assessment conducted by the Forest Service was insufficient, as it did not adequately address the impacts to grizzly bears, an endangered species.
USFWS
“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, in a press release. “Judge Molloy’s decision has thankfully halted this misguided and illegal effort, likely preventing the deaths of many more grizzly bears.”
The order affirmed an earlier decision by federal judge Kathleen DeSoto.
Western Watersheds Project led a coalition of conservation groups in filing the lawsuit against the chief of the U.S. Forest Service and several federal agencies in 2022, arguing the government failed to consider the effects of expanded cattle grazing north of Yellowstone National Park on grizzlies under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.
The groups alleged that greenlighting grazing on an additional 1,356 acres for cows, along with a longer stock season with young calves, would lead to increased conflicts with grizzlies and greater mortality for the bears.
The lawsuit notes portions of the six grazing allotments in question are in the grizzly bears’ Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem recovery zone.
Arguing before Judge DeSoto last fall, a lawyer for the conservation groups, Matthew Bishop, said the Forest Service’s analysis of impacts was so cursory, it should at the very least be redone: “We heard more today on connectivity (for grizzly bears) than what’s in the record.”
But the Forest Service argued that it took a “hard look” at potential impacts on grizzlies as is required under NEPA, and the environmental assessment found limited impacts to the species’ population in the area. Attorneys for the federal government argued that because the proposed scope of grazing is limited, the impacts to grizzlies was also limited.
This spring, DeSoto ruled in favor of the conservation groups. Under NEPA, she wrote, the federal government had failed to consider how the expanded grazing, and the cumulative effects of both public and private activities in the area, might affect connectivity of grizzly populations, a key to the species’ recovery and survival. She also found the agency failed to prepare an environmental impact statement, which is required by NEPA.
However, she dismissed part of the complaint that the federal government had violated the Endangered Species Act.
Both parties objected to parts of DeSoto’s ruling, but Molloy’s September order affirmed the decision.
The court ultimately remanded the decision to the Forest Service to prepare a new analysis and vacated the decision to expand grazing on the six allotments.
“The science is clear: grizzly bears need safe, livestock-free passage between population cores in order to fully recover,” said Lizzy Pennock, carnivore coexistence attorney at WildEarth Guardians, in a press statement. “We are grateful the judge redirected the U.S. Forest Service toward the best available science and its legal responsibility to protect wildlife.”
The other plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, the Native Ecosystems Council, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Wyoming Wildlife Advocates, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Bitterroot, Wildearth Guardians, and the Gallatin Wildlife Association.
