Opinion ID: 501787
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Actual Grazing on Land

Text: 142 NWF here challenges a regulation for failing to require that when grazing is the designated post-mining use of land, the mine operator must use the land for grazing for two years before his bond on that land is released. 21 143 The district court concluded that NWF had standing to challenge this regulation, citing affidavits of two sportsmen who alleged that their ability to hunt wildlife had been impaired by the failure to restore wildlife habitats to pre-mining conditions. In response, Industry argues that hunting is not grazing, and thus that the two hunters have no standing to challenge a regulation for want of better encouragement of grazing. 144 We disagree. Industry's argument is premised on the assumption that enhanced grazing itself is NWF's goal. That assumption is incorrect. NWF's argument is rather that grazing is the best measure of successful revegetation, and thus that NWF members harmed by incomplete reclamation of grazing and pasturelands have standing to challenge the Secretary's regulation as inadequate. Sportsmen who claim that the resulting failure to restore wildlife habitats has impaired their ability to hunt are surely among those harmed by incomplete regulation. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court correctly held that NWF has standing.