## Facts

- The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulates livestock grazing on extensive federal public lands under the Taylor Grazing Act and related statutes.
- In 2006, the Department of the Interior adopted eighteen amendments to BLM grazing regulations (the “2006 Regulations”) intended to improve relations with permittees, protect rangeland health, and increase administrative efficiency.
- Environmental organizations challenged the 2006 Regulations as weakening environmental safeguards by limiting public participation, expanding permittee interests in range improvements and water rights, and constraining BLM’s ability to respond to rangeland degradation and wildlife impacts.
- Plaintiffs alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and governing public-lands statutes (including FLPMA and the Taylor Grazing Act).
- The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on key NEPA and ESA claims and issued a nationwide injunction barring implementation of challenged provisions.
- Federal defendants and livestock-industry intervenors appealed; plaintiffs cross-appealed aspects of relief.

## Issues

1. Whether BLM’s environmental impact statement for the 2006 Regulations satisfied NEPA’s requirement to take a “hard look” at environmental consequences, including cumulative impacts.
2. Whether NEPA was violated by inadequate disclosure and reasoned response to internal scientific critiques and other adverse environmental information.
3. Whether the 2006 Regulations constituted “agency action” that “may affect” listed species or critical habitat, triggering ESA § 7(a)(2) consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
4. Whether specific amendments were arbitrary and capricious or inconsistent with statutory duties under FLPMA and the Taylor Grazing Act.
5. Whether nationwide injunctive relief was an appropriate remedy for the procedural violations and risk of environmental harm.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit largely affirmed the district court’s judgment for plaintiffs.
- The court held that BLM violated NEPA because the EIS failed to adequately evaluate the environmental consequences of the 2006 Regulations and did not provide a reasoned evaluation of contrary scientific evidence in the administrative record.
- The court held that BLM violated ESA § 7(a)(2) by failing to initiate consultation, because the regulatory amendments were agency action and the low “may affect” threshold was met.
- The court upheld broad injunctive relief against implementation of the challenged provisions (with limited refinements) and remanded for compliance with NEPA and ESA.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA requires an agency to consider every significant aspect of a proposed action’s environmental effects and to provide a reasoned evaluation of relevant evidence, including responsible opposing scientific views reflected in the record.
- An EIS that downplays or omits foreseeable environmental risks, or fails to grapple with adverse internal technical critiques, does not satisfy NEPA’s “hard look” requirement.
- Programmatic regulatory amendments that govern on-the-ground management are “agency action” under the ESA.
- ESA § 7 consultation is required when an agency action “may affect” listed species or critical habitat; the triggering standard is low and can be met by foreseeable adverse effects acknowledged in the agency record.
- Under the APA, land-management rules that materially constrain an agency’s ability to meet statutory conservation obligations, without adequate explanation, may be arbitrary and capricious.
- In NEPA and ESA cases, injunctive relief is appropriate where procedural violations create a substantial risk of long-lasting environmental harm not remediable by damages.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that BLM’s 2006 grazing-rule amendments could not take effect because the agency failed to comply with NEPA’s hard-look obligations and ESA § 7 consultation requirements, and it sustained broad injunctive relief pending lawful environmental review and consultation.


W. Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472 (9th Cir. 2011)