Opinion ID: 145270
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prior Violations

Text: In its November 18, 2005, cancellation decision, the Forest Service recounted Buckingham's history of non-compliance with his grazing permits, occurring between 1998 and 2004, in addition to his 2005 violations. Buckingham argues that the Forest Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously by considering any violations that occurred before his 2005 grazing permit issued. According to Buckingham, [i]ssues of compliance within any preceding permit period cannot form the basis for non-compliance under the current permit. Since at least as early as 1897, when Congress enacted the Forest Service Organic Administration Act, the Forest Service has been charged with preserving our nation's priceless woodlands from destruction. See 16 U.S.C. § 551. To that end, the Forest Service has broad authority to issue grazing permits. Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 329 F.3d 1089, 1097 (9th Cir.2003) (citing 36 C.F.R. § 222.3). It also has broad authority to cancel or suspend a grazing permit if a permittee does not comply with the provisions and requirements of that permit or governing regulations. See 36 C.F.R. § 222.4(a)(4). That authority was spelled out for Buckingham in the very language of the 2005 grazing permit he signed. For years, the Forest Service exercised exceptional restraint in dealing with Buckingham. After his repeated failures to comply with the terms of his grazing permit, despite numerous warnings and sanctions, the Forest Service determined that enough was enough and that complete termination of his grazing rights was appropriate. The Forest Service recognizes that permit cancellations are serious sanctions. As a result, it [a]pproach[es] permit cancellation with discretion. Forest Service Handbook 2209.13, Grazing Permit Administration Handbook [hereinafter FSH 2209.13 (1992)], Section 16 .2 (1992), available at h ttp://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/ Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2209.13 (follow 2209.13, 16-19.rtf hyperlink) (last visited Apr. 19, 2010). But its directives acknowledge that prior offenses may be relevant to a cancellation determination. See id. (Total cancellation is seldom justified in first offense cases unless violation is flagrant and willful. (emphasis added)). Cancellation for an isolated offense would be inappropriate in most cases because [n]on-compliance with the term grazing permit terms and conditions are generally cumulative. FSH 2209.13, Section 16.4. As a result, any and all recent prior occurrences of non-compliance with permit terms and conditions should be considered in determining repeat offenses, including offenses from previous grazing seasons. Id. Although some of Buckingham's cited violations stretched back to 1998, these were not isolated events, but the beginning of a lengthy history of substantially identical violations, which were still occurring in the 2005 grazing season. Buckingham was no first-time offender. As a result, the Forest Service possessed the authority to deem complete cancellation to be the appropriate sanction, and its ultimate decision to do so was not arbitrary or capricious. See 36 C.F.R. § 222.4(a)(4) (The Chief, Forest Service, is authorized to cancel, modify, or suspend grazing and livestock use permits in whole or in part . . . if the permittee does not comply with provisions and requirements in the grazing permit or the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture on which the permit is based.) (emphasis added); FSH 2209.13 (1992), Section 16.23 (Suspension or cancellation is warranted if permittee livestock graze. . . on lands outside the permitted area[.]). Buckingham responds with a citation to 36 C.F.R. § 222.3. That regulation states in relevant part: A term permit holder has first priority for receipt of a new permit at the end of the term period provided he has fully complied with the terms and conditions of the expiring permit. Id. § 222.3(c)(1)(ii). He construes this regulation to mean that when the Forest Service issued him his grazing permit in May 2005, it necessarily determined that Buckingham had fully complied with the terms of his previous permits, mooting any past violations he may have had under those prior permits. Buckingham's response is creative but unpersuasive. In May 2005, the Forest Service did not issue him a new permit. Rather, it issued him a revised permit, valid for the remaining three years of the ten-year term of his 1999 permit, [3] reflecting the reduced usage he was entitled to as a result of his failure to comply with the terms of his 1999 permit. Further, the Forest Service obviously did not issue him his 2005 permit based upon a decision that he had fully complied with the terms of his prior permit; the 2005 permit was issued because Buckingham had violated the terms of the 1999 permit. Buckingham cannot reasonably argue that the Forest Service's issuance of the 2005 permit was a tacit approval of his compliance with his 1999 permit. Moreover, Buckingham concedes that the Forest Service could consider his violations of the 2005 permit in deciding to suspend or cancel his 2005 permit. Buckingham's repeated violations of the 2005 permit alone were serious. His 2005 permit was issued in May 2005. As soon as July 2005, the Forest Service had to send him another notice of non-compliance for having 42 head of livestock in the Buttermilk Meadows Unit. Forest Service personnel later observed Buckingham's livestock in unauthorized pastures on August 12, 13, 23, and 25, triggering the notices that issued on August 18 and September 9, 2005. Then, Forest Service personnel reported Buckingham's livestock in unauthorized pastures on September 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 26, 28, and 29. Based on the violations occurring in the 2005 grazing season alone, the Forest Service had a reasonable basis for cancelling Buckingham's 2005 permit.