PORTLAND — A federal judge has denied a temporary restraining order sought by environmental groups that would block grazing in six Eastern Oregon pastures.

U.S. District Judge Michael Simon said the environmental plaintiffs haven’t shown that turning cattle out on the pastures will cause irreparable harm to sage grouse or to rangeland research.

Continued grazing isn’t likely to irreparably harm the ability of environmental plaintiffs to enjoy undisturbed sagebrush grassland, since the pastures have long been grazed and are commonly rested on a rotating basis, he said.

Any hardship suffered by the environmental nonprofits is also “minimal” compared to the harm that a temporary restraining order would cause Cahill Ranches near Adel, Ore., which relies on an affected pasture to turn out cattle, the judge said.

“Several families’ livelihoods depend on Cahill, which in turn depends on the ability to use public lands for its livestock operations,” said Simon, noting that the public interest also doesn’t weigh in favor of a temporary restraining order.

Six other ranches are also seeking to intervene in the case, which was filed against the U.S. Bureau of Land Management by the nonprofits Oregon Natural Desert Association, Audubon Society of Portland and Defenders of Wildlife.

Aside from seeking a temporary restraining order to stop cattle from being turned out on six pastures in April, the environmental plaintiffs have requested a broader preliminary injunction against grazing on a total of 13 Oregon pastures.

“There are a lot of other places the cattle can go,” said Mac Lacy, attorney for the environmental groups during oral arguments March 28. “The permittees, we believe, have greatly overstated the harm they may suffer.”

Grazing in the 13 pastures must end to allow for research into its impacts on sage grouse habitat, which has already been delayed to the detriment of that species and the environment, he said.

“Economic harm never outweighs irreparable environmental harm,” Lacy said.

The environmental plaintiffs would suffer “severe” hardship from continued grazing, but the impact on BLM would be minimal while the affected ranchers have been on notice for years that livestock would be barred from the pastures for research, he said.

“It’s hard to accept the permittees were somehow caught by surprise,” Lacy said, noting that the plan to stop grazing was enacted seven years ago, while the ranchers were formally notified two years ago.

Attorneys for the BLM and Cahill Ranches, which intervened in the lawsuit, argued that a temporary restraining order isn’t justified because livestock grazing won’t cause irreparable harm to sage grouse populations, the environment or the nonprofits.

Barring livestock would be an “extraordinary remedy” that would be far more detrimental to the ranch than any harms to the environmental plaintiffs if grazing continues another year, the defendants argued.

“At core, the plaintiffs’ argument is one of impatience rather than harm,” said Arwyn Carroll, attorney for BLM. “They have not identified any data that would be lost or not collected if the closures don’t happen this season.”

According to ONDA, grazing must be prohibited in the 13 pastures to allow for research on the sage grouse under a broader 2015 conservation plan for the species across the West, where its populations have been falling for decades.

These 13 “research natural areas” were originally required under a conservation plan developed during the Obama administration but dropped from a revised version enacted by the Trump administration.

However, a 2019 federal court order in a separate case reinstated the original conservation plan that required grazing to end in the 13 pastures. The environmental groups then filed the lawsuit alleging the federal government has unlawfully failed to implement the livestock-free “research natural areas.”

The BLM counters that it must follow bureaucratic processes before halting grazing within the 13 pastures, such as studying the environmental impacts of building necessary fences to keep cattle out.

“Fences don’t spring into existence at the stroke of a pen,” said Carroll, noting that fences are “not the most environmentally friendly way” to close pastures due to the effects on wildlife and plant species. For that reason, BLM is studying alternative methods.

Ending grazing permits requires additional regulatory steps that take time but the agency hasn’t issued new ones, according to BLM. The delay in implementing the “research natural areas” hasn’t been unreasonable in light of those hurdles.

“BLM has complied with that requirement and has not issued any new permits for those pastures,” Carroll said. “The plan does not create a deadline. It doesn’t use the mandatory language one would expect to see in a deadline.”

The environmental plaintiffs want to block grazing in pastures that have met rangeland health standards, so continued livestock grazing is unlikely to cause population-level effects on the sage grouse, according to BLM. Invasive weeds and other fuels for wildfires are also reduced by grazing, benefiting the public interest.

Meanwhile, halting grazing would force the Joe Cahill, the ranch’s owner, to take drastic measures, such as reducing his cattle herd, feeding expensive hay, finding other forage ground, or disrupting irrigation schedules, the defendants said.

“We don’t know what the options are until he knocks on doors to find alternative pasture,” said Caroline Lobdell, the ranch’s attorney.