## Facts

- Congress designated the Donner und Blitzen River in southeastern Oregon as a “wild” river in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
- The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) defines “wild” rivers as “free of impoundments” and “generally inaccessible except by trail.”
- WSRA § 1281(a) directs the administering agency to “protect and enhance” the values for which the river was designated, while allowing other uses only if they do not “substantially interfere” with public use and enjoyment of those values.
- The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) commissioned a scientific survey of sensitive plants and unique natural areas within the river corridor; the resulting report documented adverse grazing impacts on riparian vegetation and recommended ending cattle grazing in the corridor.
- BLM nevertheless adopted a 1993 River Management Plan that continued cattle grazing and also authorized a parking lot, improvements to secondary access roads, and a water-diversion project within the designated corridor.
- Environmental organizations sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the plan violated WSRA and was unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The case was presented on cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether BLM’s plan violated WSRA § 1281(a) by authorizing grazing and development that failed to protect and enhance the river’s designated values.
2. Whether WSRA’s “substantially interfere” limitation permitted BLM to balance competing uses so broadly that continued grazing and related development remained lawful.
3. Whether, under the APA, BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously by approving the plan despite contrary scientific findings in the administrative record.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in substantial part.
- The court held that the plan violated WSRA because it did not satisfy the statutory duty to protect and enhance the river’s designated values and permitted uses that substantially interfered with those values.
- The court concluded the plan was arbitrary and capricious under the APA because the agency’s approvals were not rationally connected to the evidence, including the agency-commissioned report documenting grazing-related degradation and recommending cessation.
- The court enjoined implementation of the challenged portions of the plan that allowed grazing and associated development inconsistent with WSRA’s requirements.

## Legal Principles

- WSRA § 1281(a) imposes an affirmative, substantive duty on managing agencies to protect and enhance the values for which a river is designated.
- Other uses may be allowed only to the extent they do not “substantially interfere” with public use and enjoyment of the designated values; this limitation must be read consistently with the protect-and-enhance mandate.
- For “wild” rivers, management actions affecting access and development must be evaluated against the statutory expectation of natural conditions and limited accessibility.
- Under the APA, agency action is unlawful if it is arbitrary and capricious, including where the decision conflicts with significant record evidence or lacks a reasoned explanation tied to the record.

## Conclusion

The court required BLM to place WSRA’s protect-and-enhance duty first when managing a designated wild river and barred implementation of plan components that continued grazing and development in ways that degraded river values and could not be justified on the administrative record.


Or. Nat. Desert Ass’n v. Green, 953 F. Supp. 1133 (D. Or. 1997)