## Facts

- In the 1980s, Congress designated portions of Oregon and Idaho’s Main Owyhee, West Little Owyhee, and North Fork Owyhee Rivers as wild and scenic rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA).
- Under the WSRA, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) developed a comprehensive river-management plan in 1991 that identified multiple outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs), including scenery, geology, recreation, wildlife, and cultural resources.
- The plan was accompanied by an environmental assessment that identified several adverse effects from permitted livestock grazing that conflicted with multiple ORVs.
- To address grazing impacts, the plan recommended (among other measures) an inventory of river areas to establish baseline grazing data and the development of grazing standards aimed at maintaining and improving riparian and vegetation conditions.
- By 1999, the baseline inventory had not been completed; aside from closing one pasture, grazing levels remained at or above the levels in place when the plan was issued.
- In August 1999, a biologist documented additional site-specific damage attributed to grazing, including trampled creek beds, stripped vegetation, and bank instability in portions of the river corridor.
- Environmental organizations sued BLM and federal officials, alleging violations of NEPA (for failing to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the grazing-related effects) and the WSRA (for managing the corridors in a manner inconsistent with protection of the designated river values).
- Plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctive relief to limit or stop grazing along the designated river corridors while the litigation proceeded.
- The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association intervened on behalf of permittees and opposed a broad grazing shutdown, citing economic harm.
- BLM submitted evidence that some reaches had improved and that substantial mileage within the corridor met BLM’s criteria for properly functioning riparian condition (including evidence cited as 146.4 miles).

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success (or at least serious questions) that BLM’s continued authorization of grazing in the designated river corridors without an EIS violated NEPA.
2. Whether plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success (or at least serious questions) that BLM’s grazing management likely violated the WSRA’s requirement that management focus primarily on protecting designated river values.
3. Whether plaintiffs satisfied the Ninth Circuit standard for a preliminary injunction, including irreparable harm, the balance of hardships, and the public interest.
4. If injunctive relief was warranted, what interim grazing limits and management measures were appropriate in scope.

## Decision

- The court granted preliminary injunctive relief restricting cattle grazing and related activities in portions of the Owyhee wild and scenic river corridors.
- The court found plaintiffs had made a strong showing on the merits (or at minimum raised serious questions) on their NEPA and WSRA claims, given evidence of ongoing grazing-related impacts and the absence of the plan’s promised baseline inventory and standards.
- The court found a sufficient showing of irreparable environmental harm from continued riparian degradation during the pendency of the case.
- The court weighed the economic hardship to permittees but concluded the balance of hardships and the public interest favored interim protections for congressionally designated river corridors and compliance with federal environmental law.
- Rather than ordering an unconditional, permanent grazing ban, the court fashioned interim, targeted limits intended to reduce grazing pressure in sensitive riparian areas while the case proceeded.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction in the Ninth Circuit may issue where a plaintiff shows (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and a possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships sharply favoring the plaintiff, along with irreparable harm and consideration of the public interest.
- Environmental harm is often irreparable because it is not readily remedied by money damages and may be permanent or long-lasting.
- NEPA requires an EIS when a federal action may significantly affect the environment; agencies must take a “hard look” at impacts and reasonable alternatives and cannot rely on cursory analysis where the record indicates serious effects.
- Under the WSRA, management of designated rivers must give primary emphasis to protecting the values for which the rivers were included in the system; agency management that allows ongoing impairment of those values is subject to injunctive relief.
- Injunctive relief is equitable and should be tailored to prevent the likely harm shown, while avoiding restrictions broader than necessary to address the threatened injury during litigation.

## Conclusion

The court granted a preliminary injunction that imposed interim, site-focused limits on BLM-authorized grazing in the Owyhee wild and scenic river corridors, finding plaintiffs showed strong merit (or serious questions) on NEPA and WSRA claims, a risk of irreparable harm to riparian resources and other river values, and that the balance of hardships and public interest favored temporary protections while the case proceeded.


Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Singleton, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (1999)