Western Watersheds Project v. Bob Abbey
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11533
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Breaks Monument established by Presidential Proclamation under the Antiquities Act; BLM administers grazing and other management within the Monument.
- Plaintiffs allege the Proclamation’s grazing provision, FLPMA, and NEPA were violated by BLM’s Breaks Resource Plan and EIS.
- BLM interpreted the Proclamation to allow continued application of existing grazing laws, regulations, and Lewistown Standards; no programmatic grazing changes were required.
- Woodhawk Allotment EA analyzed four alternatives, found no significant impact, but excluded a no-grazing or reduced-grazing alternative from detailed study.
- District court granted summary judgment for BLM; on appeal, the court affirmed NEPA compliance for the Breaks EIS but reversed for the Woodhawk EA, remanding for further proceedings on the Woodhawk permit renewal.
- Appellants Western Watersheds appealed challenging NEPA and FLPMA compliance; the panel issued a mixed ruling: Breaks Resource Plan NEPA-compliant; Woodhawk EA NEPA-deficient; remand for appropriate relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BLM’s Proclamation interpretation was reasonable. | Western Watersheds argues the Proclamation requires programmatic grazing changes. | BLM contends Proclamation allows existing laws and Lewistown Standards to govern grazing. | BLM's interpretation deemed reasonable and consistent with the Proclamation. |
| Whether Breaks EIS complied with NEPA. | Breaks EIS failed to consider programmatic grazing changes and a broad range of alternatives. | EIS framed to implement Proclamation objectives; reasonable scope and alternatives analyzed. | Breaks EIS satisfied NEPA; no hard error found. |
| Whether Woodhawk Allotment EA complied with NEPA. | EA did not adequately analyze reasonable alternatives, particularly no-grazing or reduced-grazing. | EA analyzed several alternatives; considered purposes of Breaks Resource Plan. | Woodhawk EA violated NEPA; remand to district court for remedy or new EIS. |
| Whether the agency properly tiered or relied on old analyses for Woodhawk. | Relying on outdated statements (1979 EIS) is impermissible. | Tiering and reliance on prior analyses are permissible where consistent with current objectives. | Court cautioned against over-reliance on old data; NEPA error found in Woodhawk analysis. |
| Whether injunctive relief is appropriate given NEPA deficiencies. | Injunctive relief should limit grazing until NEPA compliance is achieved. | Remand is appropriate to cure NEPA deficiencies; injunction not decided at this stage. | Remand for district court to determine injunctive relief under four-factor test. |
Key Cases Cited
- Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 468 F.3d 549 (9th Cir. 2006) (FLPMA/multi-use considerations; agency interpretation must be reasonable)
- Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 376 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (scope and alternatives in NEPA review; agency discretion in defining scope)
- Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 529 U.S. 728 (U.S. 2000) (undue degradation and grazing permit processes under FLPMA/Taylor Act)
- Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 161 F.3d 569 (9th Cir. 1998) (NEPA robustness and deference to agency scientific judgment)
- Nw. Res. Info. Ctr., Inc. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 56 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 1995) (NEPA scope and need for reasonable alternatives)