## Facts

- The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), within the U.S. Department of the Interior, manages wild horses under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (Wild Horse Act).
- The West Douglas Herd Area consists primarily of federal land in northwestern Colorado, with a smaller amount of private land.
- BLM’s early counts found very few horses in the area; later estimates reflected a substantially larger herd.
- BLM planning documents over time recommended removing horses from the area, citing land-use concerns including energy development and horse movements beyond areas used in 1971.
- In 2005, BLM decided to remove all wild horses from the West Douglas Herd Area and manage the area for a zero-horse population.
- Plaintiffs—wild-horse advocacy organizations and an equine veterinarian—challenged the removal decision as contrary to the Wild Horse Act and unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The case was resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Wild Horse Act permits BLM to remove all wild horses from a herd area without first determining that the animals to be removed are “excess animals” under 16 U.S.C. § 1333(b).
2. Whether BLM’s interpretation that it may manage a herd area for zero horses and remove non-excess horses as a land-use planning decision is entitled to Chevron deference.
3. Whether the removal decision must be set aside under the APA as action “not in accordance with law” or “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations.”

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in part and denied defendants’ cross-motion.
- The court held that BLM’s decision to remove all horses from the West Douglas Herd Area exceeded authority delegated by Congress in the Wild Horse Act.
- The court set aside (vacated) BLM’s removal decision under the APA.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Wild Horse Act, BLM’s authority to remove wild horses is tied to a determination that the animals are “excess” as defined and addressed in 16 U.S.C. § 1333(b), and to the statute’s specified procedures for such removals.
- The statute’s structure and protective purpose indicate that Congress did not authorize a separate, general power to remove non-excess wild horses from designated herd areas.
- The Act’s requirement that management be conducted at the “minimum feasible level” is inconsistent with eliminating a herd area’s wild-horse population absent the statutory predicates for removal.
- Chevron deference does not permit an agency to adopt an interpretation that conflicts with clear statutory limits on its authority.
- Agency action taken without statutory authorization must be set aside under the APA as “not in accordance with law” and “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations.”

## Conclusion

The court invalidated BLM’s plan to remove all wild horses from the West Douglas Herd Area because the Wild Horse Act authorizes removals only after an “excess animals” determination and does not allow elimination of non-excess horses through land-use planning discretion.


Colorado Wild Horse & Burro Coal., Inc. v. Salazar, 639 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D.D.C. 2009)