## Facts

- The case involved livestock grazing on the Comb Wash Allotment in BLM’s San Juan Resource Area in Utah, a narrow valley into which five canyons drain; each canyon contains a stream and associated riparian area, and the area also supports recreation uses.
- In 1989, BLM issued a 10-year grazing permit for the allotment.
- National Wildlife Federation and other environmental groups appealed the 10-year permit to an administrative law judge (ALJ), Judge Rampton, arguing BLM had not met procedural requirements in its own regulations, including consultation with affected parties.
- Judge Rampton set aside the 10-year permit and remanded the matter to BLM.
- After the remand, BLM prepared a Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the San Juan Resource Area.
- In 1991, BLM issued a Notice of Final Decision stating it intended to prepare an allotment management plan for Comb Wash, but would allow grazing to continue in the meantime through annual grazing authorizations.
- The annual authorizations were issued by the San Juan Resource Area manager, Edward Scherick, who relied exclusively on recommendations from the area range conservationist, Paul Curtis.
- Curtis assumed the RMP/EIS had already addressed the impacts of grazing on the allotment’s resources and that the canyons were available for livestock use; he did not conduct monitoring in the canyons to verify current conditions.
- Curtis recognized conflicts between grazing and recreation uses but concluded grazing could proceed because the RMP did not expressly bar grazing in the Comb Wash Allotment.
- NWF and allied groups appealed both the 1991 Final Decision and the annual grazing authorizations, arguing BLM had not met its duties under FLPMA and NEPA for the interim grazing approvals.
- Judge Rampton set aside the 1991 Final Decision, concluding BLM violated FLPMA; BLM appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA).

## Issues

1. Whether BLM’s decision to continue grazing through annual authorizations satisfied FLPMA’s multiple-use mandate, including a reasoned comparison of competing resource uses and values (riparian protection, recreation, and livestock grazing).
2. Whether BLM could rely on the San Juan Resource Area RMP/EIS as sufficient NEPA support for the site-level interim grazing authorizations in the Comb Wash canyons without current, location-specific information.
3. Whether issuing annual grazing authorizations based on assumptions, without monitoring or analysis tied to actual conditions and conflicts on the ground, was arbitrary and capricious.

## Decision

- IBLA affirmed the ALJ’s ruling against BLM.
- IBLA held BLM’s approach to authorizing interim grazing in Comb Wash lacked a reasoned and informed decision-making process and therefore could not stand.
- IBLA concluded BLM did not carry out the multiple-use balancing required by FLPMA for the interim approvals; BLM treated grazing as allowed largely because it was not expressly prohibited in the RMP, rather than because the agency evaluated and weighed competing uses and resource values for Comb Wash.
- IBLA determined the record did not show adequate environmental analysis to support the specific interim grazing authorizations, given the reliance on generalized planning materials and the absence of current, canyon-level monitoring and information.
- IBLA denied BLM’s appeal, set aside the challenged decision/authorizations, and remanded to BLM for further proceedings consistent with FLPMA and NEPA.

## Legal Principles

- FLPMA’s multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate requires BLM to make an affirmative, reasoned choice among competing uses and values; allowing grazing simply because a planning document does not forbid it is not a substitute for multiple-use balancing.
- NEPA requires a “hard look” grounded in information that is sufficient for the decision being made; where the agency is authorizing a concrete on-the-ground action, the record must support evaluation of the action’s likely impacts and relevant alternatives.
- A program-level RMP/EIS may inform later implementation decisions, but it does not automatically supply the analysis needed for a site-level authorization when the record lacks current condition data or analysis of the actual grazing management being carried out.
- Agency action is arbitrary and capricious when it rests on untested assumptions, omits needed monitoring or site information, and fails to connect the stated basis for the decision to the specific conditions and conflicts in the affected area.

## Conclusion

IBLA upheld the ALJ’s determination that BLM’s interim grazing authorizations for the Comb Wash Allotment were not supported by a reasoned FLPMA multiple-use balancing or by an adequately informed environmental record, and it remanded to BLM to complete lawful analysis and decision-making before continuing grazing under annual approvals.


National Wildlife Federation et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 140 I.B.L.A. 85 (1997)