Back to StoriesThe Battle Over Grizzlies and Grazing in Paradise
November 4, 2024
The Battle Over Grizzlies and Grazing in ParadiseNine conservation groups sue USFS in federal court, claim grazing allotments could affect grizzly bear survival and connectivity
Plaintiffs are claiming the U.S. Forest Service didn’t follow the National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA, and should have conducted a more in-depth environmental impact statement to account for grizzly bears. Photo by Jim Peaco/NPS
CORRECTION: Due to an editing omission, we failed to include the plaintiff groups in the lawsuit. We have included a link to the lawsuit, which indicates the nine plaintiff conservation organizations below.
by
Laura Lundquist
Human
activities are increasingly leading to grizzly bear deaths, as subdivisions and
recreationists invade the Paradise Valley, while agriculture still dominates
the flatland and some foothills. As Yellowstone grizzly bears try to find
routes connecting them to the Northern Continental Divide, wildlife advocates
are questioning why the U.S. Forest Service is maintaining and expanding cattle
grazing allotments along the western edge of the Absaroka Range close to a
wilderness that grizzlies call home.
Nine conservation groups, led by the nonprofit Western Watersheds Project, in September filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service challenging the agency's East Paradise Range Allotment Management Plan decision that "authorizes continued and expanded livestock grazing on National Forest lands in occupied grizzly bear habitat in the Absaroka Mountains, just north of Yellowstone National Park," according to court documents.
On
Oct. 29, nearly two dozen people filtered into the gallery of a Missoula
federal district courtroom to hear the attorney representing nine conservation
groups debate a federal attorney over whether the Forest Service properly
assessed six grazing allotments interspersed along the valley between Gardiner
and Livingston, and particularly their potential effect on grizzly bears.
Two
larger allotments totaling more than 11,000 acres south of Chico abut the Dome
Mountain Wildlife Management Area on the west and the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness
on the east. Another 2,900-acre allotment sits along the south side of Mill
Creek less than three miles from the wilderness. The allotment closest to
Livingston is 5,400 acres straddling Suce Creek mostly within the
Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness. The smallest are Pine Creek and Elbow near
Dexter Point.
"The East Paradise Range Allotments are six allotments in the Absaroka Beartooth mountains on the east side of the Paradise Valley located between Livingston, Montana, and the north entrance of Yellowstone National Park," according to court documents from the lawsuit. Map courtesy U.S. District Court documents
In
2013, the Forest Service considered some changes to the allotments that
required an environmental analysis, including enlarging a few allotments and
allowing grazing to start in June rather than July. The grazing allotments have
existed for decades, but this would be the first time the agency made a study
of them. Three of the larger allotments have been vacant since at least 2009
and would remain so for the time being.
In
2020, the Forest Service came out with a draft environmental assessment, which
was met with several public comments asking why it didn’t really address the
possibility of increased conflict with grizzly bears. Wildlife advocates were
disappointed a year later when the Forest Service issued a final assessment and
decision that ignored many of their questions. So they went to court, claiming
the Forest Service didn’t follow the National Environmental Policy Act, known
as NEPA. The plaintiffs said the agency should have conducted a more in-depth
environmental impact statement because the assessment didn’t examine how
earlier grazing could lead to more conflict or how compounding effects of human
development in the valley that could limit grizzly bear connectivity.
Western
Environmental Law attorney Matthew Bishop argued for the wildlife groups that
the Forest Service used a baseline from 1998 of conditions on Forest Service
land and didn’t consider how increasing conflict in the area has led to more
grizzlies dying at human hands every year since. In 2021, for example, there
were 80 grizzly deaths and 20 were due to livestock conflict. Bishop also tried
to introduce more evidence showing that grizzly conflict is likely to increase
if the allotments are opened early in June because three- and four-month-old
calves would attract grizzlies looking for a meal. That’s especially the case
when grizzlies have lost some of their food sources, including whitebark pine
nuts and Yellowstone
cutthroat trout, in Greater Yellowstone.
“How concise is too concise? There’s a point at which an EA becomes so concise as to be devoid of any information.”–Kathleen DeSoto, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court of Montana
Federal
attorney Krystal-Rose Perez said the Forest Service used the 1998 baseline
because it’s applied in the Yellowstone Grizzly Conservation Management Plan
and it shows the amount of grazing hasn’t exceeded that baseline. Perez also
said the Forest Service looked at some of the issues Bishop brought up but
didn’t include the detail in the environmental assessment since it would have
made the document too long and the information can be found in other places.
Noting
that Forest Service used the 1998 baseline in relation to grazing while the
plaintiffs wanted the baseline to address the current status of grizzlies,
federal Magistrate Judge Kathleen DeSoto said the concept of baseline was “like
ships passing in the night.” She also questioned the fact that the
environmental assessment makes little or no mention that the Forest Service
looked at connectivity, increased calf depredation or cumulative effects of
surrounding development.
“The
EA is to be a brief concise document, but if it’s not mentioned in here at all,
how is the public supposed to know you took a hard look at connectivity?”
DeSoto said. “How concise is too concise? There’s a point at which an EA
becomes so concise as to be devoid of any information.”
Perez
said the argument that the allotments would interfere with connectivity was
just speculation and the plaintiffs hadn’t raised that question during the
public comment period. While the Forest Service had concluded there was a risk
to individual bears, there was not a risk to the entire species.
The study area encompassed ecosystems including the Northern Continental Divide, Cabinet-Yaak, Bitterroot, and Greater Yellowstone grizzly bear recovery zones and the current estimated occupied range of populations in and near the NCDE and GYE. Map courtesy Science Direct
“The
plaintiffs have to present some kind of evidence that there’s a potential for a
significant impact, but they haven’t shown that in any way,” Perez told the
judge. “The best [evidence] would be a conflict in these allotments. Instead,
there’s just speculation about a potential conflict.”
If
DeSoto were to find that the Forest Service hadn’t followed NEPA, she could
direct the agency to rewrite the environmental assessment to include the
details Perez said they decided not to include. The grazing allotments would
remain as they are. Perez said that would mean that the Forest Service wouldn’t
have to carry through with other activities outlined in the final decision such
as weed control or fencing.
Bishop
said the environmental assessment bypassed or overlooked too much information,
so he asked the judge to require the Forest Service to conduct a more detailed
environmental impact statement.
“The
9th Circuit explained the whole purpose of an EIS is to resolve uncertainty by
the further collection of data, and with the collection of data, it may prevent
speculation,” Bishop said. “That is the purpose of an EIS: to obviate need for
speculation. And that is the situation here.”
DeSoto didn't
tell the attorneys when she might issue a ruling, but it’s unlikely to be
before the end of the year. She will release the ruling before any grazing
would be allowed begin in June.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mountain Journal is a nonprofit, public-interest journalism organization dedicated to covering the wildlife and wild lands of Greater Yellowstone. We take pride in our work, yet to keep bold, independent journalism free, we need your support. Please donate here. Thank you.
Related Stories
August 19, 2024
Wilderness Proposal in Gallatin, Madison Ranges Sparks Debate
A new bill
hopes to establish 124,000 acres of Wilderness in the Gallatin and Madison
ranges adjacent to Yellowstone National Park. Is it...
April 3, 2024
If Grizzlies Delisted, Here's What Montana Plans to do
Is the Treasure State’s proposed Grizzly Bear Management Plan really a grizzly hunting plan?
October 20, 2023
Mapping Our Values
With 122,000 residents, Gallatin County is the fastest growing county in Montana. A working group recently unveiled its Sensitive Lands Protection...