Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

Injunction Imposing Interim Conditions on Federally Managed Grazing Land

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 307 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court ruling imposing an injunction on federally issued grazing permits and a timetable for the Bureau of Land Management to investigate and issue new permits in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

Background

Environmental Groups brought suit against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) alleging violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the issuance of grazing permits to cattle ranchers on federal land. Id. at 820. Specifically, the environmental groups alleged that overgrazing was negatively affecting the water supply of the Owyhee Resource Area. Id. at 821. The BLM had determined in 1981 that 90% of the Owyhee Resource Area was in poor or fair ecological condition, and that over 140 miles of streams in the area were in poor condition due to overgrazing, but it failed to take steps to correct the overgrazing for 15 years. Id. In 1996, the BLM concluded that 91% of streams in the area were in unsatisfactory condition; however, they nonetheless issued 68 grazing permits. Id. The district court refused to completely prohibit grazing in the area, but granted a permanent injunction imposing interim conditions on grazing and imposing a timetable for the BLM to issue new permits in compliance with NEPA, and all parties appealed. Id. at 823.

Arguments

The BLM and certain intervening ranchers argued that the district court should have dismissed the environmental groups' case because the groups failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit. Id. at 824. One intervening party, Owyhee Resources Area Permittees (ORAP), also argued the district court erred in issuing the injunction; specifically, ORAP argued that a permanent injunction may not issue without an evidentiary hearing if one is requested. Id. at 830.

The environmental groups argued that the Court of Appeals had no appellate jurisdiction over any of the exhaustion claims because those issues were disposed of in the partial grant of summary judgment, which was a non-appealable order; therefore, only those claims of ORAP that asserted errors in the issuance of the injunction itself could be heard. Id. at 824.

Analysis and Holdings

The court first determined that it had appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) to hear all the claims presented. Id. Turning to the BLM's claims that the environmental groups had not exhausted their administrative remedies, the court considered whether the BLM's administrative appeal regulations provided procedures that effectively rendered inoperative the challenged decision pending appeal. Id. at 825. The BLM's administrative procedures basically allowed for unauthorized grazing to continue pending appeal of an agency determination; the procedures did not render the decision inoperative, so the court held that when a decision fell under this provision, "an aggrieved party shall be allowed to proceed to federal court without being required to endure further administrative proceedings." Id. at 826. In addition, the court found that even if a stay had been granted, grazing could continue for years under the BLM's procedures, so it held that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required on the facts of this case. Id. at 827. The court also found that the BLM's decision to issue grazing permits was a "final agency decision" because the BLM "arrived at a definitive position and put the decision into effect by issuing the 68 permits and allowing actual grazing to occur under the terms of those permits." Id. at 828. The court then held that an evidentiary hearing was not required prior to issuing an injunction in this case because BLM itself proposed the terms of the interim protective measures in the injunction. Id. at 830. The court concluded that the interim measures imposed by the district court were a fair and balanced interim remedy, giving due regard to protection of the environment and the welfare of the affected ranching families, and therefore affirmed the district court's ruling. Id. at 835.

The case was decided on September 24, 2002.