## Facts

- The National Park Service (NPS) manages Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP), where an enabling statute generally prohibits hunting or killing wildlife, subject to limited exceptions.
- Large predators historically present in the region (including wolves) had been eliminated before the park’s establishment.
- With predators absent and hunting prohibited, elk numbers increased and caused overbrowsing and damage to sensitive vegetation, including willow and aspen communities.
- NPS developed an elk and vegetation management plan and prepared a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
- During planning, NPS considered but did not carry forward for detailed EIS analysis an alternative involving reintroduction of a self-sustaining wolf population, concluding it was not feasible due to park size, proximity to populated areas, anticipated intensive management needs, and lack of assured cooperation from other relevant agencies.
- NPS selected a plan emphasizing reduction of elk numbers through culling conducted by NPS personnel and trained volunteers under NPS supervision, along with other non-lethal measures such as fencing and hazing.
- WildEarth Guardians sued, alleging NEPA violations for failure to analyze wolf reintroduction as a reasonable alternative and statutory violations based on the plan’s use of volunteers to kill elk.
- The district court upheld the plan and EIS; WildEarth appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether NPS violated NEPA by declining to include a naturally reproducing wolf reintroduction alternative as a fully developed, detailed alternative in the EIS.
2. Whether the RMNP Enabling Act and the National Park Service Organic Act prohibit elk culling carried out under NPS direction when trained volunteers participate in the killing of elk.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court and upheld NPS’s elk and vegetation management plan.
- The court held NPS did not violate NEPA because the agency reasonably concluded, based on the administrative record, that natural wolf reintroduction was not a feasible and therefore not a “reasonable” alternative requiring detailed EIS analysis.
- The court held the elk reduction program, including supervised use of trained volunteers, did not violate the statutory hunting prohibition because the program fit within statutory authority to remove animals deemed detrimental or dangerous and did not constitute prohibited “hunting” as implemented.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA is procedural; it requires agencies to take a “hard look” at environmental consequences and consider reasonable alternatives, but it does not mandate a particular substantive outcome.
- An agency need not analyze every conceivable alternative in detail; it may reject an alternative from detailed study where it provides a rational, record-supported explanation that the option is infeasible or impractical.
- Judicial review of NEPA compliance is deferential; courts generally uphold an agency decision when the agency’s reasoning path can reasonably be discerned from the record.
- Statutory prohibitions on hunting in national parks may coexist with statutory authority permitting the NPS to remove animals that are detrimental or dangerous to park resources or visitors.
- Where the NPS designs, controls, and supervises a wildlife-removal program for resource protection, participation by trained volunteers under NPS direction does not, by itself, convert authorized removal into prohibited hunting.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld RMNP’s elk management plan, concluding that NEPA did not require detailed EIS analysis of a wolf reintroduction alternative deemed infeasible and that the governing park statutes permitted NPS-directed elk culling, including the use of trained volunteers, as authorized removal of detrimental animals rather than prohibited hunting.


WildEarth Guardians v. Nat'l Park Serv., 703 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2013)