## Facts

- Environmental organizations and an individual member challenged Interior Department and BLM final rules and practices governing domestic livestock grazing on BLM-managed public lands.
- The challenged regulatory package included the Cooperative Management Agreement (CMA) program, which allowed selected ranchers to manage grazing under broadly framed cooperative agreements rather than detailed permit terms set by the agency.
- Plaintiffs alleged the CMA program weakened required federal controls over stocking levels, seasons of use, and permit modification or cancellation needed to protect rangelands.
- Plaintiffs asserted statutory and procedural violations under the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA), Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on an agreed administrative record; no genuine disputes of material fact were presented.
- The State of California participated as amicus curiae supporting plaintiffs.

## Issues

1. Whether the CMA program and related grazing amendments violated the TGA, FLPMA, and PRIA by effectively delegating statutory grazing-management responsibilities to private ranchers and omitting required federal controls.
2. Whether NEPA required preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the CMA program and related regulatory changes.
3. Whether the CMA program and related amendments were arbitrary, capricious, procedurally defective, or otherwise unlawful under the APA.
4. Whether plaintiffs had standing and whether the claims were ripe for judicial review.

## Decision

- The court held plaintiffs had standing and the challenge was ripe because the regulations were final, being implemented, and threatened concrete recreational and environmental interests.
- The court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on core claims challenging the CMA program and associated amendments.
- The court ruled the CMA program unlawful under the TGA and FLPMA because it shifted management decisions Congress assigned to the Secretary/BLM to private ranchers and failed to ensure required government-specified grazing terms and oversight.
- The court rejected the agency’s characterization of CMAs as an “experimental” stewardship effort, finding the agreements effectively permanent and not shown to be limited, monitored experimentation.
- The court held NEPA required an EIS for the CMA program and certain related changes due to the potential for significant environmental effects from weakened grazing controls.
- The court found the CMA-related rules invalid under the APA because they were not in accordance with governing statutes and lacked adequate reasoned support.
- The court invalidated the CMA program and remanded for further agency action consistent with statutory mandates and NEPA.

## Legal Principles

- When Congress assigns primary management responsibility for public lands to an agency, the agency may not implement a program that effectively transfers core statutory duties to private parties without retaining required oversight and controls.
- Grazing authorizations must reflect statutory requirements that the agency prescribe enforceable terms and conditions (including limits and mechanisms for modification or cancellation) to protect public rangelands.
- Programmatic regulatory changes that may significantly affect the environment constitute major federal actions requiring NEPA review; labeling a program “experimental” does not excuse compliance absent a concrete, limited, monitored experimental design.
- Agency action that conflicts with governing statutes, omits required regulatory safeguards, or lacks a reasoned explanation is unlawful under the APA’s “not in accordance with law” and “arbitrary and capricious” standards.
- Environmental organizations have standing to challenge public-lands management rules when members use the affected lands and face a concrete risk of environmental harm within the relevant statutes’ protected interests.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the CMA grazing program and related amendments because they unlawfully delegated federally assigned rangeland management responsibilities, required NEPA environmental review due to potential significant impacts, and were invalid under the APA for statutory conflict and inadequate justification, and it remanded to the agency for lawful reconsideration.


Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Hodel, 618 F. Supp. 848 (E.D. Cal. 1985)