Those who are familiar with the landscape of central Idaho can attest to the area’s wonderful natural qualities. It is well known for its dramatic scenery, is home to a large variety of fish and wildlife, and is one of the more popular outdoor recreation areas in Idaho, recognized by the establishment of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. Yet the Forest Service recently authorized continued sheep grazing on four allotments in the heart of this landscape. The agency issued this decision despite opposition by WWP and many others, who were concerned about continued degradation to riparian areas, upland vegetation, and recreational values. Once the final decision was issued, however, the only recourse was to file a lawsuit challenging the Forest Service’s “North Sheep” decision.

On February 7, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho concluded that WWP’s primary legal claims in this lawsuit were correct, and declared the North Sheep decision unlawful. We had brought a number of legal challenges based on several different environmental laws, but focused primarily on two major issues.

The primary issue we addressed in our lawsuit involved whether the Forest Service can authorize grazing on lands it determined were not physically capable of supporting livestock grazing. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and its regulations require that the agency conduct an analysis in its forest plans to determine which lands are capable of supporting grazing. The Sawtooth National Forest did such an analysis, determining that only 25% of the land within the forest could support grazing. This was due to the steep slopes, high potential for soil erosion, and poor forage production that exist across the majority of the forest. Yet, when it authorized sheep use for the North Sheep allotments, the Sawtooth ignored its own capability analysis and did not restrict grazing to those areas that were considered capable. The agency argued that it needed to assess capability only in the forest plan, and NFMA did not require it to apply that analysis to the North Sheep decision.

The Court ruled that the agency’s interpretation violated NFMA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Court stated that the capability analysis “cannot be discarded once the forest plan is completed.” Instead, the agency must use that analysis as a baseline. It can then make adjustments to the analysis based on site-specific studies done later on the particular allotments at issue. If the site-specific studies show that adjustments to the analysis are necessary, the agency may then rely on this more site-specific capability analysis when making its determination about grazing levels and locations. Because the Forest Service simply ignored the capability analysis from the forest plan and never discussed or assessed capability with regard to the North Sheep allotments, it violated both NFMA and NEPA.

In a related issue, the Court also ruled that the Sawtooth had violated NFMA because it had not assessed the capability of the allotments to provide habitat for sage grouse and pileated woodpecker. Like for livestock, NFMA requires the agency to assess which lands have the characteristics necessary to provide habitat for management indicator species such as sage grouse and pileated woodpecker. On lands that are capable of providing this habitat, the agency must assess whether the lands are in satisfactory condition, and if not must determine what actions are necessary to restore them. The Court concluded that the agency had not done any of these steps for sage grouse or pileated woodpecker in violation of NFMA.

Finally, the Court also found in our favor on our other major claim. The Forest Service acknowledged that many standards and objectives from the forest plan were not being met on these four allotments due to livestock grazing that was occurring there. The Forest Service then claimed in the North Sheep decision that its new grazing scheme would comply with all Plan standards, largely because of its new “adaptive management” approach, which did not impose changes to grazing practices but promised to monitor conditions. The Court ruled that this approach was not sufficient to show that the forest was acting consistent with the forest plan, as required by NFMA, because the agency did not explain the strategy or the monitoring protocols, and thus the Court could not tell whether or not the Forest Service complied with the Plan standards.

While this decision by the Court applies to these particular allotments, it has implications that could reach much further. The Judge’s legal rulings about what NFMA requires for capability analysis and use of adaptive management strategies are not tied strictly to the facts of this case. The agency would be welladvised to pay attention to this well-reasoned opinion when making future decisions. Thank you!