Opinion ID: 4530963
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Consistency with Standard GM-1

Text: As described above, Standard GM-1 requires the agency to “[m]odify [its] grazing practices (e.g. accessibility of riparian areas to livestock, length of grazing season, stocking levels, timing of grazing, etc.)” to the extent that those grazing practices “retard or prevent attainment of [RMOs] or are likely to adversely affect inland native fish.” Moreover, it requires the agency to “[s]uspend grazing if adjusting practices is not effective in meeting [RMOs].” The record demonstrates that, during the period in question, the Forest Service did just that. It monitored riparian habitat conditions at local and watershed scales and considered the modification and suspension of grazing before, after, and during each year’s grazing season. Among other activities, it conducted annual monitoring in each allotment of several endpoint indicators (including stubble height, shrub browse, bank alteration, and upland utilization) designed to move stream characteristics toward RMOs; prepared Biological Assessments pursuant to the ESA at the allotment-level which explicitly analyzed conformity with RMOs and INFISH standards; analyzed RMO compliance through the PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion Effectiveness Monitoring Program (PIBO) throughout the entire period in question; and consulted informally in 2007 and formally in 2012 with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), each time receiving FWS approval of the Forest Service’s determination that its proposed livestock management was “not likely to adversely affect” bull trout or bull trout critical habitat. 13 13 ONDA argues that the Forest Service’s analyses are post-hoc and prepared for litigation purposes. Given that this lawsuit began in 2003, 20 ONDA V. USFS Given the cyclical nature of grazing, which, unlike a timber sale, is conducted on an annual basis with damage slowly accumulating over time, the Forest Service employs a multi-pronged approach to ensure consistency with its Forest Plan. This is especially reasonable given the ongoing nature of the obligation in Standard GM-1, which could require the Forest Service to take action before, during, or even after the pendency of a given grazing authorization. In Forest Guardians, we endorsed the Forest Service’s grazing program for similar reasons, holding that phasing in grazing reductions was a “reasonable response” and emphasizing that monitoring grazing, in spite of past failures, was “a rational decision.” 329 F.3d at 1098–99. Moreover, the grazing authorizations themselves contain specific measures protecting riparian habitats and make those measures subject to ongoing inspections and negotiations with Forest Service officers. Some of the grazing permits specifically refer to INFISH in their discussions of the permit’s temporal, spatial, and use-related limits on grazing, and the grazing authorizations’ limits protect RMO-related habitat features like stubble height, shrub browse, and bank stability. The record contains transcripts of meetings between allottees and Forest Service officials in which the protection of bull trout habitat is specifically discussed. And the Forest Service has on many occasions suspended or stopped grazing activity in response to potential effects on bull trout, indicating that it is not only all of the grazing permits in question in this case were issued after the commencement of litigation. Nevertheless, we note that the Forest Service’s analysis upon which this ruling is based includes materials throughout the period at issue—from 2006 through 2015. ONDA V. USFS 21 monitoring, but also enforcing plan standards related to the protection of bull trout habitats. Finally, we note that the Decision incorporating Standard GM-1 into the Forest Plan stresses its flexibility. The Decision notes that “RMOs should be refined to better reflect conditions that are attainable in a specific watershed or stream reach,” and “[i]t is not expected that the [RMOs] would be met instantaneously, but rather would be achieved over time,” See Great Old Broads for Wilderness v. Kimbell, 709 F.3d 836, 850 (9th Cir. 2013) (“INFISH does not require RMOs to be achieved as soon as they are announced; instead, they serve as benchmarks against which progress can be measured and degradation prevented.”). The Decision also notes that conforming to Standard GM-1 “will require professional judgement and should be based on a watershed analysis of local conditions.” Finally, the Decision contemplates partial compliance, stating that if one RMO is “met or exceeded, there may be some latitude in assessing the importance of the objectives for the other features that contribute to good habitat conditions.” The continuing struggles of the bull trout in the MNF are undoubtedly troubling. But the lesson of Lands Council is that is that we are not a “panel of scientists” and cannot review agency actions as such. 537 F.3d at 988. As an illustration of the wisdom of this approach, the record in this case demonstrates that many factors beyond livestock grazing could be fueling the bull trout’s decline. Other recognized factors include “the creation and management of [nearby] dams. . . irrigation withdrawals . . . past bull trout harvest, and introduction of non-native species (brook trout).” We defer to the Forest Service’s expertise in determining whether, given the many factors at play, and given its extensive monitoring and enforcement activities 22 ONDA V. USFS protecting bull trout habitats, it must modify or suspend grazing activity in order to comply with Standard GM-1. We hold that the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to the NFMA’s consistency requirement as applied to Standard GM-1 in issuing any of the challenged grazing authorizations.