Opinion ID: 186552
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The 2001 Environmental Assessment

Text: 10 Deeming its experimental migration program of 1995 to 2000 a success, the Service decided to incorporate the program into the regulations it issues each year to govern the hunting of migratory birds. In 2001, therefore, the Service did an environmental assessment (EA), see 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4(b)-(c), 1508.9, to establish regulatory options and management direction for Trumpeter and Tundra swans based on past experience with the authorization of a limited take of Trumpeter swans in the Pacific Flyway. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Proposal to Establish Operational/Experimental General Swan Hunting Seasons in the Pacific Flyway 3 (June 15, 2001). Although the hunting of trumpeter swans remained illegal, the 2001 EA allowed for an accidental take of up to 15 birds — five in Nevada and ten in Utah. As in the experimental program, if and when a quota was reached the Service and the relevant State were to terminate the hunting season for tundra swans. The Service also issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), see 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(e), and therefore did not develop a full-blown environmental impact statement (EIS) for its proposal. The Service went on to incorporate the 2001 EA into its annual migratory bird hunting framework regulations for 2001, see 66 Fed.Reg. 49,478, 49,482-485 (Sept. 27), and again for 2002, 67 Fed.Reg. 59,110, 59,114-115 (Sept. 19). 11 Meanwhile, back in district court the Fund, referring to the 2001 EA, alleged the Service had decid[ed] to establish a permanent hunting season for Trumpeter swans, in violation of various statutes and treaties. First, the Fund claimed the Service had violated § 706 of the APA by failing to provide the court with the whole record upon which it had based the 2001 EA. The district court denied the Fund's motion to compel because the Service had submitted 14 volumes containing more than 6,000 pages and the Fund had failed to establish that the administrative record was [not] properly designated. 245 F.Supp.2d at 57-58. 12 The Fund also claimed the Service had violated the NEPA when it set the maximum accidental take of trumpeter swans without first having compiled an EIS. The district court rejected the Fund's NEPA claim because it determined the Service had in the EA adequately considered and disclosed the environmental impact of the Trumpeter swan quota and because — adverting to the criteria set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(4)-(9) — the quota did not have highly controversial or uncertain effects and was not likely to cause loss of historic resources, establish a precedent, or adversely affect a threatened species. 246 F.Supp.2d at 47-48. 13 Finally, the Fund claimed the 2001 EA violated the MBTA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, which implements several treaties protecting migratory birds. The MBTA, the Fund argued, does not permit the Service to balance the interests of hunters against the specific factors set forth in the MBTA, such as the `distribution, abundance, ... [and] breeding habits' of Trumpeter swan populations. Amended Complaint at ¶ 147 (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 704(a)). The district court, upon concluding the Service had given due regard to the MBTA factors ... and did not exceed [its] statutory authority in considering non-statutory factors, 246 F.Supp.2d at 41, granted summary judgment in favor of the Service. 14 In 2003, after the district court had disposed of the Fund's claims under the APA, the NEPA, and the MBTA, the Service issued a new EA. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Proposal to Establish Operational General Swan Hunting Seasons in the Pacific Flyway (Aug. 5, 2003). The new EA, accompanied by a new FONSI, became the basis for the provisions of the framework regulations governing the hunting of tundra swans during the 2003, 2004, and 2005 seasons. See 68 Fed.Reg. 55,784, 55,787 (Sept. 26, 2003); 69 Fed.Reg. 57,140, 57,149 (Sept. 23, 2004); 70 Fed.Reg. 55,666, 55,678 (Sept. 22, 2005). Although the 2001 and 2003 EAs specify the same quotas for Utah and Nevada, the 2003 EA includes data from the 2002 season and newly conditions the authorization of Utah's tundra swan hunting season upon a Memorandum of Agreement between the Service and that State to improve collection of information on harvested swans.