Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-10-05144/USCOURTS-caDC-10-05144-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued May 12, 2011 Decided August 3, 2011

No. 10-5144

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, ET AL.,

APPELLANTS

v.

KENNETH LEE SALAZAR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS 

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:08-cv-00945)

Timothy J. Preso argued the cause for appellants. With 

him on the briefs were Douglas L. Honnold and Sean M. 

Helle. Sierra B. Weaver entered an appearance. 

Mark R. Haag, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, 

argued the cause for federal appellees. With him on the brief 

was Robert H. Oakley, Attorney.

James Kaste, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Office 

of the Attorney General for the State of Wyoming, was on the 

brief for intervenor State of Wyoming in support of federal 

USCA Case #10-5144 Document #1322265 Filed: 08/03/2011 Page 1 of 12
2

appellees. R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, 

entered an appearance.

Before: ROGERS, TATEL, and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH.

GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge: As required by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the National Park Service devised a plan 

to manage the elk and bison populations in the National Elk 

Refuge and Grand Teton National Park. Part of this plan 

includes ending the longstanding agency practice of feeding 

these animals during the winter. The Defenders of Wildlife 

challenge the plan because it fails to include a time certain for 

ending the practice. The district court rejected the challenge,

and, for the reasons set forth below, we affirm its judgment.

I

The National Wildlife Refuge System includes over 550 

refuges and 150 million acres of protected land. The 

Department of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, manages these properties pursuant to the 

National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, Pub. L. No. 89-

669, 80 Stat. 926 (1966), as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act (“Improvement Act”), Pub 

L. No. 105-57, 111 Stat. 1252 (1997) (codified at 16 U.S.C. 

§§ 668dd-668ee). 

The National Elk Refuge is part of that system. Located 

just north of Jackson, Wyoming, and adjacent to Grand Teton 

National Park, the Refuge was established in 1912 when 

Congress designated 2000 acres in Jackson Hole as a “winter 

game (elk) reserve.” Act of Aug. 10, 1912, Pub. L. No. 62-

261, 37 Stat. 293 (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. § 673). 

The Refuge is now a 24,700-acre expanse that the Secretary 

USCA Case #10-5144 Document #1322265 Filed: 08/03/2011 Page 2 of 12
3

holds “for the grazing of, and as a refuge for, American elk 

and other big game animals.” 16 U.S.C. § 673a. Its landscape 

consists of meadows, marshes, streams, ponds, and open 

fields across a valley floor that includes sagebrush and rock 

outcroppings, all set against the majestic backdrop of the 

Teton and Gros Ventre mountain ranges. Lucky wayfarers

may spot wolves, grizzly bears, trumpeter swans, and any 

number of the area’s magnificent ungulates, including bison, 

bighorn sheep, pronghorn, mule deer, and, of course, elk. The 

National Elk Refuge’s eponymous herd comprises one of the 

largest concentrations of elk in North America. It goes 

without saying that these elk are of considerable ecological, 

economic, and cultural value. 

Around the turn of the last century, a series of severe 

winters in Wyoming strained the elk populations and spurred 

the good people of Jackson to save the elk by feeding them. 

When Congress created the Refuge in 1912, the federal 

government continued this practice, which the parties refer to 

as supplemental feeding. For roughly seventy days each 

winter, approximately 7000 elk and 1000 bison are drawn

daily to the federal trough.

In recent years, it has become apparent that this practice, 

though born of benevolence, causes significant problems. 

According to the Department of the Interior, supplemental 

feeding leads to a seasonal concentration of elk and bison that 

is “an unnatural situation that has contributed to . . . an 

increased risk of potentially major outbreaks of exotic 

diseases . . . [and] damage to and loss of habitat.” Final Bison 

and Elk Management Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement for the National Elk Refuge / Grand Teton National 

Park / John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway 9 (Feb. 1, 

2007) [hereinafter February 2007 Management Plan and EIS].

This risk poses an existential threat to the elk and bison and

puts the very purpose of the Refuge at jeopardy. See id.

USCA Case #10-5144 Document #1322265 Filed: 08/03/2011 Page 3 of 12
4

(noting that the risk of diseases posed by increased 

concentrations of the animals has “the greatest potential to 

hinder . . . [the] purposes . . . [of] the National Elk Refuge”). 

One major problem is brucellosis—also known as “Bangs 

disease, undulant fever, and contagious abortion,” id. at 564—

which causes an infected female to abort her first calf, leaving 

behind contaminated fetal tissue on the ground capable of 

transmitting the disease to other animals, id. at 129. 

Brucellosis rates within normal Wyoming elk herds are 

approximately two percent, but rates among elk that frequent 

the Refuge feeding lines have averaged around seventeen

percent in recent years. Id. at 130. Another major problem, 

chronic wasting disease (CWD), is the elk version of mad 

cow disease: Like its bovine counterpart, CWD assaults the 

central nervous system, causing brain lesions, behavioral 

changes, a loss of body condition, and ultimately death. CWD 

is caused by abnormal, non-living proteins known as prions 

that persist in the soil where infected animals graze, even after 

intensive efforts to remove them. Id. at 136-40. Statistical 

sampling suggests that in open, elk-hunt areas in Wyoming, 

the prevalence of CWD in elk averages around four percent. 

Id. at 137. But in confined areas—like those created by the 

feed lines—the prevalence can exceed ninety percent. Id.

CWD is not yet prevalent in the Refuge, but if that changes, 

“environmental contamination will become a major concern 

due to the disease’s ability to persist in the environment for a 

long period of time.” Id.

All agree that supplemental feeding increases the risk of 

such diseases. Without supplemental feeding, the elk would 

gather in smaller groups, meaning that one sick elk would

infect only the handful of others around it. But because the 

feeding lines bring so many together, the disease of one can 

quickly become that of many, if not all.

USCA Case #10-5144 Document #1322265 Filed: 08/03/2011 Page 4 of 12
5

Spurred by a district court order requiring reassessment 

of the winter feeding operation, see Fund for Animals v. 

Clark, 27 F. Supp. 2d 8, 12-15 (D.D.C. 1998), the Fish and 

Wildlife Service teamed with the National Park Service,

*

In April 2007, the agencies settled on an approach that

would, over time, create conditions that would allow the elk 

and bison to survive the winter without supplemental feeding 

and, in the meantime, manage the risk of contagion until the 

practice ended. In essence, their plan seeks to restore natural 

forage that will allow the animals to sustain themselves 

during wintertime without the help of supplemental feeding.

Bison and Elk Management Plan: National Elk Refuge and 

Grand Teton National Park 129-34 (Apr. 2007) [hereinafter 

April 2007 Management Plan]. For example, it provides for 

substantial reductions in the numbers of elk and bison, 

primarily through short-term increases in hunting, so that their 

populations will be closer to levels that would have existed 

had there never been a practice of supplemental feeding. Id. at 

134-37. The plan also seeks to reduce disease transmission by 

rotating feed sites, spreading feed in long lines, separating elk 

and bison from neighboring livestock, providing increased 

CWD monitoring, and allowing Wyoming to vaccinate the 

herds. Id. at 138-39. Ultimately, over a fifteen-year period,

“[a]s habitat and population objectives are achieved, [the 

agencies will aim to] decrease reliance on intensive 

also 

part of the Department of the Interior, to prepare a 

management plan for the elk and bison populations. The

agencies analyzed six alternatives for managing the herds 

over the next fifteen years. These plans ran the gamut from 

maintaining the status quo to ending the practice of 

supplemental feeding within five years.

 * Because the plan in this case also addresses management of elk 

and bison populations in nearby Grand Teton National Park, the 

National Park Service, which manages the park, joined in the effort.

USCA Case #10-5144 Document #1322265 Filed: 08/03/2011 Page 5 of 12
6

supplemental winter feeding, including complete transition to 

free-standing forage if and when several established criteria 

are met, including support from the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department and the public.” Id. at 137.

Before adopting this approach, the agencies considered 

and rejected the petitioners’ preferred alternative, which 

would have committed the Secretary to ending supplemental 

feeding within five years. As described in their brief, the

agencies recognized that this alternative “would provide some 

advantages in terms of habitat benefits, a lower prevalence of 

brucellosis over the long term, and a lower risk for the spread 

of chronic wasting disease.” Appellees’ Br. 19 (citing Record 

of Decision, Final Bison and Elk Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement: National Elk Refuge and 

Grand Teton National Park 10 (Apr. 2007) [hereinafter 

Record of Decision]). But they also found that “[this 

alternative] would likely result in an increase in elk mortality 

from starvation, predation, and disease related to poor body 

condition, particularly in severe winters.” Id. (citing Record 

of Decision 10). This in turn would lead to a “long-term 

decrease in elk hunting and viewing opportunities in the 

Refuge, with attendant impacts on the area economy, and 

could cause elk herd numbers to fall below [the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department’s] statewide objective in some 

years.” Id. at 19-20 (citing Record of Decision 10).

The agencies concluded that their preferred plan “[is 

more] consistent with regional herd management objectives, 

better balances divergent stakeholder interests, builds upon 

success on the ground, and enables managers to adapt to new 

information and changing conditions,” all while preparing the 

animals for the eventual cessation of supplemental feeding 

and providing most of the benefits offered by the petitioners’ 

preferred alternative. Id. at 20 (citing Record of Decision 14).

On the issue of when to end supplemental feeding, the

USCA Case #10-5144 Document #1322265 Filed: 08/03/2011 Page 6 of 12
7

agencies stressed that although they are committed to 

abandoning the practice, they would “not preclude the use of 

supplemental feeding or other management tools as [they] 

work to resolve the bison and elk management issues . . . . 

[N]or [would they] make predictions about how fast [they 

could] implement the phased approach for improving forage, 

reducing the [elk and bison populations], and reducing the 

need for supplemental feed . . . . When the biological, social, 

and political conditions enable [them] to consider a phase-out 

of feeding, [the plan’s] adaptive framework provides [the

agencies] with that flexibility.” Record of Decision 13. In 

essence, the agencies determined that a deadline for ceasing 

supplemental feeding would be unduly restrictive in light of 

the many variables and concerns that need to be accounted for 

in managing the Refuge.

The Defenders of Wildlife, the Jackson Hole 

Conservation Alliance, the National Wildlife Refuge 

Association, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, and the 

Wyoming Outdoor Council (collectively, the Defenders) filed 

suit in the district court, challenging the Secretary’s plan 

under the Administrative Procedure Act. They argue the 

plan’s failure to commit to a deadline for ending supplemental 

feeding was arbitrary and capricious given the Secretary’s 

duty under the Improvement Act to “provide for the 

conservation of . . . wildlife” and “ensure that the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the [wildlife 

refuge system] are maintained.” 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(4)(A)-

(B). The district court granted summary judgment for the 

agencies, reasoning that the plan accounted for and managed 

the dangers of supplemental feeding and also created a 

program for phasing out the practice over a fifteen-year 

period. Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 698 F. Supp. 2d 141, 

147-48 (D.D.C. 2010). The Defenders of Wildlife filed a 

timely appeal, and we take jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291.

USCA Case #10-5144 Document #1322265 Filed: 08/03/2011 Page 7 of 12
8

We review the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment de novo. Castlewood Prods., LLC v. Norton, 365 

F.3d 1076, 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Under the Administrative 

Procedure Act, we set aside agency action that is “arbitrary, 

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in 

accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Our review 

focuses on whether the agency examined the relevant data, 

articulated a satisfactory explanation for its action, based its 

decision on the relevant factors, and committed no clear error 

of judgment. Bluewater Network v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C. 

Cir. 2004).

II

The parties agree that supplemental feeding poses serious 

risks for the elk and bison in the Refuge. The only question 

this case presents is whether it was arbitrary and capricious 

for the Secretary to transition away from supplemental 

feeding without committing himself to ending the practice on 

a particular date.

The Defenders argue it was, inasmuch as the very 

purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as set out in 

the Improvement Act, “is to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” 16 

U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2). To that end, the Defenders point out, 

the Act mandates that the Secretary manage refuges to

“provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and 

their habitats within the System” and to “ensure that the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 

System are maintained for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.” Id. § 668dd(a)(4)(A), (B) 

(emphases added). The Act also instructs the Secretary to

USCA Case #10-5144 Document #1322265 Filed: 08/03/2011 Page 8 of 12
9

“sustain and, where appropriate, restore and enhance, healthy 

populations of fish, wildlife, and plants utilizing . . . methods 

and procedures associated with modern scientific resource 

programs.” Id. § 668ee(4). The Defenders argue that the 

Secretary’s plan is unlawful because it does not fix a definite 

time for ending supplemental feeding, even though the 

agencies have acknowledged that the dangers posed by this 

practice imperil explicit statutory objectives. See February 

2007 Management Plan and EIS 9. Underlying this statutory

argument is some common sense: the whole point of a 

National Elk Refuge is to provide a sanctuary in which

populations of healthy, reproducing elk can be sustained. See 

16 U.S.C. § 673a (creating a “refuge” for the elk). The Refuge 

can hardly provide such a sanctuary if, every winter, elk and 

bison are drawn by the siren song of human-provided food to 

what becomes, through the act of gathering, a miasmic zone

of life-threatening diseases.

The Defenders acknowledge that the Improvement Act 

also requires the Secretary to consider other factors such as 

the importance of recreation on refuge lands and cooperation 

with state officials in pursuing the objectives of the Act. See

id. § 668dd(4)(I), (M). They argue, however, that such 

considerations may be pursued only when “compatible” or 

“consistent with” the conservation mission of the System and 

the purposes of each refuge. See id. § 668dd(a)(3)(B), (e)(3). 

Reading the several provisions of the Act that emphasize the 

importance of wildlife conservation together with the general 

purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the 

Defenders contend that the agencies’ top priority in managing 

the Refuge must be conservation, and other considerations 

must not hinder that objective.

For their part, the Secretary and Wyoming (intervening as 

a defendant-appellee in this case) argue that the Improvement 

Act confers upon the Secretary broad managerial discretion in 

USCA Case #10-5144 Document #1322265 Filed: 08/03/2011 Page 9 of 12
10

how to pursue the Act’s objectives. They concede that 

conservation is the overarching objective, but argue that it 

cannot be the sole consideration. After all, the Act lists 

fourteen factors that the Secretary “shall” consider in 

administering the System, including, among others,

“ensur[ing] effective coordination, interaction, and 

cooperation” with adjoining landowners and State fish and 

wildlife agencies in pursuit of the objectives of the Act. Id.

§ 668dd(a)(4)(E).

Given the discretion afforded him, the Secretary argues 

that the agencies reasonably determined that the plan is 

consistent with the objectives of the Act and the purposes of 

the Refuge. The plan addresses the risk of diseases by 

(1) increasing natural forage and decreasing the herd sizes, 

which will work in tandem to create conditions under which 

supplemental feeding can be stopped without unduly 

increasing the risk of starvation, (2) monitoring and managing 

the diseases that accompany gathering at the feed lines, and 

(3) progressively reducing reliance on supplemental feeding

when certain criteria have been met.

There is no doubt that unmitigated continuation of 

supplemental feeding would undermine the conservation 

purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System. But we 

cannot conclude that the agencies acted unlawfully by 

adopting a plan that contained no deadline for ending the 

practice, and that is the only issue before us. The record

amply demonstrates that the agencies collected the relevant 

data, identified the dangers posed by supplemental feeding, 

and adopted a plan to mitigate those dangers. That they also 

determined that the many objectives of the Act, including 

conservation, could best be met without implementation of a 

fixed deadline for stopping supplemental feeding was not 

arbitrary or capricious.

USCA Case #10-5144 Document #1322265 Filed: 08/03/2011 Page 10 of 12
11

The district court was right that the plan “might well have 

been unreasonable had the agencies categorically refused to 

phase out the winter feeding program in spite of all the 

evidence in the record about the dangers of supplemental 

feeding.” Defenders of Wildlife, 698 F. Supp. 2d at 148. But 

they did no such thing. Instead, they selected an approach that 

is geared toward ending the practice over time while 

maintaining the flexibility needed to respond to facts on the 

ground. The Defenders are understandably concerned that this 

flexibility could be used to continue the practice indefinitely.

But the agencies must proceed in a manner that is consistent 

with the science and accounts for the risks posed by

supplemental feeding. There is nothing the agencies have said 

or done that causes us to doubt that they will. It is highly 

significant and indeed dispositive to us, as it was to the 

district court, that the agencies are committed to ending 

supplemental feeding. We do not know precisely how they

will proceed, and that makes it impossible, at this stage, to 

declare that their plan is arbitrary and capricious simply 

because it does not specify a particular date by which the 

practice will cease. Should the agencies act unreasonably in 

establishing criteria for the transition or in otherwise carrying 

out the plan, that will be a different issue for another panel.

III

The Defenders also argue that the plan unlawfully gives 

the Wyoming Fish and Game Department a veto over whether 

supplemental feeding will end. They point to language in the 

plan stating that the agencies will seek to “decrease reliance 

on intensive supplemental winter feeding, including complete 

transition to free-standing forage if and when several 

established criteria are met, including support from the

Wyoming Game and Fish Department and the public.” April 

2007 Management Plan 137 (emphasis added).

USCA Case #10-5144 Document #1322265 Filed: 08/03/2011 Page 11 of 12
12

Regardless of how we might have read this language in 

the first instance, the Secretary has assured us in his briefs and 

at oral argument that the language confers no veto. See 

Appellees’ Br. 34 (characterizing the disputed provision as 

“aspirational” rather than a grant of any power to Wyoming); 

Wyoming's Br. 28 n.6 (also agreeing that Wyoming does not 

have a veto); cf. Wyoming v. United States, 279 F.3d 1214,

1234 (10th Cir. 2002) (“[F]ederal management and regulation 

of federal wildlife refuges preempts state management and 

regulation of such refuges . . . where state management and 

regulation stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the 

full purposes and objectives of the Federal Government.”). 

We take the Secretary at his word that Wyoming has no veto 

over the Secretary’s duty to end a practice that is concededly 

at odds with the long-term health of the elk and bison in the 

Refuge.

IV

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is

Affirmed.

USCA Case #10-5144 Document #1322265 Filed: 08/03/2011 Page 12 of 12