Grazing Initiative Risks Endangered Wolves, Conservationists Warn 9th Circuit

Conservationists have urged the Ninth Circuit to compel the U.S. Forest Service to reassess a large-scale grazing initiative’s potential impact on the Mexican gray wolf’s survival and recovery. In a hearing held in a Phoenix courtroom, representatives from the Western Watersheds Project presented their case to a three-judge panel, highlighting concerns that cattle grazing in the Greater Gila Bioregion threatens the recovery of this endangered species. The region, straddling the Arizona-New Mexico border, is home to at least 26 sensitive species.

Since plummeting to just seven wolves in the 1980s, the Mexican gray wolf population has seen a significant rebound, now exceeding 200 individuals. However, conservationists argue that the Forest Service neglected the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to conduct a comprehensive environmental impact statement to evaluate the implications of grazing on this recovering population. They initially filed suit against the project in 2021 but were denied a summary judgment.

Of the 14 grazing allotments authorized by the Forest Service, only one indicated current wolf presence at the time of approval. Moreover, Forest Service attorney Kyle Glynn noted that there has been only one livestock-wolf conflict in that allotment, which did not result in the killing or removal of any wolves.

Glynn explained that the Stateline Project, which received approval in 2019 and commenced in 2020, did not introduce new livestock into the area. Instead, the project slightly reduces the overall grazing intensity over its planned ten-year span. “Grazing has been occurring for decades without leading to wolf removals from the wild,” he argued.

Given these factors, Glynn contended that the absence of any wolves in 13 out of the 14 allotments indicated that a formal environmental impact statement was unnecessary, as it posed no visible threat to the wolf population. However, conservationists sought to challenge this perspective. Kelly Nokes, representing them, argued that the Forest Service acknowledged the likelihood of wolf migration into these areas as their population grows, thereby warranting NEPA compliance.

Judge Richard Clifton raised an important question regarding the actual threat posed by the project, considering the reduced grazing approval. Nokes countered, stressing the dire state of the wolves’ genetic health, stemming from their lineage tracing back to merely seven individuals. She asserted that potential conflicts with livestock could have significant repercussions on the species’ already limited genetic diversity.

“We shouldn’t wait for something to go wrong to consider the impact of grazing on the species,” Nokes stated. However, the judges appeared skeptical that mere potential conflict necessitated an environmental impact statement. Judge Bridget Bade pointed out that the Stateline Project encompasses only 3.5% of the recovery area, which spans much of Arizona and New Mexico.

Nokes emphasized that grazing occurs beyond this limited area and should be considered in a broader context when assessing its cumulative impact on the Mexican gray wolf population. Glynn maintained that the Forest Service had taken into account the overall grazing situation, highlighting the continued steady growth of the wolf population over the last eight years with minimal conflict involving livestock.