Related Story
Environment
An administrative law judge in the Department of the Interior overturned the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) decision to issue grazing permits in Colorado’s San Luis Valley.
In a Nov. 12 order, Administrative Law Judge Christopher D. Prandoni ruled the BLM failed to take “a hard look” at the environmental impacts of grazing in Saguache County, violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The ruling comes following BLM’s 2020 decisions to issue permits for 24 allotments, which were subsequently challenged by Western Watersheds Project.
“We are encouraged that the Department of the Interior’s internal courts saw through the weak analysis on which these grazing permit renewals were based,” said Delaney Rudy, Colorado director for Western Watersheds Project. “Permitting excessive numbers of livestock on public land opens the door to detrimental impacts to ecosystem health.”
Prandoni ruled to grant Western Watersheds Project’s motion for summary judgment and denied BLM’s cross-motion for summary judgment, setting aside the agency’s final decisions.
Background
BLM completed an environmental assessment (EA) in 2019 for the San Luis Valley’s PonchaVilla Zone, which comprises about 65,000 acres of public land. The zone includes 24 grazing allotments that support about 6,500 animal unit months.
BLM prepared an EA and a rangeland health assessment to determine whether to renew the grazing permits. Some grazing permits were approaching their expiration date, some were fully processed and some had already expired and were automatically renewed. Four allotments were assessed to not meet the rangeland standards due to the implemented grazing management.
The final EA discussed three alternatives to improve land health and renew permits, with the proposed action renewing the 18 grazing permits on 24 allotments for 10 years. The alternative required the modification and construction of range improvements and grazing schedules for several allotments, and allowed the BLM and permittees to implement flexible grazing actions to adjust grazing schedules as needed.
BLM found the proposed action would improve rangeland health, lessen grazing impacts and would not affect the Gunnison sage-grouse population. The agency released the notice of proposed decision in December 2019, which was protested by environmentalists, but BLM continued on with the final decision in December 2020.
Western Watersheds Project appealed the decisions, alleging violations of NEPA and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). A different administrative law judge denied the group’s stay petitions in February 2021, ruling the greens failed to show that the balance of harms favored granting a stay. An additional administrative law judge consolidated the group’s appeals in June 2021.
BLM and Western Watersheds Project each filed motions for summary judgment.
Western Watersheds Project alleged BLM violated NEPA because the EA did not take a hard look at the impacts of grazing because it assumed the allotments’ conditions were the result of more grazing than had actually occurred.
“By not studying and acknowledging that grazing under the proposed action may substantially increase over the current management that produced the allotments’ conditions, the EA does not fully assess the proposed action,” Prandoni wrote, agreeing the agency failed to take a hard look at grazing’s impact.
Prandoni continued that BLM could have satisfied its hard look obligation by studying an actual use alternative, which could have led to a discussion about actual use and potential environmental impacts of the proposed action.
Western Watersheds Project also alleged BLM violated the FLPMA because the final decisions did not conform to the rangeland management plan, which Prandoni refuted. “Western Watersheds Project has not met its burden to show that BLM acted arbitrarily or capriciously,” he wrote. — Anna Miller, WLJ managing editor
