58 



documentation for annual operating plans, allotment management plans and grazing permit 

 rftlssuanrp. The suit also sought an injunction against grazing during that grazing season. 

 While not named as defendants in the litigation, the permittees were obviously extremely 

 concerned about the prospects for utilizing their allotments during the coming grazing 

 season. I he permittees contracted legal counsel, and along with CCA and the California 

 Farm Bureau Federation, filed an amicus brief supporting the Forest's position. In our brief, 

 we argued that we should be involved in any discussions between the plaintiffs and FS 

 officials, and we were ultimately granted this right by the judge. These three-way 

 discussions resulted in a settlement which directed the Forest to schedule all allotments for 

 NEPA analysis while providing for interim grazing permits to be issued while such analysis 

 was pending. Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund 

 received payment from the U.S. government in the amount of $55,000, even though the 

 case never went to tr'iAl. On the other hand, the permittees incurred legal costs in excess 

 of $60,000, which they are still attempting to pay. During an era in which preservation 

 groups have had difficulty in raising funds through membership, access to government funds 

 through the court system has become quite attractive. 



This case, along with a similar case in Montana, was largely responsible for the 

 inclusion of language in thi Rescissions Act of 1S95 dealing with the reissuance of grazing 

 permits and the application of NEPA. This case also demonstrates the inequity in the Equal 

 Access to Justice Act. CCA could just as easily argue that the settlement was more favorable 

 to the permittees, yet neither the permittees nor CCA would be eligible for reimbursement 

 of legal fees by the federal government. 



I:U.ECISLAT^USFSA(>PL TST 



