## Facts

- The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), a Department of the Interior agency, managed more than 171 million acres of public land in 11 western states, much of which was used for livestock grazing.
- Livestock operators held about 24,000 BLM licenses, permits, and leases authorizing grazing on roughly 150 million acres of BLM-managed land.
- Evidence before the court indicated that BLM rangelands had seriously deteriorated; about 84% of the grazing land was in fair, poor, or bad condition.
- To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), BLM prepared a single, nationwide programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) covering its livestock-grazing program.
- BLM described the programmatic EIS as an overview of cumulative effects that would serve as a foundation for later environmental analyses and supplemental EISs for specific grazing-management actions.
- The programmatic EIS did not contain detailed discussion of local geographic conditions tied to specific grazing areas and decisions.
- BLM also provided no clear guidance about what circumstances would require preparation of supplemental EISs.
- The programmatic process gave the public an opportunity to comment on the nationwide EIS but did not provide a method for local input connected to particular permits or geographic areas.
- The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and other plaintiffs sued the Secretary of the Interior and BLM officials, alleging that BLM had renewed grazing permits for several years without NEPA-compliant analysis of actual on-the-ground impacts and would continue to do so under the programmatic EIS approach.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief that the programmatic EIS was not sufficient and sought relief requiring BLM to assess environmental effects tied to permit actions and local conditions.

## Issues

1. Whether a single, nationwide programmatic EIS for BLM’s livestock-grazing program, without additional localized analysis, satisfied NEPA for BLM’s ongoing issuance and renewal of grazing permits.
2. Whether NEPA required BLM to prepare additional EISs (or equivalent supplemental analysis) addressing local geographic conditions and the effects of specific grazing actions.
3. Whether NEPA required BLM to set workable criteria and procedures identifying when supplemental, more detailed environmental review would be prepared and how public participation would occur for those lower-level decisions.

## Decision

- The district court held that the programmatic grazing EIS was not sufficient, standing alone, to satisfy NEPA.
- The court required BLM to prepare additional environmental analyses addressing local conditions and specific grazing actions, rather than relying exclusively on the nationwide overview.
- The court found that BLM needed to provide clearer criteria and procedures for when supplemental EISs (or similar localized NEPA documents) would be prepared.
- The court did not order a nationwide shutdown of grazing permits; instead, it granted relief directed at bringing the program into NEPA compliance through additional, more detailed review where warranted.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed per curiam, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA applies to ongoing federal permitting and management decisions when agency action may significantly affect the environment.
- A programmatic EIS can be a valid first-step document for a broad federal program, but it cannot substitute for more detailed analysis when later decisions turn on local geographic conditions and concrete impacts.
- The detail required in environmental review must match the scale and specificity of the decision being made; decisions affecting specific areas require analysis that informs choices for those areas.
- When an agency relies on a programmatic EIS, it must still establish clear triggers and procedures for supplemental or site-specific NEPA review and provide opportunities for public participation at the decision level where local effects are evaluated.

## Conclusion

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton held that BLM’s nationwide grazing program EIS could not, by itself, satisfy NEPA for continued grazing-permit actions because it lacked the detail needed for location-specific decisionmaking and provided no clear method for determining when supplemental analysis would occur. The court required BLM to conduct additional, more localized environmental review tied to specific grazing actions and to set criteria and procedures for supplemental documentation and public involvement, while declining to halt grazing nationwide.


Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 388 F. Supp. 829 (1974), aff'd per curiam, 527 F.2d 1386, cert. denied, 427 U.S. 913 (1976)