Timothy Mayo v. Michael T. Reynolds
16-5282
| D.C. Cir. | Nov 7, 2017Background
- Grand Teton National Park and the adjacent National Elk Refuge host the Jackson elk herd; Park Service (Grand Teton) and Fish & Wildlife Service (Refuge) jointly adopted a 15-year elk-management plan in 2007 with a supporting EIS (the "2007 Plan/EIS") that contemplated annual elk-reduction hunts and reduced supplemental feeding.
- The 2007 Plan selected an elk-reduction alternative (Alternative Four) projecting long-term reductions in herd size, hunters deputized, and elk harvested; the Plan/EIS expressly stated its analysis was sufficient to allow several management actions to be implemented without further NEPA documents.
- From 2007–2015 the Park Service authorized annual hunts under the Plan; herd size and authorized harvest declined, but the FWS did not reduce supplemental feeding on the Refuge as the Plan anticipated.
- Photographers Mayo and Nelson sued the Park Service challenging the 2015 hunt authorizations under NEPA, ESA, APA, and other statutes; district court granted summary judgment to the agencies on NEPA and related claims; Nelson appealed (Mayo did not).
- Plaintiffs argued the Park Service must prepare an EA or EIS each year (or supplement the 2007 EIS) because annual authorizations are major federal actions with unique impacts, and because ongoing supplemental feeding created new circumstances; the Park Service argued the 2007 EIS already analyzed the impacts and no supplementation was required.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court on NEPA claims (Park Service may rely on the 2007 EIS for annual authorizations) and vacated the district court’s ESA ruling as moot (grizzly delisted during appeal).
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether each annual hunt authorization is a "major Federal action" requiring a new EA or EIS | Nelson: Each annual authorization has site- and year-specific impacts that require fresh NEPA analysis | Park Service: Annual authorizations are implementation steps of the 2007 program; impacts were analyzed in the programmatic 2007 EIS | Held: Agency may rely on 2007 EIS; no new EA/EIS required absent a material change not previously analyzed |
| Whether the 2007 EIS adequately took the required "hard look" at environmental impacts of annual hunts | Nelson: 2007 EIS lacked particulars (timing, locations, restrictions) for each future hunt | Park Service: 2007 EIS was thorough and anticipated relevant impacts and alternatives | Held: 2007 EIS was sufficiently detailed and complied with NEPA's procedural requirements |
| Whether FWS’s continued supplemental feeding on the Refuge created "significant new circumstances" requiring supplementation of the 2007 EIS | Nelson: Continued feeding altered environmental baseline and could require more hunting or different impacts, so supplementation is required | Park Service: Supplemental feeding is managed by FWS on the Refuge and does not produce a materially different environmental picture for Park Service’s hunting authorizations; record shows hunting levels remained within Plan assumptions | Held: No supplemental EIS required; changes did not produce a seriously different environmental picture relevant to the Park Service’s action |
| ESA claim re: consultation on grizzly impacts (including hunter "gut piles") | Nelson: Agencies’ consultation and biological opinion were inadequate | Park Service/FWS: Consultation complied with ESA requirements | Held: Claim rendered moot by delisting of the grizzly; district court judgment on ESA claim vacated under Munsingwear |
Key Cases Cited
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (NEPA requires agencies to consider every significant aspect of environmental impact)
- Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (NEPA imposes procedural, information-forcing requirements and the rule of reason governs scope)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (NEPA does not require detailed mitigation plans; mandates a "hard look")
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (supplemental EIS required only for significant new information or changes affecting the environment)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary and capricious review standard for agency action)
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (vacatur of district-court judgment upon mootness on appeal)
- New York v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 824 F.3d 1012 (agency may lawfully rely on a programmatic EIS to inform future decisions)
- Sierra Club v. FERC, 867 F.3d 1357 (NEPA review is primarily procedural and focuses on informed decisionmaking)
- Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership v. Salazar, 661 F.3d 66 (programmatic EIS may support later site-specific actions where impacts were already analyzed)