Opinion ID: 779502
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Traditional Injunction Standards

Text: 87 The traditional bases for injunctive relief are irreparable injury and inadequacy of legal remedies. Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987). In issuing an injunction, the court must balance the equities between the parties and give due regard to the public interest. Id. 88
89 During the course of this protracted litigation, the district court repeatedly noted the ecological harms caused by cattle grazing without adequate protective measures. The BLM's own studies, entered into the record before the district court, document environmental harm caused by cattle grazing without adequate protective measures over a fifteen year period. The record therefore supports the likelihood of continued injury absent adequate protective measures. If such [environmental] injury is sufficiently likely, therefore, the balance of harms will usually favor the issuance of an injunction to protect the environment. Amoco, 480 U.S. at 545, 107 S.Ct. 1396. Environmental injury of long duration, here ongoing for at least fifteen years and expected for at least another six years until the required studies are completed, is irreparable. Id. There is no remedy at law that would protect the environment during the period the interim protective measures have been ordered. 90
91 The district court considered the hardship of a complete halt to grazing and concluded that such a remedy would be too drastic. Instead, the court specifically requested and had before it a declaration from the BLM assessing the proposed interim measures. Reimers' declaration states in pertinent part that [t]he livestock permittee would not be adversely effected [sic] if the above terms and conditions are ordered unless BLM determined that livestock had caused resource damage and/or the permittee failed to meet other terms and condition [sic] of the permit. The Environmental Groups originally asked for a complete halt to all grazing. The Ranchers now protest the interim measures as too harsh. The record reflects that the district court adopted a middle ground approach and was mindful of the equities on all sides, imposing the interim measures in order to avoid the harsh consequences to the Ranchers of stopping all grazing. As noted above, the district court has allowed that if the interim measures prove unjust in a specific situation the BLM has authority to work out a fair result with the affected Rancher. District Judge Winmill has done an admirable job of ensuring an equitable result in a difficult situation. 92
93 The district court adopted the interim measures proposed by the BLM, which were designed, as Reimers verified in his declaration, to ensure virtually no irreversible or irretrievable loss of public resources, and at the same time allow grazing to continue availing the public of whatever benefits flow from the grazing of cattle on public lands. 94 4. Sufficiency Of The District Court's Orders To Meet The Requirements For Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law To Support Issuance Of An Injunction 95 The Ranchers argue that the district court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law adequate to support issuance of the injunction. We reject the Ranchers' arguments on this score because the findings of the district court are sufficiently specific to permit fair appellate review of the manner in which the trial court resolved the issues upon which its judgment depends. Gypsum Carrier, Inc. v. Handelsman, 307 F.2d 525, 532 (9th Cir.1962). See also Century Marine Inc. v. United States, 153 F.3d 225, 231(5th Cir.1998) (holding that findings of fact are sufficient if the district court's findings give the reviewing court a clear understanding of the basis for the decision). The district court's finding of the NEPA violation in the summary judgment order, 8 the recitation of damage caused by livestock grazing in that order, and the analysis contained in the order granting the injunction and denying the motion for reconsideration make abundantly clear the facts upon which the district court relied. Indeed, these findings far surpass the level of findings and conclusions required by the out-of-circuit authority cited by the Ranchers. United States v. Rohm & Hass Co., 500 F.2d 167, 177 (5th Cir.1974). 96 5. The Ranchers' Vagueness Arguments And Abuse Of Discretion Claims 97 The Ranchers also argue that the terms of the injunction are too vague to be enforceable. However, the BLM devised the terms and is responsible for enforcing them. BLM has not objected to the terms, and they appear quite clear on their face. The court also was specific as to which permits the injunction applies to, excluding a number of Ranchers by name and permit number in the Dec. 13 Memorandum. The evidence does not support the contention that the court abused its discretion in applying BLM's recommendations in devising the injunction.