In Defense of Animals v. United States Department of the Interior
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163695
E.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiffs filed July 15, 2010 to halt the Twin Peaks HMA gather planned for Aug 9, 2010.
- Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and NEPA in the Gather EA.
- BLM issued a 158-page Gather EA and a FONSI in July 2010 after public input.
- The court previously denied a preliminary injunction; Ninth Circuit dismissal on mootness.
- This action seeks judicial review of the 2010 gather under the APA, with later cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Court ultimately granted summary judgment for the government and Safari Club, denying Plaintiffs’ claims; court followed its April 2011 dismissal ruling and concluded the gather complied with the Act and NEPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the gather violated the Act by excess-removal procedures | Plaintiffs contend the gather ignored §1333(b) priorities. | BLM followed AMLs and ordered removal of excess animals. | No; gather complied with the Act and AML framework. |
| Whether NEPA was violated by inadequate hard look in the EA | Plaintiffs claim the EA failed to analyze alternatives and data; demanded an EIS. | EA adequately analyzed impacts; no need for an EIS given lack of significant impact. | No; EA provided substantial analysis and a FONSI was appropriate. |
| Whether relocation to private holding facilities complies with the Act | Relocation to private lands violates public-land constraints and monitoring. | Relocation to private facilities is permitted; Congress funded such arrangements. | No; private-holding arrangements are allowed and properly overseen. |
| Whether AML determinations and RMP interplay were properly utilized | Plaintiffs challenge AML reliance and multi-use balance outside RMP processes. | BLM has discretion in AML determinations within the RMP framework; challenge improper here. | No; AML determinations and multi-use balancing are within agency discretion. |
| What standard governs judicial review of agency action | NEPA/Act claims should be reviewed de novo if flawed. | APA arbitrary-and-capricious standard governs; deferential review to agency expertise. | APA standard applies; court defers to agency’s factual and scientific judgments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 1998) (NEPA requires a hard look but not a required specific method)
- Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (S. Ct. 1976) (NEPA requires a hard look where significant impacts may occur)
- City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 1997) (Rule of reason governs reasonable alternatives in an EA)
- In Defense of Animals v. Salazar, 675 F.Supp.2d 89 (D.D.C. 2009) (Rounding up animals for sorting does not preclude removal of excess animals)
- Watt v. Am. Horse Prot. Ass’n, 694 F.2d 1310 (D.C.Cir. 1982) (BLM discretion in determining excess horses; immediate removal authorized)
- Friends of the Earth v. Jantzen, 760 F.2d 976 (9th Cir. 1985) (NEPA data integrity and agency data disclosure obligations)
- Okanogan Highlands Alliance v. Williams, 236 F.3d 468 (9th Cir. 2000) (NEPA review scope and deference to agency decisions)
- Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 402 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2005) (APA review of agency actions in environmental matters must be careful and searching)