A federal appeals court has upheld the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) approval of a large wild horse and burro holding facility in northern Nevada, concluding in a published opinion that the agency lawfully authorized the project and complied with both federal animal protection and environmental statutes.
In an opinion authored by Circuit Judge Richard Tallman, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of BLM, rejecting a lawsuit filed by Friends of Animals (Friends) challenging the agency’s contract with JS Livestock to construct and operate an off-range corral near Winnemucca, NV.
The case concerned BLM’s decision to approve a private-land facility capable of holding and feeding up to 4,000 wild horses and burros removed from public rangelands. Friends alleged the decision violated the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Background
According to the opinion, BLM in March 2019 estimated more than 88,000 wild horses and burros were roaming public lands—more than three times the appropriate management level. The court noted that BLM warned the growing population would “harm the land, other species, and the wild horses and burros themselves” if left unchecked.
Court records show that in 2020, BLM solicited proposals for new off-range corrals in Idaho, Nevada and Utah to expand short-term holding capacity. JS Livestock responded with a proposal to construct a facility on 100 acres of private land in Humboldt County, NV, previously used for alfalfa production.
The opinion recounts that BLM prepared an environmental assessment (EA), issued a draft for public comment and received more than 6,700 comments from state agencies, local governments and advocacy groups. In November 2021, BLM issued a final EA, a Finding of No Significant Impact and a Record of Decision concluding that a full environmental impact statement was unnecessary.
“BLM issued the contract to JS Livestock after JS Livestock obtained the required permits,” the opinion said, adding that the facility “is now operating and currently houses about 3,000 animals.”
Welfare standards ruling
A central issue before the court was whether BLM satisfied the Wild Horses Act’s requirement that excess animals be “humanely captured and removed for private maintenance and care.”
The opinion states that BLM required JS Livestock to comply with its Comprehensive Animal Welfare Program Standards, developed in collaboration with veterinarians and animal welfare experts at the University of California, Davis. Those standards govern pen conditions, vaccination protocols, feeding areas, water systems, shelter and daily monitoring.
Court documents further show that BLM imposed additional requirements through its contract solicitation, including minimum space per animal, twice-yearly pen cleaning, limits on the number of animals per pen and provisions to “minimize excitement and stress of animals in corrals and chutes.”
Friends argued in the briefing that the standards were insufficient, not subject to formal rulemaking and incompatible with accepted husbandry practices. The panel rejected those claims, stating that Friends merely disagreed with BLM’s expert judgment.
“It is not within our purview to ‘engage in a battle of experts,’” Tallman wrote. “BLM is ‘entitled to rely on the opinions of its own experts,’ which it did here.”
The court concluded Friends had “not shown that BLM abused its discretion by relying on the Standards and additional contract requirements to ensure humane treatment.”
EA withstands NEPA scrutiny
The panel next addressed Friends’ contention that BLM violated NEPA by failing to take a “hard look” at environmental impacts, limiting the consideration of alternatives and declining to prepare an environmental impact statement.
According to the opinion, BLM required the project to obtain a state concentrated animal feeding operation permit and a nutrient management plan to prevent runoff and protect groundwater. The court held it was reasonable for BLM to analyze environmental impacts assuming those permits would be in place, citing Supreme Court precedent.
The opinion further states that BLM examined impacts to soil, groundwater, flooding risk, wildlife and the animals housed at the facility, and reasonably concluded the effects would not be significant.
Although the EA did not include a separate section devoted solely to horses and burros, the court found BLM’s reliance on welfare standards and contract safeguards sufficient.
Friends also challenged BLM’s purpose-and-need statement and its consideration of only two alternatives: approving the facility or taking no action.
The panel disagreed, noting that agencies have “a good deal of discretion” in framing purpose and need, and must consider congressional directives. The opinion emphasized that the Wild Horses Act instructs BLM to “immediately remove excess animals from the range,” making expanded holding capacity a legitimate project purpose.
The court rejected Friends’ proposed alternatives—including reducing removals or building government-owned facilities—as beyond the scope of the specific contracting decision. It further held that BLM’s discussion of the no-action alternative satisfied NEPA, noting that speculative land-use scenarios need not be fully analyzed.
In affirming the district court, the 9th Circuit concluded that “BLM did not abuse its discretion or act contrary to law” when it approved funding for the Winnemucca off-range corral contract. The opinion holds that the agency complied with the Wild Horses Act, reasonably relied on veterinary-based welfare standards, took the required “hard look” under NEPA and adequately considered project alternatives. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
1 Comment