Western Watersheds Project v. Abbey

Jun 7: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 11-35705. Appealed from the United States District Court for the District of Montana. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's summary judgment in favor of United States agencies and officials in an action challenging the Bureau of Land Management's management of grazing within the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument in Montana.

 

    In 2001, President Clinton recognized the biological, historical, and cultural significance of the Breaks country by designating the area as the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument (Breaks Monument or Monument). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency of the United States Department of the Interior, manages the Monument, an area of unparalleled scenic beauty, great geological and biological import, and special historical significance.

 

    Appellants Western Watersheds Project, et al argued that BLM's management of grazing within the Breaks Monument violates the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Western Watersheds contends that BLM improperly interpreted the Proclamation to exclude programmatic grazing changes from the Breaks Monument Resource Management Plan (Breaks Resource Plan). It further argues that the Breaks Monument Environmental Impact Statement (Breaks EIS) and the site-specific Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Woodhawk Allotment violated NEPA by not adequately assessing the impacts of livestock grazing within the Monument. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees United States Department of the Interior, BLM

 

    The Appeals Court concludes, "We hold that BLM reasonably interpreted the Proclamation to not require programmatic changes to grazing management policies in the Breaks Resource Plan and that the Breaks EIS complied with NEPA by taking a hard and careful look at grazing impacts. By contrast, we hold that the EA for the Woodhawk Allotment violated NEPA by not considering a reasonable range of alternatives that included a no- or reduced-grazing option. We reverse and remand for the district court to enter an appropriate order requiring BLM to remedy the deficiencies in the EA for the Woodhawk."

 

    Access the complete opinion (click here). [#Agriculture, #Land, #CA9]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals