Colorado Wild Horse v. Jewell
130 F. Supp. 3d 205
D.D.C.2015Background
- BLM planned to gather and remove up to 167 wild horses from West Douglas HA and surrounding areas, with remaining horses potentially from East Douglas HMA.
- BLM had previously determined West Douglas HA horses were “excess” due to ecological balance and multiple-use concerns.
- East Douglas HMA has an AML of 135–235 wild horses; West Douglas HA AML is zero.
- Plaintiffs allege violations of the Wild Horses Act and NEPA, seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the gathering.
- BLM relied on a 2015 West Douglas HA EA and an older East Douglas EA/DR and a tied FONSI to justify the gather.
- The court denied the preliminary injunction, holding plaintiffs unlikely to prove WHA or NEPA claims, and that irreparable harm and equities favored defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BLM could designate all West Douglas HA horses as excess | Plaintiffs: all West Douglas HA horses cannot be excess | BLM interpreted “the area” as the relevant management unit with Chevron deference | Plaintiffs unlikely to prevail |
| Sufficiency of data underlying excess determinations | BLM lacked a current, reliable inventory and used questionable multipliers | 20% growth multiplier reasonable and supported by data | BLM's data reasonable; plaintiffs unlikely to prevail |
| NEPA adequacy for West Douglas HA gather (FONSI) | NEPA insufficient; need full EIS or updated analysis | EA tiering and by-reference analysis satisfy NEPA requirements | Plaintiffs unlikely to prevail on NEPA claim for West Douglas |
| NEPA adequacy for East Douglas HMA (DNA/FONSI) | DNA improperly relies on a 2011 EA for a different action | DNA adequately tiers to existing analysis and accounts for scope changes | DNA/FONSI permissible; plaintiffs unlikely to prevail |
| Irreparable harm and public-interest balance | Harm to observers and ecological integrity warrant injunction | Harm to agency efficiency and range health outweighs injunction; public interest favors action | No irreparable harm; equities and public interest favor denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. Supreme Court 2008) (preliminary-injunction standards; likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, public interest)
- Am. Horse Prot. Ass’n v. Watt, 694 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (broad discretion for management of wild horses under WHA)
- Grand Canyon Trust v. F.A.A., 290 F.3d 339 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (requires hard look at NEPA impacts; arbitrary or capricious review standard)
- Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 753 F.2d 120 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (NEPA tiering and scope of environmental analyses)
- National Head Start Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 297 F. Supp. 2d 242 (D.D.C. 2004) (influences on injunction considerations and statutory interpretation)