Friends of Animals v. Romero, 948 F.3d 579

Background

FOA challenged the National Park Service's (NPS) White‑tailed Deer Management Plan (EIS + ROD) for Fire Island National Seashore, arguing NEPA violations.
Fire Island experienced decades of deer overpopulation causing vegetation damage (notably Sunken Forest and William Floyd Estate) and human–deer conflicts; NPS launched a multi‑year NEPA process (IDT + SAT).
The Final EIS (Dec. 2015) evaluated four alternatives (A: no action; B–D: action alternatives). All action alternatives set a Seashore‑wide target density of ~20–25 deer/sq. mi.; methods differed (fertility control, sharpshooting, capture/euthanasia, hunting, fencing).
NPS selected a modified Alternative D (rapid reduction plus adaptive management, fencing for sensitive areas).
District Court granted summary judgment to NPS; FOA appealed. The Second Circuit reviewed under the APA arbitrary‑and‑capricious standard and affirmed NPS as having complied with NEPA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (FOA)	Defendant's Argument (NPS)	Held
1) Whether NPS omitted "essential" information (deer movement) required by 40 C.F.R. §1502.22	SAT said deer‑movement data were needed; omission violated NEPA disclosure rules	The SAT later concluded movement data were not essential; NPS reasonably concluded data were not required for a reasoned choice	Court: Information not "essential;" NPS adequately disclosed limits and was not required to obtain the data
2) Whether NPS failed to take a "hard look" at environmental effects, especially E vs W island differences	FOA: experts recommended different strategies for east vs west; NPS ignored meaningful differences	NPS: considered SAT/IDT input, tailored measures to Communities, Sunken Forest, William Floyd Estate, and documented analysis	Court: NPS took a hard look; record shows extensive study, expert input, and site‑specific measures
3) Whether adopting a Seashore‑wide target density (20–25 deer/sq. mi.) was arbitrary	FOA: record/experts did not support a uniform target; no evidence deer in some areas (e.g., Wilderness) caused harm	NPS: Seashore‑wide target allowed adaptive management, practical implementation, and was supported by vegetation sampling and studies showing impacts above ~20 deer/sq. mi.	Court: NPS articulated a rational basis; choice was not arbitrary or capricious
4) Whether NPS failed to consider reasonable alternatives (e.g., non‑lethal measures without population reduction)	FOA: NPS should have analyzed alternatives that manage impacts without population reduction	NPS: the Plan’s objectives required population reduction to restore/regenerate vegetation; non‑lethal‑only alternatives would not meet goals	Court: NPS reasonably excluded purely non‑lethal/no‑reduction alternatives because they would not meet the Plan's objectives

Key Cases Cited

Fund for Animals v. Kempthorne, 538 F.3d 124 (2d Cir.) (NEPA review standards)
Brodsky v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 704 F.3d 113 (2d Cir.) (APA governs NEPA judicial review)
Dep't of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (U.S. 2004) (NEPA's purpose and requirements)
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 564 F.3d 549 (2d Cir.) (EIS must provide full and fair discussion; scope of alternatives)
Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1989) (NEPA is procedural; courts ensure informed decisionmaking)
Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1976) (court's role is to ensure agency took a hard look)
Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 772 F.2d 1043 (2d Cir.) (rational‑basis standard for agency choices)
Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Zinke, 877 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.) (missing data permissible where not essential)
Coalition on Sensible Transp., Inc. v. Dole, 826 F.2d 60 (D.C. Cir.) (agency line‑drawing is for agency, not courts)
Monroe Cty. Conservation Council, Inc. v. Adams, 566 F.2d 419 (2d Cir.) (agency not required to consider every conceivable alternative)
City of New York v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 715 F.2d 732 (2d Cir.) (alternatives must at least partially meet proposal's goals)