Western Watersheds Project v. Bureau of Land Management
721 F.3d 1264
10th Cir.2013Background
- BLM renewed a 10-year grazing permit (2009) for LHS Split Rock on four federal allotments (~90,000 acres) in central Wyoming; historical use averaged ~8,054 AUM.
- A 2005 Rangeland Health Standards (RHS) assessment found severe failures (Soils, Riparian, Upland Vegetation, Diverse Species Habitat) and attributed substantial causation to livestock overgrazing.
- The Lander Field Manager initially proposed aggressive permit changes (rest-rotation, large AUM reductions, fencing, herding) but a successor ordered a “second look”; peer review upheld the 2005 assessment.
- BLM prepared a 2009 Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing three alternatives (including two environmentally protective options and the permittee’s preferred plan); it rejected detailed analysis of No Action and No Grazing as outside the EA’s scope or inconsistent with the controlling 1987 Lander Resource Management Plan.
- BLM issued a FONSI and a Proposed Decision that combined elements of Alternatives One and Two but omitted the most protective features (no rest-rotation and no large AUM cut), instead relying on moderate AUM reductions plus fencing and enforced herding; WWP challenged under NEPA/APA.
- The district court granted summary judgment to BLM; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, applying deferential arbitrary-and-capricious review to agency technical judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (WWP) | Defendant's Argument (BLM) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the EA failed to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives (including detailed No Action and more aggressive protective alternatives) | EA omitted a full No Action analysis as baseline and failed to analyze an adequately protective alternative incorporating all Appropriate Actions, so it did not present a meaningful range | EA-level analysis need not meet EIS §1502.14 detail; EA provided a sufficient baseline and analyzed a reasonable spectrum consistent with the Lander RMP and multiple-use mandate | Court held EA’s range was adequate for an EA; omission did not make the FONSI arbitrary and capricious |
| Whether BLM failed to take a “hard look” (carrying capacity and predicted effects of the Proposed Decision) | EA lacked a quantitative carrying-capacity calculation and the Proposed Decision (a hybrid less protective than analyzed alternatives) was unlikely to remedy degradation; EA did not sufficiently predict environmental consequences | EA gave qualitative analyses of RHS components and later memo provided quantitative support; Proposed Decision’s impacts were reasonably predictable from EA because many components had been analyzed | Court held BLM took the requisite hard look; qualitative analysis plus quantitative memo sufficed and the hybrid decision was within the analyzed spectrum |
Key Cases Cited
- State of New Mexico ex rel. Bill Richardson v. BLM, 565 F.3d 683 (10th Cir.) (NEPA requires a reasonable range of alternatives but agency may exclude alternatives inconsistent with its statutory mandate or objectives)
- Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.) (review of EA/FONSI asks whether agency arbitrarily concluded no significant environmental impact)
- Utah Envtl. Congress v. Russell, 518 F.3d 817 (10th Cir.) (NEPA’s process-oriented mandate; EA role explained)
- Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, 661 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir.) (agency discretion in defining objectives and breadth of alternatives; distinction between EA and EIS standards)