Published 9:00 am Wednesday, September 27, 2023
Federal rangeland managers are increasingly falling behind on environmental evaluations of Western grazing allotments, according to an environmental lawsuit that livestock groups say misrepresents reality.
The complaint, filed by two environmental groups, claims the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has allowed grazing to continue on rangelands with degraded conditions and sensitive habitats without conducting National Environmental Policy Act reviews.
“In many instances, BLM has twice renewed 10-year grazing permits without conducting any NEPA analysis for environmentally important allotments or allotments failing Land Health Standards,” according to the lawsuit filed by the Western Watersheds Project and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility nonprofits.
However, livestock industry representatives say the plaintiffs are underhandedly criticizing the BLM for not meeting expectations they know are unrealistic.
It’s not feasible for the agency to perform extensive environmental evaluations on every grazing allotment whose management hasn’t substantially changed, said Matt McElligott, president-elect of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association.
“That’s just impossible. There’s not enough manpower in the BLM to do that and they know it,” he said. “Their goal is to remove livestock from Western public lands.”
The plaintiffs allege the BLM’s data show that 63% of current grazing permits have been authorized without any NEPA analysis, with the proportion even higher for allotments containing “special resources,” such as protected species habitat.
Meanwhile, the percentage of grazing allotments reauthorized each year without a NEPA review has been rising, from 28% in 2013 to 54% in 2021, according to the complaint. “BLM has renewed many grazing permits two or more times without conducting any NEPA review, which means those permits have had no NEPA analysis for 15-20 years or more.”
The Public Lands Council, which represents ranchers who rely on federal allotments, claims the lawsuit has inaccurately manipulated the agency’s statistics to fit its narrative.
“It’s not an honest representation of the BLM data or the status of environmental analysis,” said Kaitlynn Glover, the council’s executive director.
Every grazing authorization is actually evaluated under NEPA, though not every allotment is subject to more rigorous forms of review, such as environmental impact statements, Glover said. Instead, the agency may determine allotments are “categorically excluded” from such higher-level analysis because they don’t have a significant environmental impact.
The plaintiffs have ignored this nuance to pretend that applying a categorical exclusion bypasses legal requirements, which is incorrect, she said. “You only arrive at that conclusion by disregarding an entire NEPA process.”
The lawsuit also doesn’t mention that environmental groups file legal challenges that disrupt the completion of NEPA reviews with which they disagree, Glover said. “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.”
The plaintiffs have launched a broad attack against livestock grazing on public land with the intent of having the federal government pay their litigation costs, said McElligott of OCA. “They’re just hoping something sticks to the wall.”
Filing the complaint in Washington, D.C., is meant to take advantage of a federal court that’s far removed and unfamiliar with Western grazing issues, he said. “It’s no mistake that’s where they filed it.”
A representative of BLM said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
The complaint alleges that BLM has completed NEPA analysis at an even lower rate for allotments that intersect with environmentally significant areas that should be prioritized for reviews.
For example, the agency has fully processed only 25% of grazing allotments under NEPA that overlap with critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, compared to 37% of those without such habitat, the complaint said. Similarly, 21% of allotments with sage grouse habitat have been fully processed under NEPA, compared to 38% for those without it.
“Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to rectify BLM’s widespread delinquency in completing NEPA analysis for grazing allotments, particularly those that overlap significant environmental resources,” according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit essentially wants BLM to prioritize NEPA analyses differently than it currently does, even though Congress and federal courts recognize the agency’s expertise and ability to make such decisions, said Glover of PLC.
“At the core, these groups are saying they don’t like the way the agency is going through this process and want to see it changed,” she said. “These groups are trying to impose their own will on the agency’s schedule.”
