A nonprofit conservation organization, Western Watersheds Project, filed a lawsuit challenging the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) decision to grant a 10-year grazing permit for four federal public land allotments for violating the NEPA. In deciding to grant the permits, the BLM had filed an EA, but had not included in the EA a discussion of the "no action" alternative. The organization argued that the EA was defective without a discussion of the effects of the no action alternative. The BLM believed that it did not need to discuss the "no action" alternative because it was relying on the previously prepared Resource Management Plan to determine that elimination of grazing was not viable or was not a necessary option. The BLM noted that it had also examined two other alternatives. The District Court granted the BLM summary judgment. How do you believe the Court of Appeals ruled in this case? Why? Western Watersheds Project v. Bureau of Land Management, 721 F.3e 1264 (2013) CA 10 (Wyo.), 2013 WL3801818.