throbber

`Case 2:22-cv-01200-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 07/26/22 Page 1 of 25
`
`DANIELLE M. HOLT
`(Nevada Bar No. 13152)
`DE CASTROVERDE LAW GROUP
`1149 S Maryland Pkwy
`Las Vegas, NV 89104
`Ph (702) 222-9999
`Fax (702) 383-8741
`danielle@decastroverdelaw.com
`
`JESSICA L. BLOME
`(Cal. Bar No. 314898, pro hac vice application forthcoming)
`ALEXANDRA J. MONSON
`(Cal. Bar No. 324794, pro hac vice application forthcoming)
`GREENFIRE LAW, PC
`P.O. Box 8055
`Berkeley, CA 94707
`(510) 900-9502
`jblome@greenfirelaw.com
`amonson@greenfirelaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR
`INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY
`RELIEF
`
`
`CANA FOUNDATION, a non-profit
`corporation, LAURA LEIGH, individually,
`and WILD HORSE EDUCATION, a non-
`profit corporation,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
`INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND
`MANAGEMENT, and JON RABY, Nevada
`State Director of the Bureau of Land
`Management,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-01200-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 07/26/22 Page 2 of 25
`
`1.
`Plaintiffs respectfully bring this case to challenge a decision by the United States
`Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to remove wild, free-roaming horses
`and burros from Herd Management Areas in violation of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and
`Burros Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1331, et seq., which, as implemented through federal regulations, requires
`that such plans be carried out pursuant to a Herd Management Area Plan, or “HMAP.” See 43
`C.F.R. § 4710.4. The BLM has not yet adopted an HMAP for the area in question. Nonetheless,
`beginning on August 1, 2022, BLM plans to gather and remove hundreds of horses and burros by
`helicopter in the Blue Wing Complex of Herd Management Areas, located in Nevada, with the
`stated goal of removing approximately 1,000 animals from the land. The BLM developed its plan
`to remove these wild horses and burros in violation of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros
`Act, which, through its regulations, requires that such plans be carried out pursuant to an HMAP.
`43 C.F.R. § 4710.4. An HMAP does not yet exist for the Blue Wing Complex or any of its Herd
`Management Areas. The BLM’s gather plan was finalized in 2017 and BLM’s decision to conduct
`a 2022 gather of wild horses and burros pursuant to that plan also violates the mandate that BLM
`immediately remove excess animals based on current information. 16 U.S.C. § 1333(b)(2).
`Plaintiffs file this Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Complaint) to prevent the BLM
`from implementing further herd management activities until Defendants have complied with the
`Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and
`Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`2.
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 5
`U.S.C. § 706, 28 U.S.C § 1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
`3.
`Venue is proper in this district court pursuant to 28. U.S.C. § 1391. The BLM has
`sufficient contacts to subject it to personal jurisdiction in this district.
`THE PARTIES
`4.
`Plaintiff CANA FOUNDATION is a non-profit corporation that works with
`science-backed information to create rewilding initiatives for wild horses and environments.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-01200-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 07/26/22 Page 3 of 25
`
`CANA Foundation’s principal place of business is at 6150 Northern Boulevard, East Norwich,
`N.Y., 11732. CANA Foundation’s rewilding initiatives foster community empowerment, land
`conservation, and the sustainable management and preservation of America’s wild horse
`populations. CANA Foundation rescues, re-wilds, and re-homes wild horses in order to improve
`their quality of life and ensure that they can live with dignity in protected habitats. CANA
`Foundation actively monitors for any Herd Management Area Plans that are available for public
`comment in the United States and routinely submits comments throughout the public commenting
`process. The Blue Wing Complex is one of the wild horse herds that CANA Foundation monitors
`and advocates for. The further gathering and removal of wild horses and burros in the Blue Wing
`Complex due to the challenged actions will adversely affect the substantial recreational, aesthetic,
`scientific, and conservational interests of CANA Foundation and its staff, volunteers, members,
`and supporters.
`5.
`Defendants’ failure to comply with the requirements of the Wild Free-Roaming
`Horses and Burros Act injured the CANA Foundation because Defendants’ failure to prepare the
`required HMAP thwarted their organizational mission to advance rewilding as an alternative
`management strategy for wild horses and burros. Because the BLM failed to prepare an HMAP
`(and refused to entertain comments it considered outside the scope of its NEPA review that would
`have been appropriate in the context of an HMAP review), the CANA Foundation has been and
`continues to be injured by Defendants’ violations of the law.
`6.
`Plaintiff WILD HORSE EDUCATION is a national non-profit corporation
`dedicated to research, journalism, and public education concerning the activities and operations of
`federal and state management of the free-roaming wild horse and burro populations. Wild Horse
`Education’s principal place of business is 216 Lemmon Drive, # 316, Reno, N.V., 89506. Wild
`Horse Education has more than 150,000 members and educates and informs the public about wild
`horses and burros through articles, photographs, videos, and sharing data and other information.
`Wild Horse Education also frequently submits comments on Herd Management Area Plans,
`Environmental Assessments, and other wild horse management documents and hearings made
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-01200-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 07/26/22 Page 4 of 25
`
`available for public comment. Advocating for the wild horses and burros in the Blue Wing
`Complex is a past, present, and future important issue for Wild Horse Education. Wild Horse
`Education attended Bureau of Land Management’s public tour of the Blue Wing Complex in
`March 2016 and actively participated in the public commenting process of the Environmental
`Assessment for the Blue Wing Complex Gather Plan, which was finalized on October 23, 2017.
`Wild Horse Education has actively participated in the review of wild horse and burro management
`and gather plans, and their members and supporters regularly attend and observe wild horse and
`burro roundups, removals, and holding pens. The further gathering and removal of wild horses and
`burros in the Blue Wing Complex due to the challenged actions will adversely affect the substantial
`recreational, aesthetic, and conservational interests of Wild Horse Education and its staff,
`volunteers, members, and supporters.
`7.
`Plaintiff LAURA LEIGH is the Founder and President of Plaintiff WILD HORSE
`EDUCATION. In addition, Ms. Leigh works with multiple non-profit organizations engaged in
`public land issues and provides in-field documentation and commentary on public land issues such
`as wild horse and burro gathers and removals. Ms. Leigh is also a free-lance photojournalist, whose
`work has appeared internationally in media broadcast outlets, such as CNN, BBC/ITV, ABC,
`Common Dreams, and CounterPunch. Ms. Leigh has visited, observed, and photographed the wild
`horses and burros at the Blue Wing Complex at least once a year since 2009. Ms. Leigh experiences
`great enjoyment from watching and monitoring individual horses and burros in the Blue Wing
`Complex. Of particular interest, Ms. Leigh commonly seeks out and photographs paint burros at
`the Blue Wing Complex as this is one of the only areas where there are wild paint burros. Ms.
`Leigh has also attended several wild horse and burro roundups throughout the United States, and
`frequently reviews photographs and videos from any roundups she is not able to attend in person.
`When Ms. Leigh recognizes individual horses and burros that she has previously observed as wild,
`free-roaming horses and burros, she experiences great sadness, but feels it is her responsibility to
`the animals to observe their treatment and capture and share it with others to educate them on the
`plight of wild horses and burros. The further gathering and removal of wild horses and burros in
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-01200-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 07/26/22 Page 5 of 25
`
`the Blue Wing Complex due to the challenged actions will adversely affect the substantial
`recreational, aesthetic, and conservational interests of Ms. Leigh.
`8.
`CANA Foundation and Wild Horse Education (collectively, the Nonprofit
`Plaintiffs) and their members, supporters, and staff have a long-standing interest in wild, free-
`roaming horses and burros and routinely advocate for wild horses and burros in Nevada. If they
`had been given the opportunity, Nonprofit Plaintiffs would have submitted comments to the
`Bureau of Land Management regarding a Herd Management Area Plan for the Blue Wing
`Complex.
`9.
`Wild Horse Education’s members, supporters, and staff visit the Blue Wing
`Complex for photography, observing wildlife, and other recreational and professional pursuits.
`Nonprofit Plaintiffs’ members, supporters, and staff gain aesthetic enjoyment from observing,
`attempting to observe, hearing, seeing evidence of, and studying wild horses and burros. The
`opportunity to possibly view wild horses and burros, or signs of them, in these areas is of
`significant interest and value to Nonprofit Plaintiffs’ members, supporters, and staff, and increases
`their use and enjoyment of Nevada’s public lands. Nonprofit Plaintiffs’ members, supporters, and
`staff have engaged in these activities in the past and have specific plans to do so again in the future.
`10.
`Nonprofit Plaintiffs’ members and supporters are adversely impacted by the
`gathering and removal of wild horses and burros from the Blue Wing Complex. Nonprofit
`Plaintiffs’ members also have an interest in the health and humane treatment of animals, and work
`to rehabilitate sick and injured wildlife, including horses and burros. Nonprofit Plaintiffs’
`members, staff, volunteers, and supporters have engaged in these activities in the past and intend
`to do so again soon.
`11.
`Nonprofit Plaintiffs, as well as their members, supporters, and staff, are dedicated
`to ensuring the long-term survival of the wild, free-roaming horses and burros throughout the
`contiguous United States, and specifically in Nevada, and to ensuring that Defendants comply with
`all applicable state and federal laws related to the survival and humane treatment of wild horses
`and burros in Nevada. In furtherance of these interests, Nonprofit Plaintiffs’ members, supporters,
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-01200-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 07/26/22 Page 6 of 25
`
`and staff have worked, and continue to work, to protect and advocate for wild horses and burros
`in Nevada and throughout the contiguous United States.
`12.
`The interests of Nonprofit Plaintiffs’ members, supporters, and staff have been, and
`will continue to be, injured by Defendants’ improper and inhumane gather and removal of wild
`horses and burros in the Blue Wing Complex. The interests of Nonprofit Plaintiffs’ members,
`supporters, and staff have been, and will continue to be, injured by Defendants’ failure to comply
`with their obligations under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (Wild Horse Act),
`National Environmental Policy (NEPA), and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in gathering
`and removing wild, free-roaming horses and burros in gruesome and inhumane ways in the Blue
`Wing Complex without a Herd Management Area Plan.
`13.
`The injunctive relief requested provides the only remedy that can redress the
`injuries of Nonprofit Plaintiffs, including of their members, supporters, volunteers, and staff. The
`relief requested by Plaintiffs, if granted, would require Defendants to comply with the
`requirements of the Wild Horse Act, NEPA, and APA before further gathering and removing wild,
`free-roaming horses and burros from the Blue Wing Complex. The relief requested by Plaintiffs,
`if granted, would reduce the number of wild, free-roaming horses and burros needlessly injured,
`killed, or removed by Defendants.
`14.
`Defendant JON RABY is Nevada State Director of the BLM, and is charged by
`federal statute with managing, administering, and protecting the wild horses and burros in the State
`of Nevada, including the Blue Wing Complex, pursuant to the Wild Horse Act.
`15.
`Defendant DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGE-
`MENT is charged by federal statute to manage administer and protect the wild horses and burros
`in the State of Nevada, including the Blue Wing Complex, pursuant to the Wild Free-Roaming
`Horses and Burros Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1340.
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS OF FACTS
`A. Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act
`16.
`Finding that “wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-01200-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 07/26/22 Page 7 of 25
`
`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 Free-Roaming
`Horses and Burros Act (Wild Horse Act) to ensure that “wild-free roaming horses and burros shall
`be protected from capture, branding, harassment, [and] death,” and will “be considered in the area
`where presently found, as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands.” 16 U.S.C. §
`1331.
`
`17.
`“Wild free-roaming horses and burros” are defined under the Wild Horse Act as
`“all unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on public lands of the United States,” which
`include lands “administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land
`Management or by the Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest Service.” Id. §§ 1332(b), (e);
`see also 36 C.F.R. § 222.60(b)(13).
`18.
`The Wild Horse Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to “manage wild free-
`roaming horses and burros as components of the public lands ... in a manner that is designed to
`achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands.” 16 U.S.C. § 1331.
`To further ensure this objective, the statute provides that “[a]ll management activities shall be at
`the minimal feasible level.” 16 U.S.C. § 1333(a).
`19.
`The Wild Horse Act also gives the Secretary the ability to remove “excess” wild
`free-roaming horses and burros from the public range. “[E]xcess animals” are defined in the statute
`as wild free-roaming horses and 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.” 16
`U.S.C. § 1332(f).
`20.
`The Secretary must first make a determination that 1) an overpopulation of animals
`exists and 2) that action is necessary to remove excess animals, before immediately removing the
`excess animals. 16 U.S.C. § 1333(b)(2). The Secretary must determine both of those requirements
`on the basis of the current inventory of lands, information contained in any land use planning
`documents, information contained in court ordered environmental impact statements, and any
`additional information currently available to him/her. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-01200-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 07/26/22 Page 8 of 25
`
`21.
`A wild horse gather plan violates the immediate removal mandate of the Wild Horse
`Act when it permits the removal of excess animals up to ten years from its promulgation. Friends
`of Animals v. Culver, No. 19-3506 (D.D.C. Jun. 28, 2022).
`22.
`Excess horses must be “humanely captured and removed” per the Wild Horse Act’s
`mandates. 16 U.S.C § 1333(b)(2)(B).
`23.
`“[H]umane treatment” is defined as “handling compatible with animal husbandry
`practices accepted in the veterinary community, without causing unnecessary stress or suffering to
`a wild horse or burro.” 43 C.F.R. § 4700.0-5(e). “Inhumane treatment” is defined as “any
`intentional or negligent action or failure to act that causes stress, injury, or undue suffering to a
`wild horse or burro and is not compatible with animal husbandry practices accepted in the
`veterinary community.” 43 C.F.R. § 4700.0-5(f).
`24.
`The Secretary delegated responsibility to administer the Wild Horse Act to the
`BLM. 43 C.F.R. § 4700.0-3.
`25.
`The BLM’s regulations require that the Secretary establish Herd Management
`Areas for the maintenance of wild horse and burro herds. 43 C.F.R. § 4710.3-1. In delineating each
`herd management area, the BLM must consider the appropriate management level for the herd, the
`habitat requirements of the animals, the relationships with other uses of the public and adjacent
`private lands, and the constraints contained in § 4710.4, which limits management of wild horses
`and burros to “the minimum level necessary to attain the objective identified in approved land use
`plans and herd management area plans.” 43 C.F.R. § 4710.4.
`26.
`Once a Herd Management Area is established, the BLM “shall prepare a herd
`management area plan, which may cover one or more herd management areas.” 43 C.F.R. § 4710.4
`(emphasis added).
`27.
`The Herd Management Area Plans assist the BLM in meeting the regulatory policy
`requirements to manage wild horses and burros “in balance with other uses and the productive
`capacity of their habitat” and to ensure that wild horses and burros are “considered comparably
`with other resource values[.]” 43 C.F.R. §§ 4700.0-6(a)-(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-01200-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 07/26/22 Page 9 of 25
`
`28.
`A Herd Management Area Plan is the only wild horse and burro management
`document that is expressly identified and required by the Wild Horse Act regulations.
`29.
`The BLM implements its regulations through a policy document referred to as the
`“Wild Horses and Burros Management Handbook H-4700-1,” (BLM Handbook).
`30.
`The BLM Handbook is not an agency rule; it was not subject to notice and comment
`rulemaking and does not have the force and effect of law, like the Wild Horse Act and BLM
`Regulations. The BLM Handbook is a policy document that presents guidance to BLM staff for
`implementing BLM’s statutory and regulatory obligations in a uniform matter.
`31.
`Nevertheless, the BLM Handbook mirrors the BLM Regulations and requires that
`all wild horse herd management activities be carried out “at the minimum feasible level of
`management necessary to attain the objectives identified in approved land use plans (LUPs) and
`Herd Management Area Plans (HMAPs).” BLM Handbook, Chap. 1, p. 6 (emphasis added).
`32.
`Nothing in the BLM Handbook gives BLM authority to ignore its statutory and
`regulatory mandate to conduct herd management activities in a way that maintains the minimum
`feasible level required pursuant to a LUP and HMAP. See 43 C.F.R. § 4710.4 (“Management shall
`be at the minimum level necessary to attain the objectives identified in approved land use plans
`and herd management area plans.”)
`33.
`The BLM Handbook goes on to clarify that HMAPs, rather than LUPs, must be
`used to identify and document habitat and population management and monitoring objectives for
`specific complexes of HMAs. Id. at Chap. 2, p. 10. In fact, the BLM Handbook dictates that
`HMAPs must tier to and be in conformance with applicable LUPs. Id.
`34.
`To achieve statutory goals, HMAPs must also include a plan for monitoring and
`evaluating management actions and decisions and require the collection of data/information
`necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of those decisions. Id. at Chap. 6.2, p. 43. The BLM
`Handbook further emphasizes that “[a]s required in 43 C.F.R. § 4710.4, management shall be at
`the minimum level necessary to attain the objectives identified in approved LUPs and HMAPs.”
`Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-01200-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 07/26/22 Page 10 of 25
`
`35.
`Importantly, in evaluating and selecting the wild horse management plan
`authorized by an HMAP, the BLM must consider a range of alternatives, including taking no
`action. Id. at p. 38. The BLM Handbook provides the example of “consider[ing] differing gather
`seasons or methods, various tools to slow population growth, or various habitat tools, projects, or
`techniques” as possible considerations for an alternatives analysis. Id. The alternative management
`strategies identified in an HMAP are intended to be broader and more long-term than just single
`and one-time management tools, projects, or methods.
`36.
`HMAPs may be prepared for a single HMA or a complex of adjacent HMAs where
`animal interchange occurs and must “identify and set objectives for [wild horse and burro] herds
`and their habitat.” Id. at Chap. 6, p. 11, 36.
`37.
`Habitat management and monitoring consists of analyzing the forage, water, cover,
`and space available for wild horses. Id. at Chap. 3, p. 12-13.
`38.
`Examples of habitat management projects include seeding, emergency fire
`rehabilitation, constructing and maintaining fencing, rewilding, and water developments. Id. at p.
`13-15. Examples of population control methods include gathers and removals, fertility control, and
`adjusting male/female sex ratios. Id. at p. 23-17.
`39.
`The BLM makes clear that the public participation process for an HMAP involves
`public review and comment to allow for public scoping of the key issues identified and the range
`of alternatives to be considered in the HMAP. Id. at p. 37.
`40.
`Figure 6.1 of the BLM Handbook demonstrates the separate and important
`decision-making process undertaken by agency officials when developing required HMAPs,
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-01200-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 07/26/22 Page 11 of 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`including public participation. See BLM Handbook, Figure 6.1, p. 36.
`41.
`During HMAP development, herd-specific and habitat-specific information and
`concerns may be raised during public participation. For example, the public could submit
`information and data regarding the foaling season of the particular herd or local weather conditions
`that effect the range and horse movement during certain months. BLM would then be required to
`consider and address these site-specific concerns in the HMAP and any management actions that
`result from the HMAP would be in conformance with these considerations. This leads to more
`tailored and humane management actions.
`42.
`In the few HMAPs that BLM has developed, the HMAP affirms that BLM uses the
`HMAP to attain the mandate in the Wild Horse Act to establish a “thriving ecological balance”
`between and among wild horses, burros, and their habitat.
`43.
`The BLM has identified no other mechanism to attain the goals specific to the Wild
`Horse Act, including ensuring the humane treatment and, if necessary, capture of wild horses.
`B. National Environmental Policy Act
`44.
`A second statute, NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., governs decisions by the BLM
`to gather horses. NEPA requires federal agencies to take a “hard look” at the environmental
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 25
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-01200-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 07/26/22 Page 12 of 25
`
`consequences before carrying out federal actions. Marsh v. Or. Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360,
`373-74 (1989).
`45.
`NEPA serves the dual purpose of, first, informing agency decisionmakers of the
`significant environmental effects of proposed major federal actions and, second, ensuring that
`relevant information is made available to the public so that it “may also play a role in both the
`decision-making process and the implementation of that decision.” See Robertson v. Methow
`Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989).
`46.
`To meet these goals, NEPA requires a comprehensive Environmental Impact
`Statement (EIS) for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
`environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 1501.3.
`47.
`To determine whether a proposed action will have significant effects, an agency
`may prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA). 40 C.F.R. § 1501.54. An EA is a “concise public
`document” that “[b]riefly provide[s] sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to
`prepare an [EIS].’” Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 757 (2004) (quoting 40 C.F.R.
`§ 1508.9(a)).
`48.
`Unlike the Wild Horse Act, NEPA does not impose any substantive obligations
`upon an agency but requires that an agency take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences
`of its decision-making. Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350.
`49.
`If in its EA the agency finds that the proposed action will not significantly affect
`the human environment, it may issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) in lieu of an EIS.
`Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 1233, 1239 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing 40
`C.F.R. § 1508.9(a)(1)); see also 40 C.F.R. § 1501.6(e).
`50.
`A FONSI “briefly present[s] the reasons why an action … will not have a
`significant effect on the human environment and for which an [EIS] therefore will not be
`prepared.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(1).
`51. When preparing an EA, agencies are only required to conduct brief discussions of
`reasonably feasible alternatives that are reasonably related to the purpose of the project. See
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-01200-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 07/26/22 Page 13 of 25
`
`Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 376 F.3d 853, 868 (9th Cir. 2004). Agencies need
`not “consider alternatives which are infeasible, ineffective, or inconsistent with the basic policy
`objectives for the management of the area.” Headwaters, Inc. v. BLM, 914 F.2d 1174, 1180 (9th
`Cir. 1990) (citing California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 767 (9th Cir. 1982)).
`52.
`Critically, an agency’s “obligation to consider alternatives under an EA is a lesser
`one than under an EIS,” and so long as “‘reasonable alternatives’ have been considered,” there is
`no “minimum number of alternatives that an agency must consider.” Native Ecosystems Council,
`428 F.3d at 1246 (finding sufficient the consideration of two alternatives including the no-action
`alternative).
`53.
`According to the BLM Handbook, if the BLM decides to implement the objectives
`of an HMAP by removing excess wild horses, it must prepare an environmental assessment to
`comply with NEPA for that specific gather plan. BLM Handbook, at p. 27-28; see id. at Chap. 7,
`p. 48 (the environmental analysis for gather plans should tier to HMAPs). (A gather plan that has
`gone through the NEPA process will be referred to as a “Gather-EA” throughout this Complaint.)
`54.
`BLM has determined that under NEPA, Gather-EAs are not required to solicit
`public scoping comments and are limited in scope to analyzing the proposed action’s effect on the
`human environment.
`55.
`Because the broad management of wild horses under an HMAP is also a federal
`action that may significantly affect the human environment, the BLM may prepare an HMAP-EA
`that analyzes herd management and the environmental impacts associated with a range of
`alternative herd management strategies for the herd and its habitat. Id. at Chap. 6, p. 38. (A
`finalized HMAP that has gone through the NEPA process will be referred to as an “HMAP-EA”
`throughout this Complaint.)
`56.
`Though the NEPA process may be used to analyze the HMAP’s potential impacts
`to the human environment, the NEPA process is one discreet part of the HMAP preparation process
`which, when completed, is intended to analyze the broad and long-term potential impacts to the
`wild horse herds and their habitats. See id. at Chap. 6, pp. 36-44 (Herd Management Area
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-01200-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 07/26/22 Page 14 of 25
`
`Planning).
`57.
`To further illustrate the distinction between an HMAP/HMAP-EA and a Gather-
`EA, the BLM Handbook indicates that the separate decision to gather and remove horses has a
`different appeal process than the appeals process for the HMAP generally. Id. at Chap. 7, p. 45.
`58.
`Additionally, a Gather-EA is not the proper analysis for the long-term management
`of wild horses and burros. Friends of Animals v. Culver, No. 19-3506 (D.D.C. Jun. 28, 2022)
`(holding that “BLM’s ten-year [phased gather-EA] exceeds its discretion, per statutory
`command”).
`59.
`Therefore, a Gather-EA simply cannot substitute an HMAP or an HMAP-EA.
`C. The Winnemucca District Resource Management Plan
`60.
`The Blue Wing Complex consists of 2,283,300 acres of land. The Blue Wing
`Complex is made up of five Herd Management Areas (HMAs), four Herd Areas (HAs), and other
`non-HMA areas. The HMAs are: Kamma Mountains, Seven Troughs Range, Lava Beds, Blue
`Wing Mountains, and Shawave. The HAs are: Antelope Range, Selenite Range, Trinity Range,
`and Truckee Range.
`61.
`The Blue Wing Complex is located in the Winnemucca District of Nevada and is
`therefore subject to the land use planning and management directives in the 2015 Winnemucca
`District Resource Management Plan (DOI-BLM-NV-W000-2004-0001-RMP-EIS).
`62.
`Appendix K of the Winnemucca District Resource Management Plan consists of
`Wild Horse and Burro Standards and Guidelines that were approved on August 30, 2007. The
`Standards and Guidelines state the following Implementation directives which require the
`development of HMAPs:
`Following adoption of the Standards and Guidelines for Wild
`Horses and Burros, subsequent planning decisions and management
`actions must be consistent with the Standards and Guidelines.
`Standards and Guidelines for Wild Horses and Burros as outlined
`above will be implemented through a multi-step process involving:
`
`1.
`Development of herd management area plans and
`establishment of long-term objectives for managing wild horses and
`burros and their habitat, initiation of the necessary management
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:22-cv-01200-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 07/26/22 Page 15 of 25
`
`actions, monitoring to assess progress toward achievement of plan
`objectives; periodic adjustments of population levels to maintain
`AMLs; and periodic evaluation of management actions to assure
`they are being implemented and effective in achieving plan
`objectives.
`
`
`
`2.
`Herd management area plans (HMAPs) will be the vehicle
`for determining the management and objectives for the herds and
`their habitat. Assessments of wild horse and burro herds and
`individual animals will occur through periodic censuses of the
`animals as well as notatio

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket