Court Rejects Forest Service's Attempt to Redraw Wild Horse Territory
A federal appeals court has ruled against the U.S. Forest Service's attempt to remove a section of wild horse territory in Modoc National Forest, California. The decision highlights the importance of reasoned decision-making in federal agencies.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the Forest Service unlawfully ignored decades of forest management policy by attempting to remove a middle section of wild horse territory that had been included in a map error from the 1980s.
Judge Patricia Millett stated, "There is no 'oops' exception to the duty of federal agencies to engage in reasoned decisionmaking." The court emphasized that the Forest Service failed to consider the environmental impacts of its decision.
Since 1975, the federal government has managed wild horses in the Devil's Garden section of Modoc National Forest. Originally, the territory consisted of two separate tracts totaling 236,000 acres. However, a map issued in the 1980s inadvertently added a 23,000-acre tract, creating a contiguous 258,000-acre territory.
For over two decades, the Forest Service managed this expanded territory as a single tract, including it in a 1991 forest management plan. In 2013, the agency attempted to revert to managing the wild horse territory as two separate tracts, citing the 1980s expansion as an administrative error.
Wild horse advocates, including the American Wild Horse Conservation (formerly American Wild Horse Preservation), challenged the decision, arguing that it violated environmental laws and lacked justification. The U.S. District Court initially sided with the federal agency, but the D.C. Circuit reversed this ruling.
Judge Millett criticized the Forest Service's actions, stating, "The Service's attempt to slam shut the barn door after the horse already bolted is not sufficient." The court found the decision arbitrary and capricious, noting the agency's failure to acknowledge policy changes and provide a reasoned explanation.
The court also highlighted the need for an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act when changing the wild horse territory boundaries in 2013.
Bill Eubanks, representing the wild horse campaign, called the decision a "stinging rebuke" and emphasized the need for federal agencies to provide compelling reasons when altering public lands practices.
For further details, read the court's decision here.