## Facts

- The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) evaluated environmental conditions in Idaho’s Owyhee Resource Area under the National Environmental Policy Act.
- BLM concluded that water quality in the Nickel Creek area did not meet BLM’s Idaho standards and guidelines developed under the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health regulations.
- BLM determined that livestock-grazing management was a significant factor contributing to the failure to meet those standards.
- To improve conditions, BLM devised management measures including a grazing rotation schedule and forage-utilization limits.
- BLM issued a final decision stating the new management approach would make “significant progress” toward meeting the standards, and it also issued 10-year grazing permits for the Nickel Creek area.
- Western Watersheds Project (WWP) challenged BLM’s final decision before a Department of the Interior administrative law judge (ALJ), Judge Pearlstein.
- After a 15-day evidentiary hearing, Judge Pearlstein issued a 125-page decision concluding that BLM’s final decision would not make “significant progress” toward meeting the Idaho standards and therefore violated the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health regulations.
- Both WWP and BLM appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA).
- IBLA reversed Judge Pearlstein, characterizing the ALJ’s ruling as resting on the view that excessive cattle numbers alone caused the poor conditions, even though the ALJ relied on multiple factors and record evidence, including testimony and materials from BLM personnel and BLM reports.
- WWP filed suit in federal district court seeking review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and moved for summary judgment, arguing IBLA’s reversal was arbitrary and capricious.

## Issues

1. Whether IBLA acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the APA by misdescribing the ALJ’s reasoning and failing to address material record evidence when it reversed the ALJ and upheld BLM’s Nickel Creek grazing decision.
2. Whether the agency decisionmaking adequately supported the conclusion that BLM’s grazing measures and 10-year permits would achieve the “significant progress” required by the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health framework where standards were not being met.

## Decision

- The district court granted WWP’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court set aside IBLA’s decision reversing the ALJ and upholding BLM’s final decision.
- The court remanded the matter to the agency for further proceedings consistent with the court’s ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Under APA review, an agency must examine the relevant data, consider the major aspects of the problem, and provide a reasoned explanation connecting the record to the choice made; an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it selectively treats the record or relies on a distorted account of prior findings.
- When an agency appellate body reverses an ALJ decision issued after an evidentiary hearing, it must accurately characterize what the ALJ decided and give a reasoned explanation for departing from the ALJ’s record-based conclusions.
- General reliance on agency staff judgments does not excuse ignoring or minimizing evidence in the record, including testimony and documents from the agency’s own witnesses and reports, that support the ALJ’s findings.
- Where governing rangeland-health standards require “significant progress” toward meeting standards, the agency must show a rational basis in the record for concluding that the authorized grazing and management measures will achieve that level of progress.

## Conclusion

The court vacated IBLA’s reversal because IBLA mischaracterized the ALJ’s multi-factor decision and failed to grapple with material evidence bearing on whether BLM’s Nickel Creek grazing plan and long-term permits would make the required “significant progress” toward meeting Idaho rangeland-health water-quality standards, and it remanded for a reasoned agency determination on the full record.


Western Watersheds Project v. Bureau of Land Management, Civ. No. 08-0506-E-BLW (2009)