Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-96-05298/USCOURTS-caDC-96-05298-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 4, 1997 Decided October 17, 1997

No. 96-5298

THE FUND FOR ANIMALS, INC., ET AL.,

APPELLANTS

v.

JACK WARD THOMAS, CHIEF OF THE UNITED STATES FOREST 

SERVICE, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 95cv01177)

Eric R. Glitzenstein argued the cause for the appellants. 

Katherine A. Meyer was on brief.

Jeffrey C. Dobbins, Attorney, United States Department of 

Justice, argued the cause for the federal appellees. Lois J. 

USCA Case #96-5298 Document #303396 Filed: 10/17/1997 Page 1 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, and Ellen J. Durkee,

Attorney, United States Department of Justice, were on brief.

Paul A. Lenzini, Special Assistant Attorney General, State 

of Wyoming, argued the cause for appellee State of Wyoming.

William P. Horn and Douglas S. Burdin were on brief for 

amicus curiae Wildlife Conservation Fund of America. 

Thomas L. Albert entered an appearance.

Before: WILLIAMS, GINSBURG and HENDERSON, Circuit 

Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: The appellants, 

five environmental groups and two individuals, challenge the 

national policy of appellee United States National Forest 

Service (Forest Service) which leaves regulation of game 

"baiting" on National Forest System (Forest System) lands to 

the states in which the lands lie.1See Use of Bait in Hunting, 

60 Fed. Reg. 14,720 (1995). The appellees maintain that in 

promulgating the policy the Forest Service violated both the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 4321 et seq., by failing to first prepare an environmental 

impact statement (EIS), and the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq., by failing to formally 

consult the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regarding the 

policy. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the 

policy does not constitute a "major federal action" triggering 

NEPA's EIS requirement and that the Forest Service satisfied its duty to consult FWS. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court's judgment in favor of the Forest Service. See 

Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Thomas, 932 F. Supp. 368 (D.D.C. 

1996).

__________

1

"[T]he National Forest System consists of units of federally 

owned forest, range, and related lands throughout the United 

States and its territories, united into a nationally significant system 

dedicated to the long-term benefit for present and future generations...." 16 U.S.C. § 1609(a). It includes national forest lands, 

national grasslands and land utilization projects administered by the 

National Forest Service. Id.

USCA Case #96-5298 Document #303396 Filed: 10/17/1997 Page 2 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

I.

"Baiting" is the practice of placing bait, either food or 

scent, to attract wild game to a particular hunting location. 

See 60 Fed. Reg. at 14,721; 932 F. Supp. at 369. Bear 

baiting is prohibited in most states but remains lawful in 

Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, 

Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming.2 At one time Forest Service 

officials regulated the practice in some states by issuing to 

hunters and guides special use permits that imposed specific 

conditions on their baiting activities. On March 23, 1992 the 

Forest Service replaced its special use permit regime in 

Wyoming with a "closure" order that established conditions 

for bear baiting generally on Forest System lands in Wyoming and prohibited the practice altogether in specified grizzly bear management areas and within set distances of various amenities, such as open water, residences and roads. A 

suit was filed challenging the regulatory change on the 

ground that the Forest Service had failed to prepare an EIS 

as required by NEPA. As part of a settlement the Forest 

Service agreed to a temporary return to special use permits 

in Wyoming pending a NEPA analysis.

Pursuant to the settlement the Forest Service prepared an 

environmental analysis (EA), dated February 19, 1993, that 

considered various options for regulating baiting on Forest 

System lands in Wyoming, including retaining special use 

permits, allowing Wyoming to assume regulation and banning 

baiting altogether. After preparing a "biological evaluation" 

of its preferred alternative, state regulation, the Forest Service issued a "Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant 

Impact" on April 2, 1993, in which it announced its decision to 

transfer regulation of baiting to the State of Wyoming, which 

__________

2

In its 1994 publication of the proposed national policy, discussed 

infra, the Forest Service observed that the only states in which 

bear baiting remained legal were Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, 

Minnesota, New Hampshire, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and 

Wyoming. Since that time Washington State has outlawed the 

practice. See Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 77.16(1) (West elec. update 

1997).

USCA Case #96-5298 Document #303396 Filed: 10/17/1997 Page 3 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

at that time had only recently adopted its own baiting regulations. The document expressly concluded that the change to 

state regulation in Wyoming was "not a major federal action" 

and "will not significantly affect the quality of the human 

environment." JA 329.

On April 6, 1993 the Forest Service requested formal 

consultation with the FWS pursuant to ESA. On April 14, 

1993 the FWS issued a "biological opinion" concluding that 

"none of the alternatives analyzed are likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered or threatened species," JA 332, but setting out specific non-discretionary conditions to avert the "remote possibility that a grizzly bear may 

be taken as a result of black bear baiting," JA 338, as well as 

discretionary conservation recommendations. The new Wyoming policy was never implemented because the Forest Service, under threat of further litigation, declared a temporary 

ban on all bear baiting on Forest System lands in Wyoming 

while it prepared a comprehensive national baiting policy.

On March 14, 1994 the Forest Service published an interim 

national policy that adopted on a national scale the approach 

proposed for Wyoming in the 1993 policy. The interim policy 

eliminated special use permits and left baiting regulation 

entirely in the hands of the individual states, subject to 

Forest Service closure of particular Forest System lands in 

the event of inadequate state regulation. Use of Bait in 

Hunting, 59 Fed. Reg. 11,765 (1994). A suit was filed challenging the interim policy and the Forest Service agreed to 

withdraw it and return to the previous policy which prohibited bear baiting altogether in Wyoming and left the practice to 

state regulation elsewhere. Accordingly, on April 14, 1994 

the Forest Service issued a notice of withdrawal of the 

interim policy and a request for public comment on a proposed national policy which generally tracked the interim 

policy. Use of Bait in Hunting, 59 Fed. Reg. 17,758 (1994).

On February 13, 1995 the Forest Service issued a biological 

evaluation of the proposed national policy, concluding that it 

"will programatically benefit (is not likely to adversely affect) 

the bald eagle, gray wolf and grizzly bear on [Forest System] 

USCA Case #96-5298 Document #303396 Filed: 10/17/1997 Page 4 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

lands." JA 518-19 (emphasis in original). The Forest Service then requested review of its evaluation from FWS which 

responded by letter dated February 27, 1995: "The proposed 

National Policy appears to be consistent with our biological 

opinion of April 14, 1993, and no information has become 

available to suggest that additional terms and conditions are 

necessary at this time." JA 522. Based on discussions with 

Forest Service personnel and internal analyses, FWS stated 

definitively in a March 14, 1995 letter: "[W]e concur in your 

determination that the proposed national policy on baiting is 

not likely to adversely affect listed species." JA 467. The 

Forest Service then issued an EA which concluded that "the 

environmental consequences" of the proposed policy "would 

be negligible," JA 485, noting that the policy "provides safeguards in all States allowing baiting," JA 486.

On March 15, 1995 the Forest Service issued a "Decision 

Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact" which adopted 

the proposed national baiting policy and concluded that "an 

environmental impact statement is not needed" because its 

"actions are not a major Federal action, individually or cumulatively, and will not significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment." JA 555. The Forest Service published 

the final policy on March 20, 1995, stating:

Having considered the comments received, the Forest 

Service is adopting a final policy on the use of bait on 

National Forest System lands. The policy retains the 

long-standing reliance on State regulation of baiting resident game. Where State law and regulation permit 

baiting the practice is permitted on National Forest 

System lands unless the authorized officer determines on 

a site specific basis that the practice conflicts with Federal laws or regulations, or forest plan direction, or would 

adversely affect other forest uses or users.

60 Fed. Reg. at 14,722.

On June 21, 1995 the appellants filed this suit challenging 

the final policy. On August 8, 1996 the district court granted 

summary judgment in the Forest Service's favor. The appellants appeal the judgment.

USCA Case #96-5298 Document #303396 Filed: 10/17/1997 Page 5 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

II.

The appellants raise the same two arguments here as 

below: that the Forest Service (1) failed to prepare an EIS as 

required by NEPA and (2) failed to formally consult with and 

obtain a final biological opinion from FWS as required by 

ESA. We address each statute separately.

A. NEPA

First, the appellants contend that an EIS was required 

under NEPA because the new policy was a "major Federal 

action[ ] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" within the meaning of NEPA § 102, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 4332. Section 102 requires that federal agencies

include in every recommendation or report on proposals 

for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a 

detailed statement by the responsible official on

(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action....

42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). It is clear from this language that 

the EIS requirement is triggered only by a "major Federal 

action[ ]." Thus, where there is no such action, there is no 

EIS obligation. See Macht v. Skinner, 916 F.2d 13 (D.C. Cir. 

1990); District of Columbia v. Schramm, 631 F.2d 854, 862 

(D.C. Cir. 1980). Because we conclude the national baiting 

policy is not a major federal action, the Forest Service has no 

EIS obligation.

Assuming that the final policy constitutes federal "action" 

at allbecause it implements the existing federal policy of 

leaving baiting regulation to individual states that have 

adopted adequate regulatory provisions 3we nevertheless 

__________

3 The Forest Service's decision to refrain from future regulation 

of baiting may not constitute "action" at all. See Defenders of 

Wildlife v. Andrus, 627 F.2d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (NEPA did not 

require Department of Interior to prepare EIS before "allowing" 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game to conduct airborne shoot of 

wolves on federal lands because complained of decision was "inaction," not action); Cross-Sound Ferry Servs., Inc. v. ICC, 934 F.2d 

USCA Case #96-5298 Document #303396 Filed: 10/17/1997 Page 6 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

agree with the Forest Service that it is not a "major" federal 

action under NEPA. In the 1995 EA, the Forest Service 

asserted that "Wyoming is the only State where special use 

permits have been recently used to regulate placement of bait 

for hunting" and that "the environmental consequences of 

shifting from the Forest Service issuing permits for baiting in 

Wyoming to the State Game and Fish Department administering the program ... would be negligible." JA 485. Both 

statements find substantial support in the administrative 

record and compel the conclusion that adoption of the new 

policy is not a major federal action requiring an EIS under 

NEPA.

First, the record indicates that since 1988 the Forest 

Service has regulated baiting in only three of the nine states 

in which baiting remains lawfulIdaho, Utah and Wyoming. 

Further, it appears that at least since spring 1993, when the 

Forest Service agreed to ban baiting in Wyoming pending 

adoption of a national policy, baiting in Idaho and Utah has 

been subject to state, not federal, regulation. Thus, by 1995, 

when the national policy was adopted, baiting remained federally regulated only in Wyoming and the shift at that time 

from federal to state regulation had no effect outside Wyoming.4 As for Wyoming itself, the effect there was minimal 

because the substantive requirements of Wyoming's regulations vary only insignificantly from those of the federal 

special use permit conditions they replaced. The Wyoming 

regulations prohibit baiting in grizzly bear habitats, as did the 

federal conditions, and impose equally stringent limitations on 

__________

327, 334 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (Interstate Commerce Commission's determination that ship company's services were "ferry services" exempt 

from future regulation held not federal "action" under NEPA, 

notwithstanding Commission's prior contrary determination, because declining to assert jurisdiction "plac[ed] the case squarely 

within the 'inaction' rubric of Defenders of Wildlife").

4 One of the Forest Service's justifications for promulgating the 

interim policy in 1994 was that "[i]t is unfair to continue the bear 

baiting prohibition in Wyoming when such a prohibition is not in 

effect on other National Forest System lands in other States where 

the practice is permitted...." 59 Fed. Reg. at 11,766.

USCA Case #96-5298 Document #303396 Filed: 10/17/1997 Page 7 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the number of baits per permittee, bait density, the distance 

of baits from roads, trails and camping and picnic grounds, 

the composition of baits, removal time after hunting season 

and placement of identifying information at baiting sites.5

Because the new national policy maintained the substantive 

status quo, it cannot be characterized as a "major federal 

action" under NEPA. See Committee for Auto Responsibility v. Solomon, 603 F.2d 992, 1002-03 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ("The 

duty to prepare an EIS normally is triggered when there is a 

proposal to change the status quo.") (footnote omitted); Sierra Club v. Andrus, 581 F.2d 895, 902 (D.C. Cir. 1978) ("In 

general, however, if there is no proposal to change the status 

quo, there is in our view no 'proposal for legislation' or 'other 

major Federal action' to trigger the duty under NEPA to 

prepare an EIS."), rev'd in other respect, 442 U.S. 347 (1979). 

"The[r]e being no 'major Federal action,' the Agency was not 

required to prepare an environmental impact statement." 

District of Columbia v. Schramm, 631 F.2d at 862 (footnote 

omitted).

B. ESA

Next, the appellants assert that the Forest Service violated 

its duty under ESA to obtain a biological evaluation from 

FWS before adopting the final policy in 1995. "Section 7(a) 

of the ESA provides that each agency shall, in consultation 

with FWS, 'insure that any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out by such agency ... is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered species or threatened 

species....' " American Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 115 F.3d 

979, 1003 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2)). 

__________

5 The Wyoming regulations exceed the former federal requirements in requiring that all baits be enclosed in "a rigid container of 

wood, metal or plastic no larger than eight cubic feet." JA 239. 

The only respect in which the federal restrictions may have exceeded Wyoming's was in their requirement, for the Bridger Teton 

National Forest only, that a bait "consist of no more than 25 pounds 

of animal parts" and not include "animal carcasses." JA 169.

USCA Case #96-5298 Document #303396 Filed: 10/17/1997 Page 8 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

To the extent that there was an ESA consultation obligation,6

the Forest Service and FWS fulfilled it by engaging in 

"informal consultation" in February and March 1995 pursuant 

to the "joint regulations" promulgated by FWS and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.13(a) 

("Informal consultation is an optional process that includes all 

discussions, correspondence, etc., between the Service and the 

Federal agency or the designated non-Federal representative, 

designed to assist the Federal agency in determining whether 

formal consultation or a conference is required. If during 

informal consultation it is determined by the Federal agency, 

with the written concurrence of the Service, that the action is 

not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat, 

the consultation process is terminated, and no further action 

is necessary.").

For the preceding reasons, the judgment of the district 

court is

Affirmed.

__________

6

If promulgation of the policy constituted "inaction," see supra

note 3, there most probably would have been no "agency action" to 

trigger the ESA consultation requirement.

USCA Case #96-5298 Document #303396 Filed: 10/17/1997 Page 9 of 9