On October 20, 2025, three environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the United States Forest Service (“USFS”) to challenge its 2019 Colville National Forest Land Management Plan (“Forest Plan”) and the subsequent grazing authorizations for various grazing allotments in the Colville National Forest. The plaintiffs argue that although USFS acknowledged that overgrazing has negatively impacted ecosystems in the Colville Forest while drafting the 2019 Forest Plan, the final plan failed to reduce levels of grazing. In their complaint, the plaintiffs asked that the court send the 2019 Forest Plan back to USFS for further evaluation and restrict grazing activities in the Colville Forest.
Background
The Colville Forest, located in eastern Washington state, covers 1.1 million acres in the northern Rocky Mountains. Like most national forests, the Colville Forest supports multiple uses, including timber harvesting, livestock grazing, and various recreational uses. It also provides habitat for numerous fish and wildlife species, including species protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. The Colville is managed according to multiple federal statutes that govern how federal agencies administer public lands.
The National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”) is the primary federal statute governing the management of national forests. Under NFMA, USFS is tasks with developing and maintaining what are known as Land and Resource Management Plans, often referred to simply as a “Forest Plan,” for each national forest. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(a). These plans are intended to set management objectives for the entire forest and provide for multiple uses, including outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and the protection of watersheds, riparian areas, wilderness, and fish and wildlife species. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(e). Along with developing Forest Plans, NFMA also requires USFS to adopt regulations that lay out guidelines for each plan. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3). Among other things, the guidelines must “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives[.]” 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3)(B). NFMA regulations clarify that “capability” refers to “the potential of an area of land to produce resources” taking into account conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology. 1982 Rules § 219.3. “Suitability,” meanwhile, is defined as “the appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of economic and environmental consequences and the alternative uses foregone.” 1982 Rules § 219.3. In other words, NFMA requires USFS to draft Forest Plans that take into account both the potential a certain area has to produce resources, and which resource management practices are appropriate for that area of land. In general, Forest Plans are expected to be reviewed once every 15 years. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(f)(5).
While NFMA governs the management of national forests specifically, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”) governs the management of public lands generally, and includes specific provisions regarding the management of federally permitted livestock grazing on such lands. Under FLPMA, USFS allows livestock grazing on “allotments” within national forests. 43 U.S.C. § 1752. In general, grazing allotments are managed according to Allotment Management Plans (“AMP”) and grazing permits which are issued pursuant to such plans. An AMP is a planning document which outlines the actions that will be taken to meet objectives USFS has described for the particular allotment, including the “manner in and extent to which livestock operations will be conducted” in order to meet the multiple use goals of the area. 36 C.F.R. § 222.1(b). A grazing permit grants the permittee a license to graze livestock on federal land and describes the number, kind, and class of livestock to be grazed, as well as the allotment that the permit is for and the period of use, typically ten years. 36 C.F.R. §§ 222.1-222.4. AMPs and grazing permits must all be consistent with the Forest Plan developed under NFMA. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i). In this way, NFMA and FLPMA work together to govern grazing uses in national forests.
The third federal statute that directs USFS in its management of national forests is the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). NEPA requires all federal agencies to publish a “detailed statement” describing the “reasonably foreseeable environmental effects” of their proposed agency actions 42 U.S.C. § 4332. This detailed statement is known as an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) and must include information related to the expected environmental impacts of a proposed agency action, any adverse impacts that cannot be avoided, and alternatives to the proposed action including a “no action” alternative. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). NEPA is a procedural statute, which means that to comply with the law, an agency does not need to achieve a particular substantive outcome, but it must go through the NEPA process for each proposed action. On national forests, USFS is expected to complete the NEPA process for Forest Plans developed under NFMA, and AMPs and grazing permits issued under FLPMA.
Present Lawsuit
In 2019, USFS issued an updated Forest Plan for the Colville National Forest. Along with the final Forest Plan, USFS also issued an accompanying EIS document. The Colville currently contains 58 grazing allotments which all support cattle grazing. In the EIS that USFS drafted for the Colville Forest Plan, it noted that only about one third of the acreage covered by those 58 grazing allotments is both capable of sustaining cattle grazing and suitable for that use. While the EIS noted that grazing had caused ecological impacts in the Colville, it did not explore different levels of grazing intensity in its action alternatives or analyze the effects of grazing alternatives or different management objectives. The 2019 Forest Plan did not make any changes to the number of AMPs in the Colville or the number of grazing permits issued. The plaintiffs in Western Watersheds Project v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 2:25-cv-00418 (W.D. Wash. 2025) filed suit to challenge continued grazing on the Colville, arguing that USFS has violated NFMA and NEPA by issuing the 2019 Forest Plan without making reductions in grazing.
First, the plaintiffs claim that USFS violated NFMA by failing to adjust the intensity of grazing, number of livestock grazed, and the areas in which grazing is allowed in the Colville in conjunction with the capability and suitability analysis USFS did in the 2019 Forest Plan and EIS. The plaintiffs note NFMA and its regulations require Forest Plans to include an analysis of the “suitability and capability” of land for particular uses, with “suitability” referring to the resource management practices that are appropriate for a certain area, and “capability” referring to the potential of an area to produce resources based on environmental conditions such as climate, geology, and soil. Additionally, NFMA directs USFS to “determine forest management systems, harvesting levels, and procedures in light of […] the availability of lands and their suitability for resource management.” 16 U.S.C. § 1604(e)(2). While both the 2019 Forest Plan and accompanying EIS noted that only a third of the land covered by grazing allotments in the Colville is both capable of and suitable for supporting grazing, the Forest Plan did not reduce the amount of acres grazed or the number of livestock permitted on the allotments. Because the Forest Plan failed to limit grazing based on its capability and suitability analysis, the plaintiffs argue that the Plan violates NFMA.
Similarly, the plaintiffs argue that USFS violated NFMA by failing to update the AMPs and grazing permits issued for the Colville to conform with the 2019 Forest Plan. NFMA provides that “permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands shall be consistent with the land management plans,” and that “[w]hen land management plans are revised, resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments, when necessary, shall be revised as soon as practicable.” 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i). Because the 2019 Forest Plan did not make any changes to existing AMPs or grazing permits despite the conclusion that two thirds of the land covered by the AMPs were not suitable for grazing, the plaintiffs argue that USFS has violated NFMA.
The plaintiffs also claim that the final EIS which accompanies the 2019 Forest Plan violates NEPA. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the EIS violates NEPA by both failing to consider a reasonably range of grazing alternatives and by failing to fully analyze the ecological effects of grazing in the Colville. Under NEPA, each EIS must consider the environmental impacts of the action it has proposed, along with a reasonable range alternatives to the action including a “no action” alternative. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(iii). While drafting the 2019 EIS, USFS identified livestock grazing as one of the environmental concerns in the Colville National Forest. However, all of the action alternatives analyzed in the final EIS included the same level and intensity of grazing, including the “no action” alternative. Because USFS did not analyze any action alternatives that included less or no grazing in the Colville, the plaintiffs argue that the 2019 EIS violates NEPA. Similarly, the plaintiffs allege that the 2019 EIS failed to fully analyze the ecological impacts of livestock grazing on the Colville AMPs. The plaintiffs claim that while the final EIS considered the current impacts of livestock grazing, it did not analyze the impacts that continued grazing at the current rate and levels would have on the Colville for the next 15 years until USFS once again revisits the Forest Plan. Because the 2019 EIS failed to fully analyze the future impacts of grazing in the Colville, the plaintiffs argue that it violates NEPA.
Going Forward
The plaintiffs in Western Watersheds Project v. U.S. Forest Serv. Have asked the court to both send the Forest Plan and EIS back to USFS for further review and to halt grazing in the Colville National Forest until USFS brings both documents into compliance with NFMA and NEPA. While the lawsuit has only just been filed and will likely take some time to work through the court system, if the plaintiffs are successful, it could result in grazing permits issued for the Colville becoming effectively invalid. National forests throughout the western United States allow grazing under NFMA, FLPMA, and NEPA, but outdated or recently revised Forest Plans can result in legal challenges. However the court rules, it could help set precedent for forest management throughout the region.
To read the complaint in Western Watersheds Project v. U.S. Forest Serv., click here.
To read the text of NFMA, click here.
To read the text of NEPA, click here.
To read the text of FLPMA, click here.
For more National Agricultural Law Center resources on environmental law, click here.