Animal Protection League v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
34 A.3d 784
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- NJDEP and its Division of Fish and Wildlife Council adopted the Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy (CBBMP) in 2010, including a proposed regulated December bear hunt and integrated management tools.
- The Council approved the CBBMP on March 9, 2010 and the DEP Commissioner approved it on March 17, 2010; final adoption was published in the New Jersey Register on November 15, 2010.
- Appellants challenged the CBBMP as arbitrary and capricious, arguing data manipulation and procedural deficiencies, while respondents and intervenors defended deference to agency expertise.
- Public participation included a May 11, 2010 hearing with over 9,000 submitted comments; respondents later delayed publication to respond to comments and finalize the rule.
- The court applied a deferential standard of review, upholding the agency’s findings supported by substantial evidence and rejecting claims of bad faith or APA violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CBBMP’s data and findings were arbitrary or capricious | Appellants contend data were inflated, miscategorized, or ignored contrary data. | Respondents conducted extensive scientific investigation and relied on experts, with deference due to agency expertise. | No; findings supported by substantial evidence; agency’s methodological choices reasonable. |
| Whether the bear-hunt component was justified under the APA and statutory framework | Hunt not needed; data misused; procedure violated enabling statutes and APA. | Hunt integrated with nonlethal measures; supported by scientific literature and carrying capacity considerations. | No; hunting was a justified part of an integrated management plan and not arbitrary or capricious. |
| Whether the data-collection changes (e.g., ERCC inclusion, double-counting) invalidated prior-year comparisons | Data changes distorted year-to-year comparability and inflated 2009 figures. | Department reviewed and corrected potential double-counting; changes were reasonable and not fatal to conclusions. | No; data adjustments did not render conclusions arbitrary or unsupported. |
| Whether the DEP violated the APA in responses to comments and publication timing | Respondents ignored comments, delayed publication to disadvantage appellants, and published with bad faith. | Responses were thorough; publication delay addressed extensive public comments; substantial compliance shown. | No; responses and process substantially complied with the APA. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474 (2007) (strong presumption of reasonableness for agency findings)
- Campbell v. N.J. Racing Comm., 169 N.J. 579 (2001) (agency choices of testimony are favored if reasonably made)
- United Hunters Ass’n of N.J., Inc. v. Adams, 36 N.J. 288 (1962) (court defers to agency determinations when reasonable despite disagreement)
- Mercer County Deer Alliance v. N.J. Dept of Environmental Protection, 349 N.J. Super. 440 (2002) (weighing scientific literature and expert opinion is within agency discretion)
- In re Young, 202 N.J. 50 (2010) (deference to agency scientific evaluation in technical matters)
- Aqua Beach Condo. Ass’n v. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs, 186 N.J. 5 (2006) (strong presumption of reasonableness for agency action; deference to expertise)