Tro Brief

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1
Filed 07/29/11 Page 1 of 41
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AMERICAN WILD HORSE PRESERVATION CAMPAIGN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KEN SALAZAR, Secretary Department of the Interior, et al., Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civ. No. 11-01352 (ABJ)
_______________________________ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION _______________________________
Katherine A. Meyer Jessica Almy MEYER GLITZENSTEIN & CRYSTAL 1601 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 588-5206 Counsel for Plaintiffs July 29, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................ INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. I. The Relevant Statutory and Regulatory Scheme .. A. B. II. The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act .. The National Environmental Policy Act ...
iii 1 1 1 1 5 7 7 11 13 15 15 15 16
The BLMs Decision At Issue In This Case . A. B. C. The BLMs Preliminary EA .. The BLMs Final EA, Decision and FONSI . The BLMs Modified Decision Record .
III.
Proceedings To Date .
ARGUMENT I. PLAINTIFFS HAVE RAISED SERIOUS ISSUES ON THE MERITS A. The BLM Has Violated NEPA . 1. The BLM Failed To Provide The Public An Opportunity To Comment On Its Chosen Management Action The BLM Failed To Consider Several Major Environmental Impacts Of Its Chosen Action .. a) The BLM Failed To Consider The Impacts OnThe Individual Horses and the Herds Social Structures ...
17 18
2.
18
b)
The BLM Failed To Analyze The Impacts Of Its Action On The Genetic Viability Of The Herds .. The BLM Did Not Analyze Whether Its Chosen Management Approach Would Actually Meet TheAgencys Stated Objectives.
21
c)
22
3.
The BLM Failed To Prepare An EIS Even Though Many Of The Significance Factors Are Present Here ...
24
B.
The BLM Has Also Violated Its Obligations Under The WFRHBA .
28
II.
ALL OF THE EQUITIES WEIGH IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THE REQUESTED RELIEF.
29 35
CONCLUSION .
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Am. Farm Bureau Fed'n v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................... 17 American Horse Protection Assoc. v. Watt, 694 F. 2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1982).................................................................................................. 29 Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambrell, 480 U.S. 531 (1987) .................................................................................................................... 30 Anderson v. Evans, 314 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2002) ......................................................................................... 25, 26, 27 Public Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Andrus, 825 F.Supp 1483 (D. Idaho 1993). .............................................................................................. 24 Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Glickman, 154 F.3d 426 (D.C. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................... 30 Blue Mnt. Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 1998) ..................................................................................................... 25 Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence v. Salazar, 612 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009) ........................................................................................... 33, 34 City of Waukesha v. EPA, 320 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................... 17 Colo. Wild Horse and Burro Coal. v. Salazar, 639 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D.D.C. 2009) ........................................................................................... 3, 25 Cuomo v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 772 F.2d 972 (D.C. Cir. 1985)..................................................................................................... 16 Fund for Animals v. Clark, 27 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 1998)................................................................................................... 34 Fund for Animals v. Norton, 281 F. Supp. 2d 209 (D.D.C. 2003) ...................................................................................... passim Fund for Animals v. Norton, 374 F. Supp. 2d 91 (D.D.C. 2005) ............................................................................................... 33 Garvey v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 190 F.3d 571 (D.C. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................... 16
iii
Habitat for Horses v. Salazar, 745 F. Supp. 2d 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ......................................................................................... 32 Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. Johanns, 520 F. Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2007)........................................................................................... passim In Defense of Animals v. Salazar, 675 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D.D.C. 2009) ............................................................................................... 33 Japan Whaling Assoc. v. Am. Cetacean Soc'y, 478 U.S. 221 (1986) .................................................................................................................... 30 Lead Indus. Ass'n v. EPA, 647 F.2d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1980)................................................................................................... 17 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) .................................................................................................................... 30 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) .......................................................................................................... 17, 24, 28 Patriot Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Housing and Urban Dev't., 963 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1997)...................................................................................................... 34 Public Citizen v. Dep't of Transp, 316 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2003) ..................................................................................................... 25 Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) .................................................................................................................... 24 Save Our Ecosystems v. Clark, 747 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1984) ..................................................................................................... 18 Town of Cave Creek, Arizona v. FAA, 325 F.3d 320 (D.C. Cir. 2003)............................................................................................... 17, 18 Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, 559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977)............................................................................................... 16, 30 FEDERAL STATUTES 16 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.,................................................................................................. 2, 19, 25, 34 16 U.S.C. 1333 ..................................................................................................................... 2, 3, 26 16 U.S.C. 1533 ............................................................................................................................. 28 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.,................................................................................................................... 5 42 U.S.C. 4332(C) ............................................................................................................... 5, 6, 24 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A), (D) ............................................................................................................. 16 iv
REGULATIONS 40 C.F.R. 1500.1 ........................................................................................................................ 5, 6 40 C.F.R. 1500.2(d) ..................................................................................................................... 18 40 C.F.R. 1500.3 ............................................................................................................................ 6 40 C.F.R. 1508.13 .......................................................................................................................... 7 40 C.F.R. 1508.27 .................................................................................................. 7, 24, 25, 26, 28 43 C.F.R. 4700.0-2......................................................................................................................... 4 43 C.F.R. 4700.0-6....................................................................................................................... 19 43 C.F.R. Part 4700........................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION This case involves a challenge to a recent decision by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to round-up hundreds of wild, free-roaming horses from public lands in Wyoming, and to castrate most of the male horses and then return them to the range, in a purported effort to control further degradation of this land that is also used by private livestock owners to graze thousands of cattle and sheep. However, because the BLMs action is completely unprecedented, and will only serve to undermine the will of Congress to preserve and protect these horses as wild, freeroaming components of the public land, and because the BLM failed to consider any of the various devastating environmental impacts of this action and failed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement before embarking on its new management experiment, its proposed action is unlawful under both the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, because the plaintiffs aesthetic interests in continuing to enjoy these animals in their wild, free-roaming state will forever be destroyed if the BLM goes forward with its radical management plan, they have asked the Court to enter a temporary and preliminary injunction to halt this extremely controversial action until the Court has an opportunity to review and resolve plaintiffs claims on the merits. BACKGROUND To put this case in context, it is important to review the relevant statutory and regulatory framework, as well as the events that have precipitated the need for emergency injunctive relief. I. The Relevant Statutory and Regulatory Scheme A. The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act
Finding that wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West, and that they contribute to the diversity of life forms
within the Nation and enrich the lives of the American people, Congress enacted the Wild FreeRoaming Horses and Burros Act (WFRHBA or Act), 16 U.S.C. 1331 et seq., to ensure that wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment, [and] death, and be considered in the area where presently found, as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands. Id. 1331 (emphasis added); see also Senate Rep. No. 92-242 (June 25, 1971) at 1 (identifying wild horses as a national esthetic treasure and living symbols of the rugged independence and tireless energy of our pioneer heritage). The Act was enacted as a result of [w]idespread concern for the continued survival of these animals and their protection from continuing depredation, and to protect the remaining wild horses from extermination. Senate Rep. No. 92-242 (June 25, 1971) at 2 (emphasis added). The Act directs the Secretary of the Department of Interior to protect and manage wild free-roaming horses . . . as components of the public lands, and, towards that end, provides that the Secretary may designate and maintain specific ranges on public lands as sanctuaries for their protection and preservation. 16 U.S.C. 1333(a) (emphasis added). It further provides that the Secretary shall manage wild free-roaming horses . . . in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands, and that for purpose of carrying out these duties he shall consider the recommendations of qualified scientists in the field of biology and ecology. Id. (emphasis added). The Secretarys duties have been delegated to the BLM with respect to the public lands at issue in this case. See Colo. Wild Horse and Burro Coal. v. Salazar, 639 F. Supp. 2d 87, 93 n.12 (D.D.C. 2009). To further ensure the objectives of the statute, the Act provides that [a]ll management activities employed by the BLM shall be at the minimal feasible level. 16 U.S.C. 1333(a)
-2-
(emphasis added). The Act further provides that the BLM shall maintain a current inventory of wild horses on public lands to determine whether and where an overpopulation exists and whether action should be taken to remove excess animals, and to determine appropriate management levels of wild free-roaming horses and burros on these areas of the public lands. Id. 1333(b)(1). This inventory also allows the BLM to determine whether such levels should be achieved by the removal or destruction of excess animals, or through other options (such as sterilization, or natural controls on population levels). Id. When the BLM determines that an overpopulation of wild horses exists on a particular area of public lands, and that it is necessary to remove excess animals, for the purpose of restor[ing] a thriving natural ecological balance to the range, and [to] protect the range from deterioration associated with over population, it must remove excess animals from the range so as to achieve appropriate management levels. Id. 1333(b)(2). The term excess animals is defined to mean those wild free-roaming horses or burros which must be removed from an area in order to preserve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationship in that area. Id. 1332(f). Once the agency determines that there are excess animals that must be removed, it may place those animals for adoption by members of the public, humanely euthanize the animals, or, in certain circumstances, offer the animals for sale. Id. 1333(b)(2); 1333(e).1 To further ensure that the agency is obtaining sound information upon which to base its decisions to remove wild horses from the public lands, the Act directs the BLM and United States
However, Congressional appropriations language currently prohibits the destruction of healthy, unadopted wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau of Land Management . . . or for the sale of wild horses and burros that results in their destruction for processing into commercial products. Interior Dept. and Further Continuing Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-88, 123 Stat. 2907 (2009). -3-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 10 of 41
Department of Agriculture to appoint a joint advisory board to advise them on any matter relating to wild free-roaming horses . . . and their management and protection. Id. 1337. The BLM has promulgated implementing regulations for the statute, see 43 C.F.R. Part 4700, for the purpose of managing wild horses as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands under the principle of multiple use; to protect[] . . .wild horses . . . from unauthorized capture, branding, harassment or death; and to provide for the humane care and treatment of wild horses. 43 C.F.R. 4700.0-2 (emphasis added). Toward those ends, the regulations provide that [w]ild horses . . . shall be managed as self-sustaining populations of healthy animals in balance with other uses and the productive capacity of their habitat, and that [m]anagement activities affecting wild horses . . . shall be undertaken with the goal or maintaining free-roaming behavior. Id. 4700.0-6 (a), (c) (emphasis added). The regulations provide that for purposes of managing wild horses, the BLM shall establish herd management areas (HMAs) based on the geographic areas that were used by these wild animals in 1971 when the WFRHBA was enacted, see id. 4700.0-5(d), 4710.3-1. in keeping with the statutes intent that, in the words of the BLM, the wild horses are considered an integral part of the national system of public lands in the areas where they were found in 1971. See BLM Wild Horses and Burros Management Handbook at 6, Plaintiffs Exhibit (Pl. Ex.) A (emphasis added). The BLM then sets an appropriate management level (AML) for each such HMA. Id. at 17. As explained by the BLMs own manual, the AML shall be a population range within which the wild horses in a particular HMA can be managed for the long term. Id. Thus, [t]he AML upper limit shall be established as the maximum number of wild horses which results in a [thriving natural ecological balance] and avoids a deterioration of the range, and the AML lower
-4-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 11 of 41
limit shall normally be established at a number that allows the population to grow (at the annual population growth rate) to the upper limit over a 4-5 year period, without any interim gathers to remove excess [wild horses]. Id. The BLMs manual further explains that in setting the AMLs, the agency must take into consideration (1) whether the four essential habitat components (forage, water, cover and space) are present in sufficient amounts to sustain healthy [wild horse] populations and healthy rangelands over the long-term; (2) the amount of sustainable forage available for wild horse use; and (3) whether or not the projected [wild horse] herd size is sufficient to maintain genetically diverse [wild horse] populations (i.e. avoid inbreeding depression. Id. at 67 (emphasis added); see also id. at 21-22 (stressing the importance of maintaining genetic diversity in each of the herds). B. The National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., is the nations basic national charter for the protection of the environment. 40 C.F.R. 1500.1. It provides that, for all major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, federal agencies shall prepare a detailed statement, called an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 42 U.S.C. 4332(C). The EIS must consider (1) the environmental impact of the proposed action; (2) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided; (3) alternatives to the proposed action; (4) the relationship between local short-term use of mans environment and the maintenance of long-term productivity; and (5) any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources involved in the proposal. Id. at 4332(c)(I)-(v). The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) an agency within the Executive Office of the President has promulgated regulations implementing NEPAs requirements that are binding
-5-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 12 of 41
on all Federal agencies. 40 C.F.R. 1500.3. Those regulations provide that, where the agency has not determined whether an EIS is required, it must generally prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine whether the environmental effects of its proposed action are significant, thereby requiring preparation of an EIS. Id. 1501.4(b). The EA must analyze both direct impacts of the proposed action, i.e., those that result immediately from the proposed management action, as well as the indirect impacts, which are those caused by the action later in time but still reasonably foreseeable. Id. 1508.8(a)-(b). The CEQ regulations further provide that NEPA procedures must ensure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. 40 C.F.R. 1500.1(b) (emphasis added). Indeed, recognizing that public scrutiny [is] essential to implementing NEPA, id., the regulations provide that Federal agencies shall to the fullest extent possible . . . encourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions which affect the quality of the human environment. Id. 1500.2(d) (emphasis added). In determining whether a proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment and hence require the preparation of an EIS the agency is to consider a list of enumerated factors, including the degree to which the effects on the environment are likely to be highly controversial; the degree to which the possible effects are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks; the degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects; the degree to which the action may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources; and whether the action threatens a violation of federal law. 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(b). Further, [b]oth short- and long-term effects are relevant to the significance analysis, id. 1508.27(a), as are [i]mpacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. Id. at 1508.27(b)(1)
-6-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 13 of 41
(A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial). The presence of any one of these facts should result in an agency decision to prepare an EIS. Humane Socy of the U.S. v. Johanns, 520 F. Supp.2d 8, 20 (D.D.C. 2007), quoting Fund for Animals v. Norton, 281 F. Supp. 2d 209, 218 (D.D.C. 2003) (courts have found that the presence of one or more of [the CEQ significance] factors should result in an agency decision to prepare an EIS) (other citations omitted). When an agency determines that an EIS is not required, it issues a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which must explain why the agencys chosen action will not have a significant effect on the environment. 40 C.F.R. 1508.13. II. The BLMs Decision At Issue In This Case A. The BLMs Preliminary EA
In April 2011, the BLMs Rock Springs Wyoming Field Office issued a preliminary EA on its proposed action to remove excess horses from the White Mountain and Little Colorado HMAs in Wyoming, which are geographically adjacent to each other. See BLM EA for the White Mountain & Little Colorado HMAs Wild Horse Gather (April 2011) (Preliminary EA), Pl. Ex. B; see also id. at 2 (Map of the Affected Area). The BLM stated that this action was needed to remove excess animals in order to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance between wild horse populations, wildlife, livestock, vegetation, and water resources and to protect the range from deterioration, and to assure that wild horses are managed at the minimum feasible level of management. Id. at 4. The two HMAs comprise over a million acres, including 726,000 acres of public lands managed by the BLM. See id. at 1. The BLM further explained that its proposed action was intended to be in conformance with
-7-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 14 of 41
the Green River Resource Management Plan of 1997 (Green River RMP or RMP), id. at 5, which in turn emphasizes that the BLMs management of wild horses in these areas must (1) protect, maintain, and control viable healthy herds of wild horses while retaining their free-roaming nature; (2) provide adequate habitat for free-roaming wild horses through management consistent with principles of multiple use and environmental protection; (3) provide [the] opportunity for the public to view wild horses. See Green River RMP (1997), Pl. Ex. C at 23 (emphasis added). The BLM stated that it had determined the number of wild horses in both the White Mountain and Little Colorado HMAs was in excess of the AML established by the agency for the horses, and that, accordingly, it proposed removing the excess animals to the low AML for each of these areas. Preliminary EA at 1. The preliminary EA indicated that there were approximately 660 wild horses in the White Mountain HMA and 310 wild horses in the Little Colorado HMA, id. at 3, and that these numbers exceeded the low AMLs for these areas by an estimated 455 wild horses in the White Mountain HMA and 241 wild horses in the Lower Colorado HMA. Id. at 4. The BLM explained that its Proposed Action for dealing with these excess horses was Alternative A, which involved the roundup of approximately 90 percent (or about 873) of the wild horses in both HMAs, and permanent removal of 696 wild horses from the range for shipment to short-term holding facilities and eventual disposition through adoption, sale, or maintenance in government long-term holding facilities. Id. at 8. It further explained that under this alternative, the projected wild horse populations remaining on the range following the roundup would be 205 wild horses in the White Mountain HMA, which was the low AML for that area. Id. This number would include 66 horses that would be left untouched and 139 horses that would be returned after the round-up. Id. Of the 139 to be returned, 89 would be stallions and 50
-8-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 15 of 41
would be females vaccinated with a temporary, reversible fertility-control vaccine called Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP). Id.; see also Final EA, Pl. Ex. D, at 43 (explaining that the PZP is a shortterm birth control agent).2 As to the Little Colorado HMA, the BLM asserted that, after the proposed round-up 69 wild horses would remain the low AML for that HMA which would include 38 animals that had been rounded up and returned, including approximately 28 studs and 10 females treated with PZP. Preliminary EA at 8. The BLM further explained that based on the number of wild horses left untouched in the HMAs, plus the number that would be returned, the sex ratios for the remaining wild populations in both HMAs would be 60 percent stallions to 40 percent mares, which, according to the agency, would reduce reproduction in the HMAs over the long-term. Id. at 8. The BLMs preliminary EA identified three alternatives in addition to the Proposed Action: Alternative B, which was the same as Alternative A except that there would be no fertility control of the mares that were returned to the HMAs; Alternative C, which was taking no action at all; and Alternative D which was to remove 100 percent of the wild horses from both HMAs and return only castrated males (called geldings) and spayed female horses to the range. Id. at 8-9. Thus, as explained by the BLM, under Alternative D, [t]he populations in the White Mountain and Little Colorado HMAs would be managed as non-reproducing herds. Id. at 9. The BLM received massive public opposition to its proposal, see Comments of American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC) (May 6, 2011), Pl. Ex. F, at 4 (citing 2,000 comments that the BLM Rock Springs field office received in opposition to the Proposed Action),
See also BLM EA for High Rock Complex (June 2011), Pl. Ex. E at 129 (explaining that PZP contraception is relatively inexpensive, meets BLM requirements for safety to mares and the environment . . . [and] appears to be completely reversible) (emphasis added). -9-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 16 of 41
including detailed comments from plaintiffs AWHPC and Western Watersheds Project (WWP), as well as the Wyoming Wild Horse Coalition, which noted that the BLM had failed to provide adequate scientific justification or rationale for the proposed round-up, particularly when a much greater threat to the thriving natural ecological balance of these public lands is posed by cattle grazing and yet the agency authorizes more than ten times more forage for thousands of livestock than for wild horses in these HMAs. AWHPC Comments at 1-2. AWHPC further asserted that [a]n EIS is needed to adequately assess the significant and negative impacts that the Proposed Action will have on the affected regions; on wildlife and the natural environment, on the wild horses that inhabit this public lands area; on those individuals with interests in the region, including recreational users who enjoy watching and visiting the wild horses and burros . . . Id. AWHPC also pointed out that the EA was devoid of monitoring data, including data that support the claim that horses are overpopulating the range and/or causing damage to the range, as well as monitoring data that clearly separate the impacts of livestock and wild horse use, id. at 4, and AWHPC complained that the agency fail[ed] to consider a reasonable range of alternative actions, including on-the-range management of horses with PZP fertility control (and no removals) and increasing forage and water available to wild horses by decreasing livestock grazing. Id. at 4-5. AWHPC further complained that the preliminary EA [f]ails to adequately analyze the impacts of the proposed action on the genetic viability of these herds, and [f]ails to evaluate the impacts of the proposed action on recreational users of this public lands area, particularly those who enjoy wild horse viewing and photography. Id. at 5. As to BLMs proposed Alternative D under which 100 percent of the herds would be nonproducing animals AWHPC complained that this was an extreme alternative that violated the
-10-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 17 of 41
Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Acts mandate that the wild and free-roaming behavior of these species be preserved. Id. at 2; see also id. at 5 (complaining that although BLM dismissed reasonable, cost-effective and humane methods for managing the horses, it included an extreme and unacceptable measure that would violate the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Acts mandate). B. The BLMs Final EA, Decision and FONSI
In June 2011, the BLM issued a Final EA, which is barely distinguishable from the preliminary EA, and in which the Proposed Action continued to be Alternative A. Pl. Ex. D. Like the preliminary EA, the Final EA explained that the agency did population modeling to identify if Alternatives A, B, and C could crash the population or cause extremely low population numbers or growth rates, Final EA at 13, however, the agency did no such population modeling for Alternative D. Id. at 77 (No population modeling was done for Alternative D because it would be a non-reproducing herd.). The Final EA also informed the public that, according to Dr. Gus Cothran, a geneticist with whom the agency consulted, as long as the White Mountain population is maintained at a level greater than 100 adult animals capable of reproduction, there should be little concern over the next few years with respect to genetic diversity. Final EA at 13. As to the Little Colorado herd, Dr. Cothran had concluded that there was a possibility that herd size had already been reduced which could lead to future loss of variation for purposes of the genetic health of the herd. Nevertheless, the Final EA stated that it is not expected that genetic health would be negatively impacted by the Proposed Action, id. at 15 a determination that was not made with respect to Alternative D, which again, if implemented, would result in the eventual die-off of the Id.
-11-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 18 of 41
herds. Despite the fact that both EAs identified Alternative A ad the Proposed Action, and that the BLM did not analyze many of the environmental impacts of Alternative D or explain its obvious conflict with the WFRHBA, much to the publics surprise, on June 13, 2011, Lance Porter, Director of the BLMs Rock Springs Field Office issued a Decision Recordexplaining that he had decided to choose Alternative D as the proposed action i.e., removal of 100 percent of the wild horses from these areas and the return of only castrated males and spayed females. See BLM Decision Record (June 13, 2011), Pl. Ex. G; FONSI, Pl. Ex. H. Thus, the agency explained, [t]he populations in the White Mountain and Little Colorado HMAs would be managed as non-reproducing herds, and would be supplemented with wild horses from other HMAs as needed. Decision Record at 2. Mr. Porter further explained that Alternative D was chosen because it will achieve the established AMLs in the White Mountain and Little Colorado HMAs and will prevent the necessity to gather more frequently due to lower population increases over time. Id. On the same day, Mr. Porter also issued a generic FONSI that had obviously been written for all three of the action alternatives, which summarily stated that [b]ased on the information contained in the attached environmental assessment . . . and all other information available to [him] he had determined that the implementation of Alternative A, B, or D will not have significant environmental impacts, and that, accordingly, an EIS was not required. See FONSI. Not specific to Alternative D, the FONSI did not explain why this extremely new and drastic course of action did not meet any of the significance criteria set forth in the CEQ regulations that govern when an EIS is required. Id. Nor, again, did either the Decision Record or the FONSI include any population modeling for Alternative D or explain how implementation of this action would be sufficient to
-12-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 19 of 41
maintain genetically diverse [wild horse] populations. See BLM Handbook, Pl. Ex. A, at 67. C. The BLMs Modified Decision Record
Less than ten days later, on June 22, 2011, Mr. Porter issued what he called a Modified Decision Record, explaining that the agency had decided to implement a new course of action, which he characterized as Alternative D, except that instead of rounding up 100 percent of the wild horses from these HMAs and sterilizing all of the returned males and females, it would roundup 90 percent of the wild horses and return no females and only surgically castrated males. See BLM, Modified Decision Record (June 22, 2011), Pl. Ex. I. Thus, Mr. Porter explained that the two HMAs would now be managed as minimally-reproducing herds. Id. at 2. No new FONSI was issued with this decision, nor did the BLM solicit comment on this new management action that was revealed for the first time in the agencys Modified Decision Record. Nevertheless, on June 23, 2011, plaintiff AWHPC sent a letter to BLM headquarters in Washington complaining of the Field Offices unprecedented management strategy in violation of federal law and its own land use planning rules, and seeking immediate intervention. AWHPC explained that the newly constituted management action was incompatible with the Green River Resource Management Plan (RMP), which requires the agency to protect, maintain, and control viable, healthy herds of wild horses while retaining their free-roaming nature, because castrating all of the males in these HMAs will mean that the herd is no longer viable and the free-roaming behavior will be inalterably damaged. See Letter to Ed Roberson, Associate Director, BLM from Suzanne Roy (June 23, 2011), Pl. Ex. J, at 1 (emphasis added). AWHPC also pointed out that the BLM had recently asked the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the feasibility and implications on the non-reproducing herd option . . . yet is proceeding to implement [this] untested
-13-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 20 of 41
strategy before the NAS has the opportunity to review and answer the questions posed to it by the BLM, id. at 2, and that the Field Office had ignored over 10,000 public comments by dismissing viable alternatives to the current Proposed Action. Id. On June 24, 2011, Dr. Allen Rutberg, an expert on fertility control for ungulates and a former member of the BLMs statutorily mandated Advisory Board, sent a letter to Mr. Porter registering his strong objections to the agencys decision to manage the wild horses in these HMAs as either non-reproducing or minimally reproducing herds. See Letter to Lance Porter from Allen Rutberg (June 24, 2011), Pl. Ex. K, at 1. Dr. Rutberg explained that either of these approaches violates the RMPs objective to protect, maintain, and control viable, healthy herds of wild horses while retaining their free-roaming nature, because [t]he horse herds described in the decision records are not viable, and are not meant to be viable. Id. (emphasis added). He further explained that [b]y sharply reducing or eliminating the reproductive capacity of the herd, it becomes unable to respond to environmental challenges or the loss of membership through attrition, and without intervention will go extinct. Id. (emphasis added). Dr. Rutberg also explained that [g]enetically, gelding . . . removes the animal from the gene pool as effectively as if he [] had been removed from the range, thus further reducing the number of animals available to maintain genetic diversity and accelerating inbreeding. Id. at 1-2 (emphasis added). Dr. Rutberg further explained that there were more cost-effective ways to control fertility on the range, including the use of PZP, and that, in contrast, [t]o the individual wild horses, their bands [social groups], and their populations, the reproductive interventions described in Alternative D and Modified Alternative D are . . . highly invasive, intrusive, and disruptive [,] [y]et they have not been exposed to serious evaluation by either the agency or the public. Id. at 3 (emphasis added).
-14-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 21 of 41
III.
Proceedings To Date This action was filed on July 25, 2011. On the same day, plaintiffs sent a letter to counsel for
defendants suggesting that particularly in view of the fact that the BLM itself has stated that it has until December 2011 to accomplish the removal of excess wild horses from these areas, Final EA at 5 the agency agree to postpone the August 17, 2011 round-up until the parties and the court have an opportunity to have this case resolved on expedited motions for summary judgment. However, the government declined this suggestion. Accordingly, plaintiffs have no choice but to ask the Court for emergency injunctive relief. ARGUMENT A temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is appropriate when plaintiffs demonstrate that: (1) they have raised questions going to the merits that are so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make the fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberative investigation; (2) they will suffer irreparable injury absent the requested relief, and the balance of hardships weighs in their favor; and (3) injunctive relief will serve the public interest. See, e.g., Wash. Metro. Area Transit Commn v. Holiday Tours, 559 F.2d 841, 842-44 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (internal citations omitted). The test is not a wooden one, and relief may be afforded with either a high probability of success and some injury, or vice versa. Cuomo v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commn, 772 F.2d 972, 974 (D.C. Cir. 1985). However, here, as demonstrated below, all of these factors weigh strongly in favor of granting plaintiffs the requested relief. I. PLAINTIFFS HAVE RAISED SERIOUS ISSUES ON THE MERITS.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Court shall . . . set aside an agencys decision if it is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law or if it was adopted
-15-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 22 of 41
without observance of procedure required by law. 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A), (D). Although this standard is deferential, [d]eference, of course, does not mean blind obedience. Garvey v. Natl Transp. Safety Bd., 190 F.3d 571, 580 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Rather, the Court must perform a searching and careful inquiry into the facts underlying the agencys decision in an effort to ensure that the [agency] has examined the relevant data and has articulated an adequate explanation for its action. Am. Farm Bureau Fedn v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512, 519 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Lead Indus. Assn v. EPA, 647 F.2d 1130, 1145 (D.C. Cir. 1980) and City of Waukesha v. EPA, 320 F.3d 228, 248 (D.C. Cir. 2003)). In addition, the Court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors,and an agency decision is arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, [or] offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency . . . Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). Here, as demonstrated below, the BLM has violated many of these well established tenets. A. The BLM Has Violated NEPA
The D.C. Circuit has adopted a four part test to guide judicial review of an agencys finding that a proposed action will not significantly affect the environment and hence does not require the preparation of an EIS as required by NEPA. Town of Cave Creek, Arizona v. FAA, 325 F.3d 320, 327 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The court must determine whether the agency (1) accurately identified the relevant environmental concern; (2) has taken a hard look at the problem; (3) has made a convincing case for its finding; and (4) if there was an impact of true significance, properly concluded that changes or safeguards in project sufficiently reduce the impact to a minimum. Id.
-16-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 23 of 41
Applying that test here, it is evident that the BLM has violated NEPA in several respects. 1. The BLM Failed To Provide The Public An Opportunity To Comment On Its Chosen Management Action.
To begin with, the BLM obviously failed to take a hard look at the problem when it denied the public any opportunity to comment on the chosen management action, which was not revealed until June 22, 2011, when the agency issued its final decision on this matter. See Modified Decision Record, supra at 13-14. Thus, the agency clearly violated its obligation to encourage and facilitate public involvement in its decision to the fullest extent possible as required by the CEQ regulations. 40 C.F.R. 1500.2(d) (emphasis added). Indeed, courts have readily held that agencies fail to undertake the requisite hard look at a problem when the public is provided only a short time to comment on a particular proposal. See, e.g., Fund for Animals v. Norton, 281 F. Supp.2d 209, 226 (D.D.C. 2003) (agency violated NEPA when it provided public only two weeks to comment on the agencys proposed action); Save Our Ecosystems v. Clark, 747 F.2d 1240, 1247 (9th Cir. 1984) (agency violated NEPA by providing only five days of comment before announcing its final decision). Here, however, the public was given no opportunity to comment on the course of action ultimately chosen by the agency. For this reason alone, plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits.3
Nor did the publics opportunity to comment on the original version of Alternative D cure this problem. Alternative D as originally proposed was completely illegal on its face, since it called for the sterilization of all of the wild horses in these two HMAs, both males and females, and, accordingly, if implemented would completely eliminate the wild horses in these areas in clear contravention of the WFRHBA. See Comments of AWPHC, Pl. Ex. F (explaining that Alternative D would violate the WFRHBA because it would eliminate all of the wild freeroaming horses). While the actual chosen management action, which would leave a small percentage of wild horses intact in these areas, presents some of these same concerns, it also presents additional environmental consequences, including the effect this particular action will have on the genetic diversity of these herds one of many issues that the BLM simply failed to -17-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 24 of 41
2.
The BLM Failed To Consider Several Major Environmental Impacts Of Its Chosen Action.
The agency also failed to take the requisite hard look and to identif[y] the relevant areas of environmental concern, Town of Cave Creek, supra, because it failed to consider at all several obvious, clearly important, environmental impacts of its decision. a) The BLM Failed To Consider The Impacts On The Individual Horses and the Herds Social Structures.
The agency completely failed to examine the environmental impacts on both the individual animals and the wild horse herds of turning large numbers of fully functioning wild stallions into castrated geldings, and whether this approach was consistent with the agencys obligation under the WFRHBA to protect these wild-free roaming horses as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands, 16 U.S.C. 1331, and its obligations under its own regulations, to manage these horses as self-sustaining populations of healthy animals, 43 C.F.R. 4700.0-6 (a) (emphasis added), and with the goal of maintaining free-roaming behavior. Id. 4700.0-6(c) (emphasis added). As plaintiffs experts explain, these are serious environmental concerns. Dr. Rutberg explains that returning large numbers of castrated males to these herds would create a semi-free- roaming herd of domestic horses on public lands, rather than the true wild, free-roaming horses that are required by the WFRHBA. Declaration of Dr. Allen Rutberg, Pl. Ex. L, 13. As Dr Rutberg further explains, [t]he proposed herds will no longer be wild horses from a conservation, population
analyze. See, e.g., Declarations of Dr. Lori Eggert, Pl. Ex. S; Dr. Allen Rutberg, Pl. Ex. L; see also Anderson v. Evans, 314 F.3d 1006, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting with disapproval that there was no opportunity for public comment on [] important amendments to the management plan that was the subject of the EA). -18-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 25 of 41
ecology, or behavioral viewpoint, because the geldings will simply not participate in [the] fundamental processes of wild horse behavior, such as trying to protect mares from harassment by other stallions to secure exclusive reproductive access to the mares for themselves. Id. 17 (emphasis added). He further explains that [t]he castrated males will also not retain their freeroaming nature, because these horses will not be hormonally prompted to protect their mares, compete with other stallions for reproductive mates, or cover as much geographical distance as they would in their natural state. Id. 18. Thus, he explains, [t]he castrated horses will behave much more like domesticate horses, with diminished aggressiveness and competitiveness. Id. (emphasis added). Other experts agree with this assessment: See Declaration of Dr. Anne Perkins, Pl. Ex. M, at 5 (BLMs proposed management approach will harm individual horses and completely alter the natural social structure of wild and free roaming horses ); id. 6 ([t]here is no doubt that castrating stallions and releasing them back into the herd as geldings (castrated males) will change the behavior of both the individual horses and the herd itself . . . A castrated male will not exhibit the wild or freeroaming nature that is evidence in fully-intact stallions) (emphasis added); id. 7 ([c]astrated male horses will lose their masculine behavior . . . altering their natural behavior and changing their social standing within the herd); 10 (If you castrate stallions and release them back into a wild herd, they will behave much like domesticated animals because their physiology will be irreparably altered.); Declaration of Dr. Bruck Nock, Pl. Ex. N, at 11 ([r]emoving a horses testes will have irreversible effects on both the individual horse and the herd. A gelded horse does not behave the same as a wild or free-roaming horse) (emphasis added); id. 13 (this unnatural physiology will undoubtedly affect the horses ability to survive and compete in the wild); 18 (Returning castrated males to the White Mountain and Little Colorado Herd HMAs will change the natural order within the herd and will disrupt the herds viability. There is no reason to believe a herd of such an artificial composition will be stable or self-sustaining.) (emphasis added); Declaration of Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick, Pl. Ex. O, at 6 (explaining that BLMs chosen course of action is extremely intrusive for the individual horses and not viable for the herds as a whole) (emphasis added); id. 8 ([t]he very essence of the wild horse . . . is the social organization and social behaviors. Geldings (castrated male horses) no longer exhibit the -19-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 26 of 41
natural behaviors of non-castrated stallions, and gelded stallions will not keep their bands together, which is an integral part of a viable herd. These social dynamics were molded by millions of years of evolution, and will be destroyed if the BLM returns castrated horses to the HMAs) (emphasis added). Declaration of Neda DeMayo, Pl. Ex. P, at 8 (Castrating stallions completely changes their behaviors. In their natural state, stallions challenge each other, protect their mares, procreate, educate other horses and are nomadic. They keep their bands moving forward, driving from behind. The horse, which was originally a browser and developed into a grazer over millions of years, needs to move to maintain a healthy bone density, digestion, and hoof. Movement is critical for their health and well being. Movement is not only generated by their need to travel from food to water. It is also driven, as exhibited in their fighting, playing, courting, and education of their young. A healthy stallion is a very active animal. After gelding, however, these fundamental behaviors are lost, or, at best, significantly decreased.) (emphasis added). In fact, the BLM itself has acknowledged in other recent EAs that castration would change the individual behavior of each male horse. See BLM Beatys Butte EA (September 2009), Pl. Ex. Q at 22; BLM South Steens EA (November 2009), Pl. Ex. R, at 32. Yet, it failed to take this rather significant impact into account in reaching its decision in this case. Moreover, because the agency did not consider the adverse impacts of its decision on the wild and free-roaming nature of these horses, it also necessarily failed to take into consideration the negative consequences its action will have on the publics ability to observe, photograph, and otherwise enjoy these animals in their natural state one of the other overriding purposes of the WFRHBA, and a stated objective of the agencys own RMP that the BLM claims governs its actions here. See, e.g., 117 Cong. Rec. S 22669 (June 29, 1971) (identifying wild horses as a national esthetic treasure); Green River RMP at 23 (requiring BLM to protect the wild horses in a manner that will provide opportunity for the public to view wild horses) (emphasis added). Indeed, the legislative history for the WFRHBA stresses Congress concern that these wild horses not be managed in a way that would create zoo-like developments, H.R. Rep. No. 92-681 (1971) (Conf.
-20-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 27 of 41
Rep.) at 2159 precisely what is at stake here by turning these wild free-roaming horses into much more docile animals. See, e.g., Perkins Decl. 10 (castrated horses will behave much like domesticated animals because their physiology will be irreparably altered). b) The BLM Failed To Analyze The Impacts Of Its Action On The Genetic Viability Of The Herds.
Incredibly, although the BLM acknowledges throughout its EA the importance of maintaining the genetic diversity of these wild horse herds in order to meet its obligations under the WFRHBA, see, e.g., Final EA at 13-15, 31, 60, the agency also failed to include any analysis at all of this potential impact from its chosen course of action. Thus, as explained supra at 12, although the agency conducted population modeling for the express purpose of determining whether Alternatives A, B, and C could crash the population or cause extremely low population numbers or growth rates, Final EA at 13, it did no such modeling for either Alternative D or its ultimate management choice. As also explained, Dr. Cothran, the geneticist consulted by the agency, had already concluded that the White Mountain population must be maintained at a level greater than 100 adult animals capable of reproduction to avoid concern about genetic diversity, and that, due to its small population size, the Little Colorado herd is already at risk of a future loss of [genetic] variation. See id. Yet, the agency included no analysis at all of the impact of its decision on this extremely important environmental factor, even though its action will result in there being only about 66 horses capable of reproduction in the White Mountain HMA and approximately 31 such animals remaining in the Little Colorado HMA.4
According to the BLM, 205 horses will remain in the White Mountain HMA, which includes 139 of the castrated males that will be returned. This means that only the remaining animals 66 will be capable of reproduction. As to the Little Colorado HMA, the BLM expects 69 horses to remain, which includes 48 castrated males meaning there will only be 31 -21-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 28 of 41
Thus, as explained by geneticist Dr. Lori Eggert, see Pl. Ex. S, the BLMs action will result in only about 100 reproductive individuals combined between the two populations, which takes both herd populations below the minimum number that Gus Cothran felt was necessary to maintain genetic diversity in the White Mountain population alone . . . Eggert Decl. 8-9 (emphasis added). As correctly observed by Dr. Eggert, [i]t does not appear that the BLM has analyzed the impact of its chosen course of action on the genetic viability of these herds, which . . . could be detrimental to their ability to survive over the long term. Id. at 10 (emphasis added); see also Rutberg Decl. 28 ([t]he number projected to be left on the range under BLMs chosen action . . . is far less than the designation outlined in the genetics analysis. Thus, according to the agencys own EA, this approach will not ensure a self-sustaining population) (emphasis added); Perkins Decl. 10 (Geldings are unable to contribute to the genetic diversity of the herd. Removing this natural mechanism will diminish the bands role in maintaining a sustainable, healthy, and viable herd) (emphasis added); Nock Decl. 17 (A castrated male should not be counted in the same manner as a stallion because they cannot contribute to genetic diversity or sustainability of the herd). c) The BLM Did Not Analyze Whether Its Chosen Management Approach Would Actually Meet The Agencys Stated Objectives.
Nor, for that matter, did BLM analyze at all whether its chosen action would actually accomplish its own stated goal of remov[ing] excess animals in order to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance between wild horse populations, wildlife, livestock, vegetation, and water resources and to protect the range from deterioration associated with overpopulation of wild horses
horses in this HMA that are capable of reproduction, for a total of 97 reproductive animals in both HMAs combined. See Final EA at 3; Modified Decision Record. -22-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 29 of 41
as authorized by the WFRHBA. See Final EA at 4. Indeed, less than three years ago, the BLM concluded that there was no benefit from addressing fertility control from the male side of the equation because it seems unlikely this technique will significantly slow population growth rates. See BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program, Alternative Management Options (October 2008), Pl. Ex. T at 57 (emphasis added). Further, as Dr. Rutberg observes, BLMs course of action is particularly ineffective to accomplish the agencys stated objectives because the castrated males will continue to use limited resources while contributing nothing to the demographic or genetic viability of the herd, Rutberg Decl. 27 (emphasis added); see also Nock Decl. 15 (because geldings will not be able to roam as far as stallions, [a] limited geographical home range is also likely to deplete local resources and negatively impact the ecological system as a whole) (emphasis added). Indeed, the BLM itself has recognized this rather salient point in at least one other recent EA. See South Steens EA at 32 (finding that geldings would have a negative impact on water quality and riparian areas because geldings tend to congregate in large numbers than stallion/mare bands, and, accordingly, it could be expected [that] gelding bands may create a situation in which more localized impacts may be seen in riparian areas) (emphasis added). Therefore, it could not be clearer that not only did the BLM fail to take the hard look at environmental consequences that NEPA requires it took no look at all at these myriad adverse environmental impacts of its chosen course of action. Accordingly, its decision simply cannot stand. See Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens, 490 U.S. 332, 351 (1989) (NEPAs hard look requirement prohibits uninformed agency action); see also State Farm, 463 U.S. at 31, 43 (courts should set aside agency action that was not based on a consideration of the relevant factors and that
-23-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 30 of 41
runs counter to the evidence before the agency ) (emphasis added). 3. The BLM Failed To Prepare An EIS Even Though Many Of The Significance Factors Are Present Here.
The BLM also has not explained and under the circumstances of this case simply cannot justify its failure to prepare an EIS on this highly controversial, first of its kind, management approach that will have major impacts on the ability of these herds to maintain their wild and freeroaming status, as intended by the WFRHBA. As explained above, NEPA requires agencies to prepare an EIS regarding all major Federal actions significantly affecting the environment, 42 U.S.C. 4332(C), and the CEQ implementing regulations set forth a number of criteria governing when an action is to be considered significant for this purpose. 40 C.F.R. 1508.27. As also explained, the presence of any one of these factors should normally result in an agency decision to prepare an EIS. Andrus, 825 F.Supp. at 1495; see also Public Citizen v. Dept of Transp, 316 F.3d 1002, 1023 (9th Cir. 2003) (If [the agencys] action is environmentally significant according to any of these criteria, then [the agency] erred in failing to prepare an EIS). Further, to demonstrate that an EIS is required, a plaintiff need not demonstrate that significant effects will occur. Anderson v. Evans, 314 F.3d at 1017 (emphasis in original). Rather, it is enough for the plaintiff to raise substantial questions whether [an action] may have a significant effect on the environment. Blue Mnt. Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 1998) (other citations omitted). Here, given all of the circumstances of this case, there can be no legitimate doubt that, at the very least, there is certainly a substantial question regarding many of the CEQ significance factors. Accordingly, the BLM was required to prepare an EIS on the extreme management approach that it has chosen. First, in light of the statements from the many experts quoted above, there can be no question -24-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 31 of 41
that the BLMs management plan to return a large number of geldings to these wild horse herds may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources, 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(b) i.e., the very wild and free-roaming horses that Congress has declared are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West, that are to be considered an integral part of the natural system of the public lands. 16 U.S.C. 1331; see also Colorado Wild Horse and Burro Coal. v. Salazar, 639 F. Supp. 2d 87, 96 (D.D.C. 2009) (recognizing that Congress made BLM the custodian of these animals on behalf of the public). Second, in light of the publics opposition to this management approach and the experts consistent concerns about the dire environmental impacts it may have on the viability of the individual horses as well as their herds, there can also be no doubt that the environmental effects of the BLMs action are also highly controversial. 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(b); see also Atlantic (July 28, 2011, Pl. Ex. U (describing the public controversy over this particular decision by the BLM). Indeed, it is well settled that the requisite controversy under this factor includes not only public opposition to the proposal, but whether substantial questions are raised as to whether a project . . . may cause significant degradation of the environment. Anderson, 314 F.3d at 1018 (additional citations omitted). Here, such substantial questions are easily demonstrated by the many expert declarations plaintiffs have submitted, including from the very qualified scientists in the field of biology and ecology which the statute requires the BLM to consult about these matters. See 16 U.S.C. 1333(a). Indeed, the BLMs own recent request for research proposals concerning a study of the science, methodology, and technical decision-making approaches of the Wild Horse and Burro Program highlights the controversial nature of these issues. See BLM Wild Horse and Burro Study, Presolicitation Notice (Feb. 7, 2011), Pl. Ex. V, at 2 (noting that the success of any [management]
-25-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 32 of 41
strategy BLM develops hinges on our ability to bridge the many divergent and conflicting perspectives about how the Wild Horse and Burro Program should be managed in the West) (emphasis added). Third, for similar reasons, the BLMs proposed action also involves possible effects that are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(b). Indeed, the agency itself has admitted on several recent occasions that it has no idea whether gelding wild horses is an effective management tool consistent with the purposes of the WFRHBA. See, e.g., BLM Handbook (June 2010), Pl. Ex. A, at 26 (noting that more information is needed to determine whether bachelor stallions or geldings interfere with breeding harems, and whether there is increased competition for forage or water, and to determine if the bachelor geldings form bands or intermix with the breeding population, and whether sex ratio adjustment is an effective population management technique . . .); Beatys Butte EA, Pl. Ex. Q, at 21 (stating that it is unknown what percentage of gelding dominant studs would be necessary to accomplish a reduction in population growth of a herd); South Steens EA, Pl. Ex. R, at 32 (same). Plaintiffs experts agree that there is substantial uncertainty about these issues. See, e.g. Rutberg Decl. 23 (the environmental impacts of this approach are completely uncertain at this juncture); id. 25 ([n]o population modeling was done for the chosen action and hence the BLM has no idea how it will impact these populations of wild horses); Perkins Decl. 14 ([t]he environmental and ecological consequences of this management approach have not been considered). This is precisely the kind of uncertainty about environmental impacts that require preparation of an EIS. See Fund for Animals v. Norton, 281 F. Supp. 2d at 234 (uncertainty as to the impact of a proposed action on a local population of a species, even where all parties acknowledge that the action will have little or no effect on broader
-26-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 33 of 41
populations, is a basis for finding that there will be a significant impact and setting aside as FONSI), quoting Anderson, 314 F.3d at 1018-21 (emphasis added). Fourth, there can be no doubt that the agencys decision here may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, since, as the agencys own public affairs specialist just publicly admitted, this roundup would be the first time the BLM has castrated stallions before releasing them back into the wild, see Associate Press (July 26, 2011), Pl. Ex.W, at 2 (emphasis added), and the agency has several similar proposed actions waiting in the wings. See, e.g., BLM EA for Great Divide Basin HMA Wild Horse Gather (May 2011) at 8 (EA completed and pending final decision for action involving considering castration and return of hundreds of wild horses to create a non-producing herd); BLM Tri-State Calico Complex EA (Fall/Winter 2011) (final EA pending for proposed action that includes the possible castration and return of 181 wild horses); BLM Preliminary EA Red Desert Complex HMAs (June 2011) (final EA pending that includes as alternative castration and return of wild horses). Finally, because the BLMs action here is completely at odds with its obligations under the WFRHBA to protect these wild horses, to preserve them as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands, to manage them in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands, and to employ management activities at the minimal feasible level, 16 U.S.C. 1533, it also necessarily threatens a violation of federal law yet another of the significance criteria. 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(b). Therefore, because at least five of the significance factors are present here, and particularly because the BLMs chosen management approach represents a radical departure from the way it has dealt with these issues in the past, it should be axiomatic that the BLM is required to prepare an EIS
-27-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 34 of 41
before proceeding with this action. See Humane Socy of the U.S. v. Johanns, 520 F. Supp. 2d at 20; Fund for Animals v. Norton, 281 F. Supp. 2d at 218.5 B. The BLM Has Also Violated Its Obligations Under The WFRHBA.
For all of the same reasons, plaintiffs can amply demonstrate that the BLM has also violated its duties under the WFRHBA and failed to consider several obvious relevant factors as required by the APA, State Farm, 463 U.S. at 31, including the failure to consider the impacts of its decision on the wild and free-roaming nature of the horses it is charged with protecting; its failure to consider the impact of its decision on the genetic integrity of these herds and their ability to maintain self-sustaining populations as required by the BLMs own regulations; and the agencys failure to explain to the public how this management approach is consistent with these obligations, as well as the statutes command that [a]ll management activities employed by the agency shall be at the minimal feasible level, particularly when there are far less intrusive ways to control the populations of these herds. See, e.g., Rutberg Decl. 22 (explaining that the use of PZP to control the fertility of mares is reversible, has no serious adverse health effects, has no major disruptive behavioral effects, preserves genetic viability better than management by gather and removal, [] is cost effective, and has also been proven to be effective in managing several populations of wild horse on public lands) (emphasis added); id. 23 (the reproductive interventions entailed with the newly designed approach adopted by the BLM are, by contrast with PZP, highly invasive, intrusive, and
In addition, because the BLM failed even to explain to the public why its selected action does not implicate any of these significance factors, its decision is also unlawful. See, e.g., Fund for Animals v, Norton, 281 F. Supp. 2d at 235 (noting that plaintiffs demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits when the agency has failed to make a convincing case for its finding of no significant impact because it . . . has failed to consider some of the relevant factors under the CEQ regulations) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Indeed, the BLM did not even issue a FONSI with respect to the actual action it chose. -28-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 35 of 41
disruptiveand the environmental impacts of this approach are completely uncertain at this juncture) (emphasis added); see also Perkins Decl. 13 (Reversible fertility control is currently the best method for maintaining natural herd structure while responsibly managing populations of wild horses). Accordingly, for this reason also, plaintiffs have made a strong showing of their likelihood of success on the merits in this case. See also American Horse Protection Assoc. v. Watt, 694 F. 2d 1310, 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (finding that the BLMs decisions under the WFRHBA may be overturned if [the] action is arbitrary, and instructing the district court to determine whether in light of the goals of the Act . . . the Agencys current plan to reduce the size of the wild horse herd . . . is rationally grounded). II. ALL OF THE EQUITIES WEIGH IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THE REQUESTED RELIEF.
Where, as here, plaintiffs have shown a probable success on the merits, they need only demonstrate the possibility of irreparable injury in order to obtain preliminary injunctive relief. See Holiday Tours, 559 F.2d at 841 (other citations omitted). Nonetheless, because the BLM is preparing to take actions that the agency itself concedes are both irreversible, see Beatys Butte EA, at 21, and will also change the individual behavior of 90 percent of the male horses that will remain in these two HMAs, id., it is evident that the plaintiffs will in fact suffer irreparable harm unless the Court issues temporary and preliminary relief to maintain the status quo until the Court has an opportunity to resolve this case on the merits. Thus, it is well recognized that a plaintiffs diminished opportunity to observe and appreciate wildlife constitutes a cognizable injury. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 56062 (1992); Japan Whaling Assoc. v. Am. Cetacean Socy, 478 U.S. 221, 230 n.4 (1986). Indeed, this -29-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 36 of 41
case involves a statute whose overriding objective is to ensure the protection of the publics ability to enjoy wild and free-roaming horses on the lands where they have lived for many years, see supra at 23 - 24 an objective with which the BLM admits it must comply. See Final EA at 4. Therefore, because, as one expert explains, these castrated stallions that are released back into the wild herd will behave much like domesticated animals because their physiology will be irreparably harmed, Perkins Decl. at 10 (emphasis added), the plaintiffs and their members who enjoy viewing, photographing, and otherwise appreciating the wild and free-roaming nature of these wild horses, will be irreparably harmed should the BLM be able to carry out its new management approach as currently scheduled. See Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambrell, 480 U.S. 531, 545 (1987) (Environmental injury, by its nature, can seldom be adequately remedied absent the issuance of an injunction); Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Glickman, 154 F.3d 426, 438 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc) (individuals have protectable interests in federal activities that permit the inhumane treatment of animals they enjoy observing); see also H.Rep. No. 92-681 at 2159 (Conf. Rep.), supra (making clear Congress intent that the wild horses not be managed in a way that would create zoo-like conditions for the viewing public). Plaintiff Carol Walker is a photographer with a professional and personal interest in the Little Colorado and White Mountain herds, who make[s] a living photographing the horses natural behaviors, and has published a book of her wild horse photography. See Declaration of Carol Walker, Pl. Ex. X, at 1.6 Ms. Walker explains that she has visited these horses several times over the years and has found that the best opportunities for photographing the horses occur when the
One of Ms. Walkers photographs of a stallion taken in the White Mountain HMA is attached as Attachment A. See Walker Decl. 3 (this photograph is one of her better-known fine art prints). -30-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 37 of 41
stallions are sparring, fighting, and running, id. 3 behaviors that the experts explain the castrated horses will no longer exhibit. See supra at 20-21. Thus, Ms. Walker explains, she has an aesthetic, occupational, and recreational interest in viewing these wild horses engaging in wild behaviors, id. 4, and that if the BLM is allowed to carry out its proposed action, her ability to photograph family bands, stallions sparring, and horses engaging in other natural wild behaviors will so greatly impair [her] enjoyment of these animals and the aesthetic value of [her] photography of them that [she] will likely not go back to this area. Id. 7 (emphasis added).7 Plaintiff Donna Duckworth recounts that she and her husband moved to their present location in Wyoming to view and photograph the wild horses that roam here, that she visits both the White Mountain and Little Colorado HMAs on a regular basis to photograph the horses, and that she has come to these areas so often that [she] now recognize[s] individual horses and their family groups, and can accurately predict where the horses will be found based on the weather and the time of the day. Declaration of Donna Duckworth, Pl. Ex. Y, 1-3. Ms. Duckworth further describes her great aesthetic enjoyment in viewing the wild horses engaging in social behaviors in these HMAs, and explains that [t]he BLMs decision to round up large numbers of horses from these herds and return only geldings harms [those] aesthetic interests, because this may alter the horses behavior, change their social dynamics, and harm the integrity of the herd. Id. at 4, 9 (emphasis added). Thus, Ms. Duckworth explains, her experience in observing, photographing, and otherwise enjoying these wild horses will be dramatically diminished if BLM is allowed to proceed with its roundup, because the resulting horses may not, in fact, be truly wild at all if the population is comprised
Photographs taken in these HMAs of stallions engaging in wild behaviors, such as fighting and sparring with each other i.e., the kinds of behavior that will be greatly diminished under the BLMs plan are attached as Attachments B-D. -31-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 38 of 41
primarily of geldings. Id. 10 (emphasis added). Jonathan Ratner, a member of Plaintiff Western Watersheds Project and its Wyoming Director, likewise explains that he has visited the White Mountain and Little Colorado HMAs dozens of times over the years, and that he enjoys viewing and photographing the wild horses. Declaration of Jonathan Ratner, Pl. Ex. Z, 8. Mr. Ratner further explains that [t]he BLMs decision to round up large numbers of horses from these herds and return only castrated males (geldings) harms [his] aesthetic, recreational, and scientific interests in the wild horses by manipulating and degrading horses, and because the BLMs action may also cause the herd[s] to decline, eventually eliminating horses in this location a concern that is heightened by the fact that BLM did no population modeling for its chosen course of action. Id. 18. All of these declarants have amply demonstrated that they will suffer irreparable harm to their aesthetic, professional, and recreational interests if the BLM is allowed to go forward with its precedent-setting management approach.8 See Habitat for Horses v. Salazar, 745 F. Supp. 2d 438, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (court found irreparable injury where all the horses in a herd would be removed because plaintiffs regularly traveled to and experienced the wild horses of the herd, despite BLMs argument that hundreds of wild horses would remain on the adjacent tract of land in a different herd); see also Fund for Animals v. Norton, 374 F. Supp. 2d 91, (D.D.C. 2005) (plaintiffs suffer irreparable harm when they have fewer opportunities to view, interact with, study and appreciate animals they enjoy), affd 472 F.3d 872 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
For the same reasons, the plaintiffs can also demonstrate adequate Article III standing in this case i.e., they will suffer undeniable aesthetic injuries caused by BLMs actions and likely to be redressed if those actions are enjoined. See Defenders of Wildlife v. Lujan, 504 U.S. 56061. -32-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 39 of 41
In addition, as plaintiffs have demonstrated, supra at 2-3, the BLM has flagrantly violated the requirements of NEPA, and [w]hen a procedural violation of NEPA is combined with a showing of environmental or aesthetic injury as has occurred here courts have not hesitated to find a likelihood of irreparable injury. Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence v. Salazar, 612 F. Supp. 2d 1, 24 (D.D.C. 2009); see also Fund for Animals v. Norton, 281 F. Supp. 2d at 222 (noting that when the procedural harm caused by a violation of NEPA is combined with the irreparable aesthetic injuries alleged by plaintiffs, such procedural harm does bolster plaintiffs case for a preliminary injunction). On the other hand, the BLM cannot demonstrate that it will suffer any irreparable harm should this particular round-up be delayed until this Court has an opportunity to resolve this case on the merits. Indeed, according to its own EA, the BLM states that it has until December 2011 to conduct this particular round-up, see Final EA at 5, and in the past the agency has insisted that the winter months are the optimum time to conduct such activities. See, e.g., BLM Antelope Complex Capture Plan (Nov. 2010), Pl. Ex. AA, at 40 ([w]inter is often the preferred time to gather horses) (emphasis added); In Defense of Animals v. Salazar, 675 F. Supp. 2d 89, 97 (D.D.C. 2009) (the BLM successfully defeated motion for preliminary injunction by arguing that winter is the best time to gather horses in mountainous areas). Nor can BLM legitimately complain that these horses need to be removed immediately in order to protect the range from further deterioration when the BLM allows these same lands to be used to a much greater extent by the private livestock industry, see AWHPC Comments, Pl. Ex. F at 2, and, as also shown, supra at 23-24, BLMs proposed action may actually contribute to further deterioration of these particular areas because geldings tend to congregate in large numbers than
-33-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 40 of 41
stallion/mare bands, and, accordingly, it could be expected [that] gelding bands may create a situation in which more localized impacts may be seen in riparian areas. South Steens EA at 32 (emphasis added). Finally, because the BLM has committed numerous violations of both NEPA and the WFRHBA here, the public interest will unquestionably be served by maintaining the status quo, since the public interest has a general interest in the meticulous compliance with the law by public officials. Fund for Animals v. Clark, 27 F. Supp. 2d 8, 15 (D.D.C. 1998) (additional citations omitted); see also Patriot Inc. v. U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Devt., 963 F. Supp. 1, 6 (D.D.C. 1997). Indeed, Congress has made clear that protection of these wild horses from capture, branding, harassment, and death is a matter of great national importance, because these animals contribute to the diversity of life forms within the Nation and enrich the lives of the American people. 16 U.S.C. 1331 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the public interest will be well served by preventing the massive desecration of these animals by the BLM, at least until this Court has an opportunity to consider the full merits of plaintiffs claims.
-34-
Filed 07/29/11 Page 41 of 41
CONCLUSION For all of these reasons, the plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter both a temporary and preliminary injunction to prevent the BLM from taking any further actions to conduct its planned round-up of wild horses from the White Mountain and Little Colorado HMAs.
Respectfully submitted, _/s/___________________________ Katherine A. Meyer (D.C. Bar No. 244301) Jessica Almy (D.C. Bar No. 996921) MEYER GLITZENSTEIN & CRYSTAL 1601 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 588-5206 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: July 29, 2011
-35-

Tro Brief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tro Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 1 of 41

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civ. No. 11-01352 (ABJ)

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 2 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 3 of 41

ALL OF THE EQUITIES WEIGH IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THE REQUESTED RELIEF.

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 4 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 5 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 6 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 7 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 8 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 9 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 10 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 11 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 12 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 13 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 14 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 15 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 16 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 17 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 18 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 19 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 20 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 21 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 22 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 23 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 24 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 25 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 26 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 27 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 28 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/11 Page 29 of 41

Case 1:11-cv-01352-ABJ Document 5-1