Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Grantham
| Decision Date | 08 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:11-cv-01647 MCE-CMK,2:11-cv-01647 MCE-CMK |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILDLANDS CENTER and KLAMATH FOREST ALLIANCE, Plaintiffs, v. PATRICIA GRANTHAM, Forest Supervisor, Klamath National Forest, KEN HARRIS, District Ranger, Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District, Klamath National Forest, and U.S. FOREST SERVICE, Defendants. |
Through the present action, Plaintiffs Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center and the Klamath Forest Alliance (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs" unless otherwise indicated) seek to establish that the Klamath National Forest has violated both the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 4231, et seq., and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 ("NFMA"), 16 U.S.C. § 1600, et seq., in authorizing livestock grazing under the so-called Oak Knoll Range Project.
Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment on grounds that said claims present no genuine dispute of material fact, and that Plaintiffs are accordingly entitled to judgment as a matter of law in accordance with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 Defendants, in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion, have filed a cross motion for summary judgment on their own behalf alleging that the Forest Service's re-authorization of livestock grazing in the site-specific Oak Knoll Range Project ("the Project") in fact complied with the terms of both NEPA and the NFMA. Defendants contend that the Forest Service's decision not to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement for the project was therefore proper.
BACKGROUND
The parties agree that grazing along the Siskiyou Crest, which divides the Klamath National Forest ("KNF") on the south and the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest ("RRSNF") on the north, has been authorized for well over a century. Plaintiffs nonetheless assert that the Siskiyou Crest, which straddles the California-Oregon border, is an area of incredible biological diversity containing the largest concentration of intact watersheds and roadless areas remaining in the Pacific Northwest. According to Plaintiffs, the area's high elevation meadows and riparian areas host hundreds of different rare and sensitive plant and animal species.
As Defendants point out, however, Congress has long expressly allowed grazing as a permissible use of forest lands, even in designated wilderness areas. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 ("MUSYA"), 16 U.S.C. §§ 528-531, establishes a policy of using national forests for a variety of purposes, including grazing. ]d. at § 528. Similarly, the NFMA also directs that a multiple-use approach to land use be adopted. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(e)(1).In addition to these broad statutory directives, the Land and Resource Management Plan ("LRMP") for the KNF itself expressly authorizes grazing within the KNF, stating that vegetation is to be managed "to provide for healthy ecosystems and to make forage available on a sustainable basis for use by livestock, wildlife, and wild horses." Administrative Record for the Oak Knoll Range Project ("AR") 5233.2 The KNF points out that the Standards and Guidelines for range use include the preparation of environmental analyses for grazing allotments under NEPA and the provision of yearly management direction to grazing permittees, along with species protection and utilization guidelines in various kinds of range conditions. AR 5281-85.
The area encompassed by the Project at issue in this lawsuit contains three different grazing areas (the so-called East Beaver, Ash Creek and Hornbrook allotments) that in total comprise some 84,644 acres, only some 48,423 acres of which are actually located on National Forest System lands. AR 259. About 80 percent of the allotment area is located in Siskiyou County, California, with the remaining 20 percent situated in Jackson County, Oregon. The Environmental Assessment ("EA") prepared for the Project, however, determined that despite this sizeable area (all of which is situated along the southern side of the Siskiyou Crest), only some 3,855 acres of the National Forest property was actually suitable for grazing purposes on a sustained basis. See AR 259, 282-83.
Because of the lack of natural barriers along the Siskiyou Ridge and due to the impracticality of maintaining fences along the vast border, both sides agree that there has been a history of permitted livestock from both the KNF and the RRSN "drifting" from allotments in one forest to the other. See, e.g., AR 3541-42, 4273. The parties further concede that both the KNF and the RRSNF have worked over the years to address livestock drift and the potential it poses for excess use of various grazing allotments.To that end, both forests formulated the so-called Siskiyou Crest Rangeland Management Strategy ("SCRMS") as a means of systematically addressing the issue. The SCRMS was first implemented in 1994 and efforts to refine the policy continue to the present. According to KNF, with the refinement of this joint management strategy over the years, the numbers drift has steadily decreased, with an average less than 60 KNF cows being reported on the RRSNF during recent years. See, e.g., AR 3230-32, 3217-20, 3360, 3331-37, 3344-59, SAR 104-118; see also Second Declaration of Stephanie M. McMorris, ¶ 10.
According to the KNF, the Project was developed to meet the need to continue authorized livestock grazing, and to ensure NEPA compliance on the East Beaver, Ash Creek and Hornbrook allotments it encompasses. In proposing the Project, the KNF recognized public demand from qualified livestock operators for continued livestock grazing in these allotments. AR 265. Only two permittees are authorized to graze cattle on the East Beaver allotment, and the remaining two allotments allow a single permittee. AR 263-64. Currently, one permittee holds permits to graze on all three allotments, and a second permittee is authorized to use the East Beaver allotment. AR 1222-24. Both individuals have held permits for their respective allotments since the 1970s and 1980s.
The Project at issue herein permits continued livestock grazing on the three allotments in question for a period of ten years. The 106-page EA analyzing the project was circulated for public comment in July of 2010. The EA identified cattle drift onto the RRSNF as a "significant issue" for consideration. AR 266. In order to address that concern, the EA outlines an Adaptive Management Strategy ("AMS") to be implemented for all three allotments. The proposed AMS is designed to improve trends in rangeland vegetation condition, stream condition, and forage utilization through the use of monitoring and, if necessary, corrective management actions. AR 165-66. In addition, two sets of corrals are envisioned for the assistance of livestock management on the East Beaver allotment. Id.In the event that initial measures are insufficient, other management actions (like building drift fences, using a full time rider, or decreased permitted livestock numbers) are envisioned until desired utilization conditions are reached. AR 276, 248.
The Project EA further incorporated the Siskiyou Crest Rangeland Management Strategy ("SCRMS"), as modified by both forests in May of 2010, as a means to collect information on the frequency and duration of KNF permitted cattle. The SCRMS required that vegetation utilization monitoring be performed annually in areas of the RRSNJ most subject to KNF cattle drift, and further required monitoring throughout the grazing season to identify drift cattle by both Forest Service personnel and KNF grazing permittees. Those permittees were required under the SCRMS to check and remove wayward KNF livestock at least every seven days, and to take appropriate corrective action within three days with respect to drift-prone animals by way of culling or removal. Failure to adhere to these monitoring guidelines would subject permittees to escalating administrative actions, including potential suspension of grazing privileges as necessary. AR 4462, 276, 356-57.
The EA looked at three other alternatives to address cattle drift in addition to the proposed action. Those alternatives included fencing along the Siskiyou Crest (rejected as prohibitively expensive), establishing a common grazing allotment between the two forests (rejected because planning and permitting cycles did not coincide and would not eliminate drift into RRSNF areas closed to grazing in any event) and excluding livestock altogether from the northern portion of the KNF allotments (rejected because most of suitable rangeland and forage was located near the Crest, and because limiting cattle to the lower part of the allotments would not be feasible in any event without cost-prohibitive fencing). AR 278-79.
Scoping letters were initially issued for the Project in December of 2009. AR 265-66. The RRSNF responded by requesting only that a statement about the impacts of cattle drift to their permittees be included in the analysis. AR 791, 786. A statement to that effect was included in the October 2010 EA Addendum and Amendment. AR 248.After considering the comments received, the KNF issued a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact ("FONSI") on December 29, 2010. AR 164-230. The Project was thereafter upheld on administrative appeal on March 25, 2011. AR 1, 8. The present lawsuit challenges that decision.
Plaintiffs argue that unauthorized livestock drift from KNF allotments on the south side of the Crest to the lusher northern slopes of the RRNF has been, and continues to be, a problem ever since grazing began to be permitted. Plaintiffs contend that wayward cattle trample fragile meadow and riparian ecosystems, strip vegetation from stream banks and damage pristine plant habitat. Plaintiffs contend that the number of trespassing animals has not improved in recent years as the EA suggests. They argue that continued drift, and the resulting trampling and...
To continue reading
Request your trial