Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

Court Declines to Impose a Total Ban on Grazing,
Allows Correction of Grazing Authorizations

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Western Watersheds Project v. Dryer, Nos. CV-04-181-S-BLW, CV-02-521-S-BLW, 2009 WL 484438 (D. Idaho Feb. 26, 2009), the United States District Court for the District of Idaho held that although the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) erred in its application of its 2008 grazing authorizations by not sufficiently considering the impact on sensitive species, a ban on grazing in certain wildlife habitat areas was not required because the BLM had committed to reevaluating the area and revising its resource management plan accordingly, and to issuing new grazing permits for 2009 to comply with its new plan.

Background

Western Watersheds Project (WWP), an environmental group, brought this action to ban livestock grazing on certain public land managed by the BLM, claiming that continued grazing was destroying the habitat of imperiled species including the sage grouse, pygmy rabbit, and slickspot peppergrass. Id. at *1. All three species had been considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act, and had been deemed "sensitive species" by the BLM. Id. In 2007, wildfires destroyed 400,000 acres of sage brush in the area, which resulted in substantial declines in the wildlife population. Id. The BLM established criteria based on the revival of plants and grasses to determine when the burned areas should be reopened to grazing, while it permitted grazing to continue in the unburned areas. Id.

Arguments

WWP argued that the BLM violated federal environmental laws by failing to adequately consider the interests of imperiled species when it decided to authorize grazing in the remaining habitat areas. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court found that the sensitive species were in serious decline, due substantially to livestock grazing, and that the BLM had erred in its issuance of the 2008 grazing permits because it had considered its existing resource management plans' requirements for protection of sensitive species as mere suggestions. Id. at *1, *26. However, the BLM was currently revising its plan and preparing a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement to describe the ecological status of the area and to identify the environmental impacts of activities, including grazing, and it had agreed to prepare new grazing permits in accordance with its new plan. Id. at *1. The court directed the BLM to correct its interpretation of the sensitive species requirements in the future, but determined that a ban on grazing was not required. Id. at *27. The court explained that it was "confident in the BLM's ability to modify the grazing to be authorized in the 2009 grazing season to accord with the court's interpretation of the existing resource management plan." Id. at *1, *27.

The case was decided on February 26, 2009.