WildEarth Guardians v. National Park Service
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 560
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- WildEarth Guardians challenged RMNP elk-vegetation plan and the final EIS for NEPA violations.
- RMNP Act bans hunting within RMNP with limited exceptions; Organic Act allows destruction of detrimental plants/animals.
- NPS proposed gradual elk reduction and allowed volunteer culling; excluded the natural wolf alternative from analysis.
- March 2005 meeting concluded the natural wolf option feasibility was doubtful; NPS published draft/final EIS with reasons for exclusion.
- Final EIS (Dec. 2007) selected gradual reduction; expanded use of volunteers for culling; WildEarth sued in district court, which affirmed the agency.
- Court affirmatively held NEPA satisfied and RMNP Act/Organic Act interpreted properly; no Chevron automatic deference required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NEPA: was excluding the natural wolf alternative reasonable? | WildEarth | NPS | Yes; exclusion supported by record and rational analysis. |
| NEPA: did agency sufficiently justify excluding the alternative and discuss data? | WildEarth | NPS | Yes; agency discussed reasons and used data to support decision. |
| RMNP Act/Organic Act: does volunteers' culling violate RMNP Act §198c? | WildEarth | NPS | No; culling is management killing, not hunting, under §3 and §198c harmonized. |
| Chevron deference: should court apply Chevron to agency interpretation here? | WildEarth | NPS | Chevron not required; agency reasoning persuasive without Chevron. |
Key Cases Cited
- Forest Guardians v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 611 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 2010) (deference and standards for reviewing agency action under NEPA/APA)
- Citizens’ Comm. to Save Our Canyons v. Krueger, 513 F.3d 1169 (10th Cir. 2008) (requirement to consider relevant data and rational connections; flyspecks)
- DOT v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (U.S. 2004) (rule of reason in EIS alternatives and agency choice of alternatives)
- New Mexico ex rel. Richardson v. BLM, 565 F.3d 683 (10th Cir. 2009) (NEPA: importance of informed decisionmaking; prejudice standard)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Morgenweck, 351 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (D. Colo. 2004) (agency may rely on outside expertise to gather information; public comment)
- New York ex rel. Chakron v. Home Builders?, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (agency deference and patient consideration (N/A: placeholder if not exact))