Free Declaration - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 42-35

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT 31

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
. _"..1"1 :

.~,¡

----~.."
i" .

----.-.-

Document 42-35

Filed 08/15/2008

..-d-

._--- --'--~--

Page 2 of 4

~.
\I
File Code: 2210

Pale:

JUN 1 0 2005

Jiny Goss
Sacrn.ento Grazing Association
P.O.

Box 596

Weed,NM 88317

Dea Mr. Goss.
. T'liank -yóu'"ibr ýòtihiiiaate(rTêl~(£iIáCbjstiictlliigeiFr-iU 'M-a~1¡"iez f(~Ccvèd '~-May-20? "-.0" ---~

2005; regarding your decision whether or not to sign a new grazng permt for the Sacramento Allotment. In your leucr you asked Ranger Marinez to provide rationale andjustification why a new grazing pennit should be issued. I requested Riinger Marinez forward your letter to me for a response.

The Forest Servce opertes under a two tiered decision making proces. The fit tier consists of
with the National Forest Management Act management area and establish goals, (NFMA). TIiese plans identifY suitable multiple uses by' objectives,- and standards and guidelines to be followed os varous activities occu on the ground.
Forest Plans that have been devdoped in accrdance.

As new projec:s are planed they must becoßsisrelt wiùi rhe Forest Plans. Ongoing actvities

are to be brought into confOrmance with Fores Plans -a soon as practi~bie.

Permitted livestock gring is an ongoing activity tJat Inüst be brought into confonnance with
Forest Plans. A project level analysis evaluating the site specific impacts of

the grg actvity,

in confom1ance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NPA), is required in.order to
authorize livesLOck grazing on a specific allorment(s). This is in accrdance with standard

operating procedures set out by the agency so that actvities ar planned and 'cared out in complia.nce with relevant federal starnes.
..._._._ ,. _.._-'._ .' .___"'_.. ..-..01....'.._...._,._... The second tier of -..;-,..- ...-.-.. .-

. ___.0.,' . .. ~ .",' -._, ..~ ....~-..:~-.---.. :.:' -, ...-." .-- .~,,..

,-..,.~..-

the Forest Serice plaiuiing process, therefore, is site-specific NEPA analysis conducte on ongoing activities sueh as livest('ck grazing and new proposals-for project on

National Fores.i System lands. As the Forest Serice èompletes NEPA on individua grazng al1ótments or other project proposals, these activities must also adher to the requirements of
Section 7 of

the Endangered- Species Act. IfU1e Forest Serce detemines that an activity may

affect n federally listed species, then the action agency (Foret Serice) must request consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serice or the National Marne Fisheres Serce as appropriate.

In 1995 it became apparent to the Forest Servce that NEA could not be completed on a11 grazing allotments in the 16 contiguous western States in a tiely manner. With U1e increased vulnerability to lawsuits challenging ihe need to complete NEPA, Congress passed the Rescissions Act (PL 104-19, section 504) that require each National Forest to establish and adhere 10 a schedule for the completion ofNEPA analysis and decsions on all alJotients within

!î

Caring for the Land and ~rvjng People

Pmed CW Aec Pai 0

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
FROl
..

Document 42-35

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 3 of 4

Jimmy Goss

Pagelof3

the National Forest System for which NEPA analysis is neeed. Section 504 of

the Rescissions

Act authorized the -Forest Seivce to reissue expiring permits on the same tens and conditions the expired penit until NEPA 'is completed in accrdance with the and for ihe full ter of
schedule. However, as å1so reiterated in Section 504 of

the Rescissions Act the Forest Serce is

authorize thugh this process to reissue or modify.grazg permits to make them ,consistent

with the NEPA decision. .
Ranger Marinez' rationale for selecting Alterative B as the most appropriate management of the Sacramento Allotment js clearly document~d in the Record of Decsion he signed on July 28, 2004, through the NEPA process. You appe.,led the District Ranger's decision to both the Forest
Supervisor and the Regional forester under 36 'CFR 251 Subpar c. :eoth levels of appeal

included a detailed review oftbe projeci record and concluded Ranger Marez' decision was the resource conditions on the Sacrento' Allotment. based on a reasonable assessment of

-,-.--"

The Secretar of Agrculture's Regulations" 36 CFR 222.1, authorize and dire the Chief of

the
to re.delegate ths

Forest Servce ro develop, adIniiùster, and protect the range resources and peat and regulate
the grazing use of all kids arid classès of

livestock on all National Forest System lands and on

oLbi: lands under Forest Scrvce control. The Secctar allows the Chief

authority.

In addition to the Rescissions Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)

provides the Forest Serice, as an Agency within the Deparent ofAgreultur. with tle
authority to modify existing permits or issue a new permit following completion ofNEPA along
with development of

new allotment management plans. In cases where the Secretary conceed

(Interor or Agiculture) has not completed an allotment management plan, FLPMA authorize the Sccretar concerned to incorporate such tenns and conditions in pennts or leases as deemed
appropriate including the number of animals to be grazed and the season of

use. Furteiore,

the Secretary concemed may reexamine the condition ofthe Tange 8t any time and require
appropriate adjustments in management of

ragelands as thc Seceui deems appropriate.

Finally, your rcn grazing pemiit Par 2(6) provides that in order to update term and conditions, permits may be cancelled at. any time provided a new pemit is issued to the existing permt
È()I~er for _~.r:t:~.,te:rm of-iq y~ar~ .f~ii2,~n.g thts i:p.d.~tt':.,. _. _.:..~... _. ~.. __ . .-

In 3'ddilion to thc above~mentjoned laws; regulntions, and agency policy and operatig procedures. there is an existing Court ruling requirng the Foret Servce to modify the 1999 tenn
grazng permit for the Sacramento Allotment (the current permit which was reissued

in 1999

under the authority ofihe Rescissions Act) in order to make the pennit consistent with the 14, 2003, United States District Judge Parker issued a ruling in Lincoln Forest Plan. On April the matter of FOTesl Guardians v. United States Forest Service. et al. (CIV 00-490 JPIRLP) found and ordered the Consolidated. With respecE to Forest Guardians claims, the Cour, following:

1) The Forest Service violated the consultation requirement urder Section 7'oflhe Endangered Species ACl by fnilng to consult fully regarding the effect on the Mexican'spotted owl from the issuance of the 1999 grazng penit 'for the Sacramento

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
Jimmy Goss

Document 42-35

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 4 of 4
Poge 3 of3

Allotment. The Forest Serce and Fish and, .7 consultation on the issuance of

Allotment. .
consistent with the Lincoln-Forest PLan

Wildlife Serce must engage in Section

the 1999 grazig pennit for the Sacramento

2) The Forcst Service violnted the National Forest Management Act by failing to ensure that livestock grnzing under the1999 grazg pennit for the Sacramento Al10bncnt is consistent witl the Lincoln foiest Plan. The Forest Serce must modify tle 1999
term grazing perit for the Sacramento Allotment in order to make the pert

3) Forest Guardians' request that all grazg on the Sacramento Allotment be enjoined

pending compliance with the Endangered Species Act and National Forest
Management Act was dcnied.

In the consol1dated case, Sacramento Grazing Association v~ U.S. Departent of Agrcultue (CN 00-1240 JPIRP), the Sacramento Grazing Association's Motion for Summar Judgment
Grzing Associntion's permitte(lnumbers. In addition, the Cour deni,ed the Association's

was denied. Specifically, Ule Court affrmed Forest Serice deèisions to reduce the Sacrento

requestfor the reduction in elk on thc Sacrnento Allotment. The Cour enter finaljudgrent
in favor otthe Federal-Defendants and Stilte Defendnnts and dismissed the action with prejudice.

As you were advised on February 2, 2005, the second level appeal decision by my offce
constituted the final adininisirative'deterrination of

the Deparent of Agrculnie (36 CFR

25l.87(e)(3)J- Therefore, the next step is to either re-isgue a new tenn grazing pert or modify
tbe existing perit, including an updated allotment management plan, to be in compliance with
the Lincoln Nntional Forest Plan and, in the case of

the Sacramento -Allotment, United States

Distrct Judge Parker's mling dated Apri114, 2003.

Ra,nger Marinez is looking forward (0 workig wilh you in this regard. I urge you to meet with Ranger Martinez soon (0 work through the details.
Sincerely,

cc: David M Stewart Fra R Marinez, Jose M Màrinez Lucia Turer; Lar Cosper