ELR Citation: 42 ELR 20205
No(s). 11-35464 (9th Cir. Oct 9, 2012)

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision denying an environmental group attorney fees after it successfully challenged BLM's post-fire grazing decisions and authorizations in the Jarbridge Resource Area in Idaho. In 2004, an environmental group filed suit against BLM challenging its renewal of grazing permits in the area, and in 2005, the court held that BLM had violated federal statutes by inadequately protecting habitat of threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. The parties settled the dispute in 2006, but in July of 2007 a massive fire burned more than 400,000 acres in the area, destroying most of the known pygmy rabbit habitat and sage-grouse nesting habitat. It also destroyed much of the grazing land. BLM then allowed grazing on unburned areas to continue, and after taking several months to regroup, began issuing new grazing authorizations. The group then reopened the litigation, and the court ultimately held that BLM had to reduce the grazing in the unburned areas to provide needed wildlife habitat. Despite the group's successful challenge, the court denied the group's request for attorney fees. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The lower court considered the reasonableness of the underlying agency decision to issue grazing authorizations after the fire, and it adequately considered the reasonableness of the litigation strategy defending that decision. The record shows that a reasonable argument could be made to support the BLM's management, even if that argument ultimately proved unsuccessful.