Summary
This document is an order addressing plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the Bureau of Land Management and related officials. Plaintiffs challenge spring grazing and grazing infrastructure authorizations in Montana’s Grasshopper Watershed under NEPA, the APA, FLPMA, and the BLM’s sage-grouse management plan. The court concludes that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on claims concerning the failure to disclose baseline sage-grouse data and analyze cumulative impacts, while declining at this stage to find likely success on the FLPMA and ARMPA compliance claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiffs satisfied the Winter factors for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.
- Whether Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their NEPA and APA claim that BLM failed to disclose baseline sage-grouse data and supporting information in its environmental assessment.
- Whether Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their NEPA and APA claim that BLM failed to conduct and disclose an adequate cumulative-impact analysis concerning spring grazing.
- Whether Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that BLM violated FLPMA and the ARMPA.
- Whether BLM was required to analyze the Dillon Field Office Programmatic Vegetation Management Project as a reasonably foreseeable cumulative action.
- Whether BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to consider a reduced- or no-grazing alternative.
Holdings
- Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success because BLM apparently acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to disclose data supporting its environmental conclusions, including relevant baseline information concerning sage-grouse populations and habitat in the Grasshopper Watershed.
- Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success because BLM apparently failed to conduct and publish a sufficiently detailed cumulative-impact analysis of the effects of repeated spring grazing on sage grouse.
- Plaintiffs did not establish a likelihood of success based on BLM's treatment of raven predation because BLM acknowledged the potential issue and reasonably limited the discussion in light of the limited number of water troughs and mixed evidence.
- Plaintiffs did not establish a likelihood of success on their claim that BLM violated FLPMA or the ARMPA by failing to disclose watershed-specific sage-grouse population and lek information.
- Plaintiffs established that the Dillon Field Office project was reasonably foreseeable, but did not establish that BLM was required to conduct a more specific cumulative-impact analysis at that time because insufficient project-specific information was available.
- Plaintiffs did not establish a likelihood of success on their claim that BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously by excluding a reduced- or no-grazing alternative from the EA.
- Plaintiffs failed to satisfy all four Winter factors and were not entitled to a preliminary injunction or TRO.
Key quotations
“NEPA requires that the agency provide the data on which it bases its environmental analysis.” (Discussion, section A.1)
“Defendants must conduct and share, however, at least some degree of analysis within the EA.” (Discussion, section A.2.a)
“Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, however, or to prove that the balance of equities and public interest tip sharply in their favor.” (Conclusion)
Factual background
BLM manages sage-grouse habitat in southwest Montana under the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment, which amended the Dillon Resource Management Plan. BLM authorized grazing, livestock management, and range-improvement projects in the Grasshopper Watershed, an area containing priority sage-grouse habitat. Plaintiffs alleged that BLM's environmental assessment failed to disclose watershed-specific sage-grouse population and lek data, analyze cumulative effects of repeated spring grazing and related activities, and adequately consider reduced- or no-grazing alternatives.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed this action challenging BLM decisions concerning grazing and range-improvement projects in the Grasshopper Watershed. They moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction, and Defendants opposed the motion. The court held a hearing on February 23, 2026, and denied preliminary injunctive relief because Plaintiffs did not establish irreparable harm or that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction, while stating that Plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on certain NEPA and APA claims.