Current work in wildlife, rivers, public lands, and climate

Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Groups Successfully Challenge Rubberstamp of Grazing in Wolf Areas

Forest Service permits ‘categorical exclusion’ of environmental analysis
Contact: WildEarth Guardians

Santa Fe, NM – Despite the threat to wolf recovery efforts from livestock conflicts,the Forest Service recently authorized continued livestock grazing in southwestern NewMexico without considering its impacts to wolves or giving the public a chance to weighin. This relatively new Forest Service practice, known as “categorical exclusion,”eliminates the democratic process that typically accompanies grazing managementdecisions on public land. Categorical exclusions are supposed to be used for noncontroversialmanagerial decisions. WildEarth Guardians and The Rewilding Instituteappealed the agency’s decision to categorically exclude continued livestock grazing onthe Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, forcing the Forest Service to rethink its new rubberstamp approach to management.

The illegal use of categorical exclusions in grazing permit renewals are an issue ofincreasing national importance, potentially affecting millions of acres of National Forests.In New Mexico, grazing management decisions for two allotments on the Gila NationalForest have piqued the interest of a regional environmental non-profit organization.“Since reintroduction efforts began in the Gila in 1998, public lands grazing has been thenumber one obstacle to successful wolf recovery in the Southwest. We’re glad the ForestService withdrew its rubberstamp of continued grazing in this area,” says Dr. NicoleRosmarino, Conservation Director of WildEarth Guardians.

“The use of categorical exclusions seems especially misplaced in areas designated for therecovery of threatened and endangered species,” says Rosmarino. “The authority tocategorically exclude grazing management decisions is not supposed to extend tosituations where grazing may impact federally protected species like the Mexican graywolf.”

When the Forest Service issued its decisions to categorically exclude grazing on the Gilaallotments from NEPA review, it further declared that those decisions could not beappealed by the public. WildEarth Guardians and The Rewilding Institute appealed thedecisions anyway, contending that the agency lacked the authority to keep it out of theadministrative process. Although the appeals have not been decided, the decisions tocategorically exclude the management decisions on the Gila have since been withdrawn.

“We feel confident that, due to our pressure, the Forest Service will now appropriatelyanalyze the environmental impacts of continued livestock grazing on these twoallotments,” says Rosmarino. “We expressed our concerns that grazing on the Gila iscontinuing to stifle Mexican wolf recovery, and the Forest Service heard us. Hopefullythey will better accommodate wolves in their grazing management decisions in the futureby requiring better animal husbandry practices and taking proactive steps to relieve thepotential for wolf-livestock conflicts.”

WildEarth Guardians has brought a series of lawsuits and administrative appeals with thegoal of protecting native wildlife and the ecosystems they inhabit from the detrimentalimpacts of livestock grazing. To date, the group has won important protections for manyof the species dependent on healthy ecosystems on National Forests, such as reducing thenumber of cattle that can graze in key sensitive habitats and barring cattle from a numberof streams and rivers throughout the southwest, including 300 river miles in the Gila.

The group argues that the continued presence of livestock on public lands isfundamentally incompatible with restoring the balance of nature on many ecologicallysensitive public lands in the southwest.

For more information, including the Forest Service’s decisions to withdraw thecategorical exclusions, contact Dr. Nicole Rosmarino at nrosmarino@fguardians.org or505-988-9126×156.