## Facts

- The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers over one million acres of federal land in the Owyhee Resource Area in southwestern Idaho, including riparian corridors and streams supporting sensitive wildlife habitat.
- BLM completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 1981 evaluating grazing impacts and reported widespread poor or fair conditions linked to overgrazing.
- By the mid-1990s, BLM assessments again reported many Owyhee streams in unsatisfactory condition.
- In 1997, BLM issued 68 grazing permits to ranchers in the Owyhee area.
- Instead of preparing new NEPA documentation for these permits, BLM used one-page, preprinted forms stating the permits complied with the 1981 EIS.
- Environmental groups sued, alleging BLM violated NEPA by authorizing grazing without adequate, current environmental review given changed conditions.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment for plaintiffs on the NEPA claim and entered a permanent injunction requiring NEPA-compliant review and imposing interim grazing conditions during the review period, expected to take years.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by permanently enjoining BLM to conduct NEPA-compliant review for 68 grazing permits and by imposing interim grazing restrictions while review was completed.
2. Whether the injunction improperly functioned as mandamus or otherwise exceeded the court’s equitable authority by intruding on agency discretion.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction.
- The court held the district court acted within its discretion in ordering NEPA compliance for the permits and imposing interim grazing conditions to prevent irreparable environmental injury during the review period.
- The court rejected the argument that the injunction was improper mandamus, concluding it enforced a nondiscretionary procedural duty and applied traditional equitable factors.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA requires an agency to take a “hard look” at environmental consequences before undertaking major federal actions, including issuance of grazing permits.
- When an agency violates NEPA’s procedural requirements, a court may order effective equitable relief to ensure compliance and to prevent irreparable environmental harm while compliance occurs.
- Interim operational restrictions may be imposed during belated NEPA review when supported by the record and equitable balancing, so long as the court does not dictate substantive policy outcomes reserved to the agency.
- Permanent injunctions in NEPA cases are reviewed for abuse of discretion, with deference to supported district-court factfinding and balancing of hardships and public interest.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld a district court injunction requiring BLM to complete NEPA review for 68 grazing permits and to comply with interim grazing limits, holding that the relief properly enforced NEPA’s procedural mandate and prevented likely irreparable harm without unlawfully directing BLM’s substantive decisionmaking.


Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 307 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002)