## Facts

- The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) renewed livestock grazing permits for five Idaho allotments (Rockville, Silver City, Diamond Basin, Battle Creek, and East Castle Creek) within the Owyhee and Bruneau Field Offices.
- Western Watersheds Project challenged the renewals under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging violations of NEPA, FLPMA, and BLM’s Fundamentals of Rangeland Health (FRH) regulations.
- Greater sage grouse, a BLM “sensitive” species, depends on large, connected sagebrush landscapes; BLM materials reflected population declines and habitat degradation attributed to multiple stressors, including livestock grazing.
- For each allotment, BLM prepared an environmental assessment (EA) and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), renewing permits through an adaptive-management approach relying on monitoring and “Annual Grazing Use Indicators.”
- Despite documented non-attainment of Idaho’s rangeland-health standards on some allotments, BLM maintained or relaxed certain grazing levels or seasons.
- BLM shifted some protections from mandatory permit terms into non-mandatory “Management Guidelines,” reducing enforceability and automatic consequences for repeated noncompliance.
- The governing resource management plans (RMPs) allowed grazing only to the extent compatible with protecting sensitive species, expressly including sage grouse.
- The parties litigated the five allotments as representative “test” decisions; the case was resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether BLM’s EAs and FONSIs satisfied NEPA by taking a “hard look” at cumulative impacts at a spatial scale matching sage grouse habitat use and by explaining the basis for concluding impacts were not significant.
2. Whether the permit renewals complied with FLPMA’s requirement that BLM manage lands “in accordance with” applicable RMP provisions protecting sensitive species.
3. Whether BLM complied with FRH regulations requiring “appropriate action” “as soon as practicable” to achieve “significant progress” toward Idaho rangeland-health standards when standards were not met and grazing was a significant factor.
4. Whether the challenged decisions were arbitrary and capricious under the APA due to a lack of a rational connection between record evidence and the agency’s conclusions.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for Western Watersheds Project and denied defendants’ motions.
- The court held the five grazing permit renewals violated NEPA, FLPMA, and FRH regulations and were arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
- The court set aside the challenged grazing decisions.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA, agency action must be set aside if arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; the agency must provide a rational explanation connecting facts found to the decision made.
- NEPA requires a “hard look” at environmental consequences, including a meaningful cumulative-impacts analysis; the scope of cumulative review must be reasonable in light of the resource affected and cannot be limited to a piecemeal, project-by-project view when broader impacts are foreseeable.
- A FONSI must be supported by the record and the agency’s explanation; an agency must confront record evidence of ongoing degradation when concluding impacts will not be significant.
- FLPMA requires BLM to manage public lands in accordance with approved land-use plans; site-specific authorizations must be consistent with RMP constraints, including sensitive-species protection requirements.
- FRH regulations require BLM to take appropriate action as soon as practicable when standards are not met and grazing is a significant factor; “significant progress” under Idaho standards requires measurable or observable improvement, not merely monitoring plans or discretionary guidance.
- Converting enforceable permit terms into non-binding guidelines may be inconsistent with regulatory duties where enforceability is necessary to ensure timely, measurable progress toward rangeland-health standards.

## Conclusion

The court vacated BLM’s renewal of five grazing permits because the agency failed to evaluate cumulative impacts at a landscape scale appropriate for sage grouse, did not show that renewed or relaxed grazing would be compatible with RMP protections for sensitive species, and did not implement timely, enforceable measures capable of producing measurable progress toward Idaho rangeland-health standards.


W. Watersheds Project v. Salazar, 843 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (D. Idaho 2012)