W. Watersheds Project v. Bernhardt

Majority - Michael H. Simon, District Judge

Yes, a preliminary injunction is granted in part to prevent the Bureau of Land Management from allowing grazing on the Mud Creek and Hardie Summer allotments at the permitted level because the agency likely violated environmental laws and regulations, and such grazing would cause irreparable environmental harm. The court found that the Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. First, Secretary Zinke's decision to renew HRI's permit was likely arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Zinke explicitly stated he found "no fault" with BLM's 2014 finding that HRI had an unsatisfactory record of performance due to the Hammonds' conduct of setting fires. A presidential pardon only removes legal punishment; it does not negate the underlying conduct or its effect on qualifications like a "satisfactory record of performance" required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). Zinke failed to analyze HRI's compliance or explain how the pardons altered the factual findings of noncompliance, representing an unreasoned departure from prior agency norms and a disregard of statutory and regulatory directives. Second, the 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment (GSG-ARMPA) was applicable, as agencies must apply current law to future actions. Third, BLM's issuance of a Categorical Exclusion (CX) violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the GSG-ARMPA. The FLPMA allows a CX for grazing if it continues "current" grazing management, and the allotment meets health standards due to factors other than "existing" grazing. However, the allotments had not been grazed for five years, meaning neither "current" nor "existing" grazing was present. Furthermore, the CX failed to adequately analyze "extraordinary circumstances" like significant impacts on ecologically critical areas (PHMAs/GHMAs, sensitive species habitats) or the contribution to invasive species, despite evidence that allotments failed health standards due to invasive grasses. BLM's conclusory rationale lacked meaningful analysis. The court also found a likelihood of irreparable harm. Permitted grazing levels were likely to cause destruction of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (by reducing tall grasses, spreading cheatgrass, hindering sagebrush recovery) and harm to redband trout habitat (by increasing water temperature, damaging streambanks, and removing riparian vegetation), with recovery taking decades. The procedural violation of NEPA itself constitutes irreparable harm because it thwarts the statute's purpose of informed environmental decision-making before actions are taken, especially when coupled with likely environmental harm. Additionally, Plaintiffs' members would suffer irreparable harm from the loss of personal use and enjoyment of the allotments in their ungrazed or recovering state. However, a reduced grazing plan proposed by Defendants (no AUMs on Mud Creek except for trailing, resting Fir Creek pasture on Hardie Summer, and 30% utilization on other Hardie Summer pastures) was deemed unlikely to cause irreparable harm by most experts. Balancing the equities, the court found they tipped in favor of Plaintiffs, as the irreparable environmental harm and procedural violations outweighed the harm to HRI, especially given HRI's history of noncompliance and the availability of federal subsidies. Lastly, the public interest weighed in favor of Plaintiffs, as there is a strong public interest in ensuring government agencies comply with federal environmental statutes and regulations. Defendants' speculative argument about increased fire danger without grazing was not supported by an imminent threat, and grazing itself could exacerbate fire risks by spreading cheatgrass.