776 F.3d 893
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- National Park Service adopted a deer management plan for Rock Creek Park, including lethal deer reduction, with an accompanying EIS.
- Enabling Act §7 requires regulations for care and management of the park, including preservation of wildlife, as interpreted by the Park Service.
- Organic Act grants the Park Service authority to conserve resources and may authorize destruction of animals detrimental to park use.
- Final EIS selected Alternative D (lethal + non-lethal measures) over other alternatives, asserting ecological benefits and flexibility.
- Plaintiffs challenged under the Enabling Act, APA, and NEPA, claiming lack of compliance and/ or improper analysis.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants; the appellate court affirmed, upholding agency actions as reasonable and lawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enabling Act interpretation | Grunewald says Enabling Act limits regulations; killing deer exceeds authority. | Agency construction is reasonable and supported by statutes and Chevron deference. | Agency interpretation is reasonable; no violation of Enabling Act. |
| APA arbitrary and capricious review | Park Service failed to show necessity and data linking deer to ecological harms. | Record shows data and thresholds support action; decision within agency discretion. | Deer Management Plan not arbitrary or capricious under APA. |
| NEPA failure to consider exotic plant elimination as standalone alternative | Exotic vegetation abatement should have been a fifth alternative. | Agency reasonably defined objectives; plants management not standalone necessary to achieve goals. | NEPA not violated by not including a plants-only alternative. |
| NEPA connected/similar actions analysis | Exotic Plant Plan and Deer Plan are connected or similar and should be analyzed together. | Plans are discrete and not interdependent; programmatic EIS not required. | Park Service acted within discretion; no requirement to analyze together. |
| NEPA analysis of human environment impacts | Killing deer will psychologically harm visitors and alter park experience. | NEPA addresses physical environment; psychological harms are not required to be analyzed. | NEPA adequately addressed human-environment impacts; no obligation to address purely psychological effects. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jicarilla Apache Nation v. Dep’t of Interior, 613 F.3d 1112 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (APA review standard: arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with law)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (Supreme Court 1984) (deference to agency interpretations of statutes)
- New Mexico State Game Comm’n v. Udall, 410 F.2d 1197 (10th Cir. 1969) (agency discretion to manage park resources, including destruction of animals)
- Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court 1978) (NEPA procedural mandate; not a substantive result)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (Supreme Court 1989) (NEPA requires a hard look and dissemination of information)
- Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship v. Salazar, 661 F.3d 66 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (reasonableness of agency objectives and alternatives under NEPA)
- City of Alexandria v. Slater, 198 F.3d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (deference to agency expertise in defining objectives and alternatives)
- Izaak Walton League of Am. v. Marsh, 655 F.2d 346 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (programmatic EIS and related actions; agency discretion in determining scope)
- Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Se. Inc. v. United Distribution Cos., 498 U.S. 211 (Supreme Court 1991) (agency discretion in handling related, discrete issues)
- Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (Supreme Court 1976) (NEPA scope and agency duty to consider alternatives)