In Defense of Animals v. U.S. Department of the Interior
751 F.3d 1054
9th Cir.2014Background
- BLM designated Twin Peaks HMA as suitable for long-term wild horse and burro maintenance, with AMLs set at 448–758 horses and 72–116 burros.
- Population on Twin Peaks HMA far exceeded AMLs by 2010, with ~2,303 horses and 282 burros in May 2010.
- BLM proposed a 2010 gather to reduce to AMLs and prevent habitat and cultural resource deterioration.
- EA analyzed gather plan, including helicopter capture, temporary holding, sorting, and decisions on euthanasia, adoption, or return to the HMA.
- FONSI found no significant environmental impact, so NEPA required no EIS; gather occurred in Aug–Sept 2010 with ~1,639 horses and 160 burros gathered; post-gather, 793 horses and 160 burros remained on the HMA.
- Plaintiffs challenged under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and NEPA; district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, which was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the BLM violate the Act by the 2010 gather? | Plaintiffs claim excess animals existed and gather violated §1333(b)(2) and AMLs. | BLM acted within AMLs and used temporary gathering to perform removal per §1333(b)(2). | No violation; actions within statutory discretion. |
| Whether temporary gathering constitutes a “removal” under §1333(b)(2) | Gathering off the range to decide euthanasia/adoption is removal. | “Remove” means permanent removal; temporary gather not a removal. | Temporary gather not a removal under §1333(b)(2); plan complied. |
| NEPA: Was an EIS required or was FONSI supported? | BLM failed to prepare an EIS and inadequately addressed conflicting science on PZP. | EA and FONSI provided a hard look; intensity factors and alternatives analyzed; evidence did not show significant impact. | BLM did not err; no EIS required. |
| Was BLM’s response to contrary scientific evidence adequate? | BLM failed to address Cooper/Larsen and Nunez studies undermining PZP effects. | BLM cited EA sections addressing fertility controls and relied on established data; adequate under NEPA. | No NEPA violation for response to comments. |
| Did relocation to private long-term holding violate the Act? | Transferring unadoptable horses to private facilities violates public lands accommodation. | Private holdings permitted; not “public lands” under Act; BLM oversight does not convert facilities to public lands. | No violation; routing to private holdings permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Defense of Animals v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 909 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (NEPA and AML considerations; overpopulation prior action)
- Defense of Animals v. Salazar, 675 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D.D.C. 2009) (discusses removal/AML framework under §1333(b)(2))
- Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 402 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2005) (APA review of agency action; arbitrary and capricious standard)
- Pub. Citizen v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 573 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2009) (NEPA analysis; threshold for EIS and substantial questions)
- EPIC (Environmentalists) v. U.S. Forest Serv., 451 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2006) (hard look standard; factors for NEPA intensity)