Plaintiff environmental groups appealed from the district court's denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction limiting grazing in two grazing allotments on the Owyhee Resource Area in Idaho. The complaint alleged that (1) conditions in the Owyhee Resource Area violated the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) 1995 "Fundamentals of Rangeland Health" (FRH) regulations,[1] and (2) the BLM's unreasonable delay in complying with the FRH regulations violated section 706(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act.[2] The injunction sought to enjoin hot season grazing from July 15 to September 30, 1999 in riparian pastures within the allotments, and to order BLM to implement changes in grazing management in the allotments by the start of the 2000 grazing season. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying the preliminary injunction and remanded to the district court to consider the possibility of irreparable injury and whether the balance of the hardships favored the plaintiffs.[3]

In denying the motion for a preliminary injunction, the district court had found that the plaintiffs had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits because BLM had satisfied its FRH management obligations for the two allotments. The FRH regulations require BLM to "take appropriate action" when it determines that existing grazing practices or levels of use on public lands are significant factors in a failure to achieve the FRH standards and guidelines.[4] "Appropriate action" means that BLM must consult with relevant parties, issue a proposed decision, consider any protests, and render a final decision.[5] BLM made an initial determination in October of 1997, but did not issue a final decision modifying the relevant grazing permit and implementing changes in grazing management practices until after the full 1998 grazing season had passed.

The agency claimed that it is only required to begin the FRH procedures by consulting affected parties before the next grazing season begins. However, the Ninth Circuit interpreted the FRH regulations to mean that BLM must complete all of the FRH procedures--from consultation with the relevant parties through rendering a final decision--and issue its final decision by the start of the next grazing season. The court found that the plain language of the regulations indicates that action that results in progress toward fulfillment of ecological standards and guidelines must be taken before the start of the next grazing season. As additional support for its interpretation, the court quoted a BLM instruction memorandum that states, "43 CFR subpart 4180 was written to achieve positive, on-the-ground changes in resource conditions. . . . Success will be measured in terms of procedural actions."[6]