-1 -

UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - : CL OUD F OUNDA TI ON, I NC., e t al

. , :

: CASE NO. 1:09-CV-1651 Pla int if fs , :

: v. : OPI NI ON & ORDER : [R esolving Dkt. Nos. 16 , 31
. ] KEN SALAZ AR, Secre tary of the Interior, : e t al

. , : : De fe nd ants . : :

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - J AMES S. GW I

N, UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE: I n th is c ha lle ng e to fe de ra l man a g e me nt of wi ld hor se s on the Pr y or Mo un ta in Wi ld H or se Rang e in southern Montana and northe rn Wy oming, the g overnme nt move s to dismi ss for lac k of subject-matter j u ri s diction under Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 12(b) (1)
. [ Dkt. 16 .] The g overnme nt contends that bec ause it has a lrea dy completed th e horse r ound-up cha lleng ed by the plaintiff environme ntal g roups, this action is moot. [ Dkt. 16 .] I n response , the Plaintiffs argue that the “c apable of repe tition y et evading revie w” exception to the mootness doctrine a pplies, and they also move for leave to a

mend their complaint to a dd claims that are not moot. [ Dkt. 18 ; Dkt. 31
. ] F or the re a so ns be low , th e Court G RA NT S the P laintiffs’ mot ion for leave to file a second a mended complaint and GR

ANTS IN P ART and DENIES IN PAR T the g ov e rnme nt’ s mo tio n to dis mis s. The Wild Fr ee -R o am i ng Horses a nd Bur ros Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1340 , char g es the Se c re tary of the I nte ri or

wi th “ mana g [ing ] w ild fr e e -r oamin g ho rs e s and burr os in a mann e r t hat is desig ned to ac hieve and maintain a thrivi ng natura l ecolog ical balance on the publ ic lands.” Id. § 1333(a) . The Ac t directs that when the Bur eau of L and Manag ement (as deleg ate of the Secre taryCase No. 1:09-CV- 1651

G w i n , J.

-2 - of the Interior) deter

mines “that an overpopulation e x ists on a g iven are a of the public lands and that
a c tio n is ne c e ssa

ry to rem ov e ex cess ani mal s, ” th e Bureau sh all “im med iat ely rem ov e ex cess ani ma ls from the r ang e so as to ac hieve a ppropriate manag ement leve ls.” Id. § 1333(b)( 2)
. This action

arose afte r the B urea

u deter mined that there was a

n overpopulation of wild horses on the P ry or Mount ain W ild Horse Rang e, located about 50 mi les south of Billing s, Montana. [ Dkt. 1 3 .] Consequently , in Aug ust 2009, the Bur eau a nnounced a

plan to round up and r emove 70 of the 19 0 w ild ho rs e s— a lle g edl y to pr e ve nt o ve rgra zingand ma int a in a

n e c olo g ic a lly

su sta ina ble population. [ Dkt. 13
. ] When the Bur eau a

nnounced the g ather

pl an an d solicited public comments, it issued an Envir on me nta l A sse ssm e nt f ind ingtha t th e g a the r wo uld have no sig nif ic ant e nv ir on me nta l im

pa c t. [ Dkt. 13 .] Acc ording ly , the Bur eau declined to pr epar e an Environmental I mpact S t at em en t—a document mandated for a ll environ m en t ally signific ant ag ency

actions by

the National Environmental Policy

Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. [ Dkt. 13 .] The Bure au based this Finding of No Significa

nt Impact in r eliance upon its departmental manua l’s statement that “[p]rocessing
. . . excess wild horses and bur ros” is categ orica lly

excluded from NEPA’s r equire ments. [ Dkt. 13
. ] The plaintiff e nvironmental g roups then filed this ac tion to challeng e the gather plan. [ Dkt. 1 .] Their first amende d complaint asser te d th r e e c la im s: (1) the B urea

u’s Environmental Asse ssment was arbitrary and ca

pricious under

the Administrative Proce dure A ct, 5 U.S.C. § 706 , beca use it used
a bn or ma lly dr y ba se lin e y e ars to c a lc ulate the e c olo g ic a lly su sta ina ble he rd le ve l and

be c a us e it failed to c onsider that a smaller population threatens the her d’s g enetic dive rsity ; (2) the B urea u’s g ather plan fa iled to adequately protec t the horses’ w elfa re, in violation of the Wild Fre e-Roaming Hors es and B urros Ac t; and (3) the B urea u’s categ orica l exclusi on of excess horse remova l fromCase No. 1:09-CV- 1651

G w i n , J.

-3 - NEPA’s re quirements wa s arbitra ry and ca pricious under

the Administrative Proce dure A ct. [ Dkt. 1 3 .] The Plainti ffs soug ht, among other re lief, a te mp o ra ry restra ining or der a g ainst the g ather
. [ Dkt. 13
. ] After expedited briefingand ar g ument, this Court denied the Plaintiffs’ TRO reque st. The Plain t i ff s d i d not appea l that denial. The B urea u then conduc ted the g ather in September 2009, removing57 horses fr om the Rang e. The Bur eau sold five of t hose horse s and g ave the other 52 for adoption. [Dkt. 16-2 at ¶ 5(c) -(e )
. ] The g overnme n t n o w m oves to dismiss t his action as moot, contendingthat beca use the g ather is c omplete, this Court can no longe r g rant a ny eff ective r elief. [ Dkt. 16 .] I n response , the Plaintiffs argue that th e Bu re au ’s alleg edly unlawful g ather

is “ca pable of repe tition y et eva ding revie w.” [ Dkt. 18
. ] The Plaintiffs also move for leave to fi l e a sec ond amende d complaint. [ Dkt. 31 .] T he ir proposed second amended complaint conta ins two chang es fr om the first amende d complaint. [ Dkt. 31-2 .] First, it abandons the NEPA cla im that the Bure au’s Environme ntal Assessment for the September 2009 g ather

was de ficient. [ Dkt. 31-2 .] Se c on d, it a dd s thre e all egatio ns to t he Wild Fr ee- Roaming H orses a

nd Bur ros Act c laim: (1) the B urea u’s May 2009 He rd M an age m ent Are a Plan violated the Act; (2) t h e Burea u’s construc tion of a fe nce at the Rang e’s nor thern bounda

ry violated the Ac t; and (3) the June 19 87 Custer National F orest Plan and the Ma y 2009 Her d Manag ement Are a Plan violate d the Act by excluding ar eas historica lly used by the her d. [ Dkt. 31-2 at ¶¶ 76-78
. ] T h e t h i r d

c l a i m
— c h a l l e n g i n g t h e B u r e a

u ’ s u s e o f c a t e g o r i c a l e xc l u s i o n s f

o r h or se g ather s—is unchang ed fr om the first amende d complaint. [ Dkt. 31-2 at ¶ 80
. ] No t wi th s t an d i n g Fe dera l Rule of C ivil P roce dure 15( a) ’s dir e c tio n that le ave to ame nd “ sh a llCase No. 1:09-CV- 1651

G w i n , J.

-4 - be freely g iven when justice so require s,” t he gover nment opposes t he P laintiffs’ mot ion for leave on two g rounds. [ Dkt. 32 .] F ir st, the g ov e rnme nt argue s that the se c on d ame nd e d c omp la int fa ils to cure the mootness defe ct. [ Dkt. 32 at 11-14 .] S ec o n d , t h e g overnme nt contends that the
ame ndme nt w ou ld b e bo th f uti le (b e c a

us e the c ha lle ng e to the 19 87 Cus te r Natio na l Fo re st Pl an is tim e -b arr e d) and

pr e jud ic ia l ( be c a

us e the ne w al le g a tio ns we re kn ow n to the Pla int if fs a t the tim e of th e f ir s t ame n d e d c o mp la int an d b e c a u s e th e g o v e r

n me n t w o u ld h av e o n ly 1 4 d ay s to answer under Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 15(a )(3) ). [ Dkt. 32 at 14-17
. ] The g overnme nt’s prejudice argument fails. Althoug h the Plaintiffs conce de that they knew of the ne wly

added a lleg ations when they filed their first amende d complaint, they could not have
asser ted those cla ims at that time. The Plaintiffs’ c halleng e to the He rd Mana g ement Ar ea Plan wa s still befor e the Interior B oard of L and Appe als and thus was not a dminist ratively exhausted. [ Dkt. 34 a t 5 .] And the Pl aintiffs’ c halleng e t o t h e n o rt hern bounda ry fenc e wa s not y et ripe; the go v er n m en t d i d n ot beg in to soli cit bids to construct the fe nce until J une 2010. [ Dk t. 3 4 at 5
. ] Moreove r, the Plaintiffs’ willing ness to c onsent to a n extension of time f

or the g overnme nt to answer the sec ond amende d complaint stops the gove rnment’s c oncer n of pre judice. [ Dkt. 34 at 6-7
. ] The g overnme nt is also incorrec t that the Plaintiffs’ claim cha lleng ing the 1987 Custer National F orest Plan is time-barr ed. [ Dkt. 32 at 15 n.3 .] Alt h o ug h “an a mendment addinga new g round for relief

to the complaint must contend with the applica ble statute of limitations,” Jones v

. Bernanke , 557 F.3 d 6 7 0 , 674 (D.C. Cir. 2009) , the 1987 Custer National Fore st Pl an that the Plaintiffs challeng e is not “final a g ency action” that trigg ers the statute of limita t ions, see Ohio Forestry Ass’n, I

nc. v. Sie rra Club , 523 U.S. 726, 732 (1998)
. “F inal ag ency action” did not occ ur
un til the B ur e a

u p ro po se d to c on str

uc t a fe nc e a lon g the bo un da

ri e s o utl ine d in th e 19 87 pla n. Thus ,Case No. 1:09-CV- 1651

G w i n , J.

The Plaintiffs ar g ue that the B ureau ’s co nduct eva des re view bec ause this Court’s denial

1/ o f th e ir T RO r e qu e s t w a s n o t a

p p e a lable. [ Dk

t. 3 4 at 6 .] But the Plaintiffs’ premise a ppear s incorre ct. See Berrigan v. Sigler , 4 75 F .2 d 9 18 , 9 19 (D .C. Cir . 1 97 3) (p e r c ur iam) (“While the denial of a temporar

y restra ining order is nor

mally not a

ppeala ble, an e x ception is made where the de nia l se rv e s f

or a ll p ra c tic a l purp os e s to re nd e r the c a us e of a c tio n moo t or wh e re a pp e lla nt’ s r ig hts will be irretr ievably

lost absent revie w.”)
. -5 - addingthe claim cha lleng ing t h e 1987 Custer National F orest Plan is not futile on statute-oflim itatio ns g ro un ds
. Acc ording ly , beca

u s e th e g o v e r

nment has not shown “a

ny appar ent or de clar ed re ason—such as undue de lay , bad fa ith or d i l at o ry motive on the part of the movant, repe ated f ailure to c ure defic iencies by

amendments pre viously

allowed, undue prejudice to the oppos ing party by virtue of allowanc e of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” —for de nying le ave to amend, Foman v. Da v is , 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) , the Court g rants the Plaintiffs’ motion. Th e g ov e rnme nt n e ve rt

he le ss arg ues th at a ll o f t he Pla int if

fs ’ c la ims in b oth

c omp la int s beca me moot when the B urea

u completed the g ather

in Septe mber 2009. [ Dkt. 16-1 at 10-13 ; Dkt. 32 at 11-14 .] The Pl ai n t i ff s ’ sec ond amende d complaint drops their NEPA c halleng e to the September 2009 g ather , but in a n y ev en t , t he g overnme nt is corre ct that the September 2009
c ha llen ge i s moot. F a c e d w itha ne arl y ide nti c a l c ha lle ng e to a

se ri e s o f h or se g a the rs , th e D. C. Circuit held that once the g ather s had bee n completed, it be came “‘impossible for the court to g rant any eff ectua l relief whateve r’ with re spect to the c halleng ed g ather s,” and thus the c h al l en ge wa s moot. Fu nd for An im als , In c . v . U. S. Bu reau o f L an d Mgmt. , 460 F.3d 13, 22 ( D.C. Cir. 2006) (q u o t i n g Bee thoven.c om LLC v. Librarian of Cong. , 394 F.3d 939, 950 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ). Ther e—as here —the plaintiffs ar g ued that the “ capa ble of re petition y et e v adingrevie w” e x ception to the 1/
moo tne ss d oc tr ine a

pp lie d, but th e D. C. C ir c uit re je c te d th a t argume nt, re a so nin g that th e “ highlyCase No. 1:09-CV- 1651

G w i n , J.

-6 - fac t-specif

ic” nature of e ach g ather made the pa

rticular c hallenged co n d u ct “‘ unlikely to be duplicated in the f

uture.’” Id. at 22-23 (q u o t i n g People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Gittens , 396 F.3d 416, 421 ( D.C. Cir. 2005) ). Thus, Fu nd for An im als compels t he conclusion that the Pla int if

fs ’ c la ims c ha lle ng ingthe Se pte mbe r 2 00 9 g a the r a re moo t. B ut t he Pla int if

fs ’ o the r c la ims are no t mo ot. F ir st, se ve ral of the ir c la ims un de r t

he Wild Fr ee- Roaming H orses a

nd Bur ros Act c halleng e (a

mong ot h er i m p l ementations of the May 2009 Her d Manag ement Are a Plan) the Bur eau’ s construction of fe nces to re strict wild horses to particula r
are as of the Ra

ng e. [ Dkt. 31-2 at ¶¶

67-78 .] I f the Pla int if

fs ult imate ly

pr e va il o n th e me ri ts o f t

ho se claims, the C ourt can gr ant effec tive relief , either by requiringthe B urea

u to remove e x isting fe nces
or by e njo ini ngthe B ur e a

u f ro m c on str

uc tin g ne w f

e nc e s. Second, the Plaintiffs’ claim challeng ing the Bur eau’ s cate g orica l exclusion of horse g ather s fr om NE PA’ s r e qu ir e me nts fa lls wi thi n th e “ c a pa ble of re pe tit ion

y e t e va din g re vie w” e xce pti on to mootness beca

use it “see ks decla

ratory relief as t o an ongoing policy .” [ Dkt. 31-2 at ¶ 80
. ] See De l M o n teF r es h P r o d

u c e Co

. v . U

n ite d S ta tes , 5 7 0 F.3d 316, 321 ( D.C. Cir. 2009) . T o b e sure , to sustain jurisdiction over a c halleng e to an ong oing policy , the Plaintiffs “must demonstrate ‘ standing to bring such a f

orwa rd-lookingchalleng e and [t hat] the reque st f or decla ratory relief

is ripe.” Id. at 321 ( c i t a t i o no m i t t e d ; a l t e r a t i o ni no r i g i n a l )
. H o w e v e r , t h e P l a i n t i f f s h av e m e tb o t ho f

t he se require ments. They have a dequate ly alleg ed—and the g overnme nt does not dispute—their standing to challeng e the B urea

u’s compliance with N EPA require ments. See Fla. Audubon Soc’y v. Be ntsen , 94 F.3d 658, 664 ( D.C. Cir. 1996) (en ba nc) (“[A] plainti ff m ay h av e s tanding to challeng e the fa ilure of an a g e nc y

to a bid e by a pr oc e dura l r e qu ir e me nt o nly if that r e qu ir e me nt w a s ‘ de sig ne d to protec t some threate ned conc rete interest’ of t h e p l aint iff. . . . [T] he plaintiff must show that theCase No. 1:09-CV- 1651

G w i n , J.

-7 - g overnme nt ac t perf

ormed without the proc edure in question will cause a distinct risk to a particula rized interest of the pla intiff.”) ( citation omitted). [ See Dkt. 31-2 at ¶¶ 4-11 (P la int if

fs ’ p ar t i cu l ar i z edi n t er es t s i np ro t ec t i o n o f wi l d h o rs es o n P ry o r M o u n t ai nR an ge)
. ] An d t h ei r c h al l en ge is ripe for r eview be cause it is a purely leg al question fit fo r j u d i ci al d ecision. See Ea gle -P ic he r Indus., Inc . v. E.P.A. , 759 F.2d 905, 915 ( D.C. Cir. 1985)
. Acc ording ly , neither the Plaintiffs’ Wil d Fr ee- Roaming H orses an d Bu rros Ac t claim nor the ir c la im c ha lle ng ingthe B ur e a u’ s u se of c a te g or ic a l e xclu sio ns fo r h or se g a the rs is m oo t. F or the fo re g oin g re ason s, the Cou rt G RA NT S the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and ORDERS that the g overnme nt a nswer within 30 day s of the filing of thi s op ini on and or de r. F ur the r, the Court G RA NT S the gover nment’s m otion to dismiss as moot the Plaintiffs’ claims cha lleng ing the Bur ea u ’s S eptember 2009 g ather . Howeve r, the Court DE NI ES the g ov e rnme nt’ s mo tio n to dis mis s th e re ma ind e r o f t he Pla int if

fs ’ c la ims
. I T I S SO ORDERED.

Date d: Augus t 25 , 2 01 0 s/ Jame s S. Gwin J A M E S S
. G W IN UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE