Wyoming v. United States Department of Interior
674 F.3d 1220
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- NPS default rule bans snowmobiles in national parks except on designated routes under 36 C.F.R. § 2.18(c).
- A series of settlements and rulemakings from 2001 to 2009 shaped snowmobile access in Yellowstone, Grand Teton, and the Rockefeller Parkway.
- 2004 temporary rule with a sunset provision allowed 720 Yellowstone entries per day; litigation ensued.
- 2007 permanent rule reduced entries and was struck as arbitrary by the D.C. court; Wyoming court reinstated the 2004 rule pending new rulemaking.
- NPS prepared an EA (2008) and issued a 2009 rule for Yellowstone and Grand Teton; petitions for review challenged substance and NEPA/APA compliance.
- The Yellowstone 2009 temporary rule expired; NPS issued a one-year continuation for 2011-12; petitioners challenged standing and NEPA/APA, leading to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Wyoming/Park County to challenge the 2009 rules | Wyoming/Park County have sovereign/proprietary interests; parens patriae allows standing | Federal government represents Wyoming citizens; no parens patriae standing | Petitioners lack Article III standing; standing arguments fail |
| Mootness of the Yellowstone NEPA/APA challenge | One-year 2011-12 rule is a continuation of the 2009 rule, so not moot | Procedural challenges moot due to new EIS/analysis | Procedural NEPA/APA challenge moot; substantive challenges preserved |
| Substantive NEPA/Organic Acts challenge to Grand Teton 2009 permanent rule | 10th Cir. special standing for state interests; rule violates Organic Acts and NEPA | Agency complied with NEPA; decisions within permissible range; standing lacking | Petitioners lack standing; substantive NEPA/Organic Acts claims rejected |
| NEPA procedural challenges for Grand Teton 2009 rule | Agency failed to consider reasonable alternatives and failed hard look | EA/FONSI analyzed air/wildlife; procedures followed | Procedural NEPA challenge rejected as moot or unsubstantiated |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury-in-fact required for standing)
- Mount Evans Co. v. Madigan, 14 F.3d 1444 (10th Cir. 1994) (state standing for economic injury possible under parens patriae)
- Dow Chemical Co. v. EPA, 605 F.2d 673 (3d Cir. 1979) (capable-of-repetition, yet evading review discussed as to agency action)
- Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2010) (capable-of-repetition and mirror-image rule concepts; mootness nuances)
- Conservation Law Foundation v. Evans, 360 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2004) (mirror-image rule; procedural challenges under notice/comment context)
- Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2007) (special solicitude for states in standing analysis)
- Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 287 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2002) (NEPA injury theories; hard look framework)