Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment; Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment; and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Intervenor-DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY Judgment RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United . States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION The American West is rich with wildlife of considerable ecological value. These related cases involve two iconic species — the elk and the grizzly bear — and their habitat in the Grand Teton National Park (“the Park”) in northwestern Wyoming. When Congress created the Park in its present form, it provided that the conservation program for the elk “shall include the controlled reduction of elk in such park, ... when it is found necessary for the purpose of proper management and protection of the elk.” 16 U.S.C. § 673c(a). In 2007, the National Park Service (“the NPS”), along with the Fish and Wildlife Service (“the FWS”), which manages the abutting National Elk Refuge (“the Refuge”), issued a joint plan for the management of the bison and elk herds that migrate across the Park, the Refuge, and nearby federal, state, and private lands. The plan called for the continuation of the elk reduction program, through an annual hunt, as necessary to reach particular sustainable elk herd population, sex, and age goals. Accordingly, the Governor of Wyoming and the NPS Regional Director have annually approved a harvest of 300 to 600 elk in the Park since 2007. The plan was also anticipated to have certain effects on the grizzly bear, a species listed as threatened under the . Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). Therefore, the NPS consulted with the FWS in 2007 concerning those effects. The FWS issued a Biological Opinion concluding that the plan would not jeopardize the continued existence of the grizzly bear, and anticipating that one bear would be incidentally “taken” during the fifteen-year implementation of the plan. In 2013, after a grizzly bear was killed by hunters in the Park, the NPS reinitiated consultation with the FWS and issued an addendum to its Biological Opinion, increasing the total anticipated incidental take in the Park to five bears. The Plaintiffs in these related cases challenge several aspects of the continued approvals of the elk hunt and the FWS’s 2013 Addendum to its Biological Opinion concerning the grizzly bear. The plaintiffs in Mayo v. Jarvis claim that the NPS’s and Governor of Wyoming’s approval of the elk hunt in 2015 violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”),. the Grand Teton National Park Enabling Act (“Enabling Act”) and the National Parks Organic Act (“Organic Act”). They also claim that the FWS acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it amended its 2007 Biological Opinion. The plaintiffs in Sierra Club v. Jewell similarly claim that the FWS acted unlawfully and arbitrarily and capriciously- in amending the -2007 Biological Opinion. Now before the Court are Plaintiffs’ respective motions for summary judgment (Mayo ECF No. 35, Sierra Club ECF No. 26) and the cross-motions for summary judgment of Defendants (Mayo ECF No. 39, Sierra Club ECF No. 28), Intervenor-Defendant the State of Wyoming (Mayo ECF No. 40, Sierra Club ECF No. 30), and Intervenor-Defendant Safari Club International (Mayo ECF No. 43, Sierra Club ECF No. 33). For the following reasons, the Court grants summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiffs’ NEPA, Organic Act, and Enabling Act claims, but grants summary judgment to Plaintiffs on one of the ESA claims, and will remand the 2013 Addendum to the FWS. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The Jackson Elk Herd, the Elk Reduction Program, and the 2007 Management Plan The Jackson elk herd is one of the largest concentrations of elk in North America. NPS-1947. The herd migrates “across several jurisdictional boundaries in northwestern Wyoming” encompassing federal lands that are managed by the NPS, the FWS, the United States Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, as well as Wyoming state lands, and private lands. Id. The elk, along with the Jackson bison herd, significantly contribute to “the ecology of the southern greater Yellowstone ecosystem” (“GYE”) because of the herd’s “large numbers, wide distribution, effects on vegetation, and [its] importance to the area’s predators and scavengers.” NPS-1948. The Jackson elk herd’s status was previously more precarious. By the turn of the twentieth century, the elk’s native winter range had been significantly reduced. At that time, the herd “was largely confined to Jackson Hole and the immediately surrounding areas,” which left the herd “at the mercy of the sometimes severe winter.” NPS-195Ó. “Compounded by the loss of available winter range in Jackson .Hole due to ranching operations and a growing town, significant numbers of elk died during several severe winters in the late -1800s and early 1900s.” Id. These dramatic mor-talities of a regionally important animal population prompted local citizens, organizations, and state and federal officials to begin a feeding program for the elk during the winter of. 1910-1911. Id. From that concern was born what is now known as the National Elk Refuge. Id. Congress initially designated 2,000 acres in Jackson Hole, Wyoming to serve as a “winter game (elk) reserve.” Defs. of Wildlife v. Salazar, 651 F.3d 112, 113 (D.C.Cir.2011); see also Act of Aug. 10, 1912, Pub. L. No. 62-261, 37 Stat. 293 (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. § 673). The Refuge has since grown to over 24,700 acres. Defs. of Wildlife, 651 F.3d at 113. While a sizable portion of the Jackson elk herd spends its winter on the Refuge, some of the herd also spends its summer in, or migrates through, the neighboring Grand Teton National Park. See NPS-2075 (“Approximately half of the elk wintering on the refuge summer in Grand Teton National Park.”); NPS-2074-75 (describing studies estimating that 30% of the total elk herd summers in the Park); NPS-2076 (map depicting fall migration routes). In 1929, Congress initially set aside 150 square miles of the Teton Mountain Range in Wyoming to create the Park. See NPS-1959. The original park was combined in 1950 with the Jackson Hole National Monument, to create the Grand Teton National Park that we know today. See id.; see also 16 U.S.C. § 406d-1. The Park “is dedicated to the preservation and protection of the Teton Range and its surrounding landscapes, ecosystems, and cultural and historic resources.” NPS-1959. One of those resources is, of course, the elk. Indeed, the Grand Teton National Park Enabling Act specifically provided for the management of the Jackson elk herd. See 16 U.S.C. § 673c(a); see also Mayo Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Cross-Mot. Summ. J. & Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. Ex. 1, ECF No. 39-1 (President Truman’s signing statement, acknowledging that the legislation “contains a number of features which are designed to recognize the interests and wishes of the people living in the immediate vicinity” of the Park, including “detailed procedures for the management of the elk herd which migrates through the region”). Congress directed the “Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and the National Park Service” to “devise ,.. and recommend to the Secretary of the Interi- or and the Governor of Wyoming for their joint approval, a program to insure the permanent conservation of the elk within the Grand Teton National Park.” 16 U.S.C. § 673c(a). As part of that conservation program, the Enabling Act also allows for the reduction of the elk herd, providing that the program “shall include the controlled reduction of elk in- such park, by hunters licensed by the State of Wyoming and deputized as rangers by the Secretary of the Interior, when it is found necessary for the purpose of proper management and protection of the elk.” Id. “At least once a year between February 1 and April 1,” the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (“WGFC”) and the NPS must submit to the Secretary and Wyoming’s Governor a joint recommendation “for the management, protection, and control of the elk for that year.” Id. § 673c(b). That plan becomes effective when approved by the Secretary and the Gpvemor, who are then directed to “separately, but simultaneously” issue orders and regulations necessary to implement the “portions of the approved plan that fall within their respective jurisdictions.” Id. Those regulations “shall include provision for controlled and managed reduction by qualified and experienced hunters licensed by the State of Wyoming and deputized as rangers by the Secretary of the Interior, if and when a reduction in the number of elk by this method ... is required as a part of the approved plan for the year.” Id. The management of the elk herd in northwest Wyoming has long been contentious. After a court in this district enjoined the FWS’s bison management plan because it had failed to consider the elk and bison feeding programs, see Fund for Animals v. Clark, 27 F.Supp.2d 8, 13-14 (D.D.C.1998), the FWS and the NPS prepared a joint management plan for the bison and elk herds on the Refuge and in the Park, see NPS-1952. The final Bison and Elk Management Plan was issued in 2007 (“the 2007 Management Plan”). The 2007 Management Plan analyzed six alternatives for the long-term management of the elk and bison herds and their habitat over a fifteen-year period. See NPS-1909. The agencies described the need for action as rooted in several consequences resulting from “wintering large numbers of elk and bison on the refuge.” NPS-1914. While the agencies acknowledged that “there have been many benefits associated with” wintering the populations on the Refuge, “high animal concentrations have created an unnatural situation” that contributed to several problems. Id. Specifically, the concentration of animals led to: a high level of brucellosis in the bison and elk herds and an increased risk of exotic disease outbreak; damage to and loss of the animals’ natural winter habitat; and low winter morbidity rates of bison and elk, which has collateral effects on “predators, scavengers, and detritivores,” and which also “necessitates intensive hunting programs.” Id. Overall, the agencies acknowledged that “[a]ll of the biological issues identified ... stem from the winter feeding program on the National Elk Refuge.” Id.; see also Defs. of Wildlife, 651 F.3d at 113 (explaining that “[i]n recent years, it has become apparent that” the supplemental feeding program, “though born of benevolence, causes significant problems”). Among the six proposed alternatives analyzed in the 2007 Management Plan, the agencies ultimately settled on Alternative 4. That alternative called for adaptive management whereby the elk and bison herds and their habitat would be flexibly managed “on the refuge and in the park, with an emphasis on improving winter, summer, and transitional range in the park and on the refuge and on ensuring that the biotic integrity and environmental health of the resources would be sustained over the long term.” NPS-1920. The approach would be “phased,” with an initial period intended to “reduce the number of elk on feed on the refuge.” NPS-1924. By the end of the initial phase, the agencies anticipated that there would be “an estimated 11,000 elk in the Jackson herd,” with approximately 5,000 elk wintering on the Refuge. Id. The agencies noted that “[Reducing supplemental feeding would decrease refuge elk numbers and densities.” Id. And, “[a]fter the initial phase, adaptive management would be emphasized to better reach desired conditions and goals concerning habitat, disease, and conflict prevention.” Id. Throughout, elk hunting would be used— both “on the refuge, and when necessary in the park, to assist the state in managing herd sizes, sex and age ratios, and summer distributions.” NPS-1994. As part of its adaptive management approach, Alternative 4 also called for establishing “criteria for progressively transitioning from intensive supplemental winter feeding to greater reliance on free-standing forage.” Id. Notably, however, the agencies did not specify a particular end date for the supplemental feeding program. The 2007 Management Plan was initially challenged in this district and appealed to the D.C. Circuit. See Defs. of Wildlife, 651 F.3d at 115-16. Several environmental organizations challenged the plan on the basis that its “failure to commit to a deadline for ending supplemental feeding was arbitrary and capricious.” Id. at 115. The D.C. Circuit upheld the plan, but noted that “[t]here is no doubt that unmitigated continuation of supplemental feeding would undermine the conservation purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System.” Id. at 117. The court ultimately concluded, however, that the agencies had acted lawfully in “selecting] an approach that is geared toward ending the practice over time while maintaining the flexibility needed to respond to facts on the ground.” Id. The court did note that it was “highly significant and indeed dispositive to us, as it was to the district court, that the agencies are committed to ending supplemental feeding.” Id. Since 2007, and as part of the Management Plan, the National Park Service Regional Director and the Governor of Wyoming have continued to approve an annual elk reduction program. For example, in 2015 the NPS and Wyoming’s Governor approved the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s (‘WGFD”) and the Park’s joint recommendation to conduct a- hunt from October 24 through December 13, 2015. See NPS-7543-49. Although the post-hunt herd population of elk was estimated in February 2015 to be 11,000 — at the 2007 Management Plan’s target — the joint recommendation noted that approximately 8,400 elk wintered on the Refuge during the 2014-2015 winter and that the elk on feed on the Refuge had been above the 5,000 elk objective for six of the prior seven winters. NPS-7546. In part because of the number of elk wintering on the Refuge, the joint recommendation concluded that a harvest of elk was “necessary for the proper'management and protection of the elk.” Id.; see NPS-7543 (adopting that finding). The program called for the issuance of 650 licenses, and a harvest of 300 elk from the Park. NPS-7543-44; NPS-7548 (noting a harvest objective of 300 elk in hunt areas 75 and 79). At the time the 2007 Management Plan was adopted, approximately 6,800 elk had wintered on the Refuge in the most recent year (2005-2006). See NPS-2073. Since then, and despite the 5,000 elk target the plan established, the number of elk wintering on the Refuge has .continued to exceed that target. In all but one year, it has been well-north of 7,000 elk. See NPS-1895 (7,300' elk in 2006-07); NPS-3382 (7,950 elk in 2007-08); NPS-3933 (7,800 elk in 2008-09); NPS-4251. (6,000 elk in 2009-10); NPS-4785 (7,700 elk in 2010-11); NPS-5582. (7,700 elk in 2011-12); NPS-6142 (7,500 elk in 2012-13); NPS-6851 (8,300 elk in 2013-14). Most recently, 8,400 .elk wintered. on the Refuge during the 2014-15 winter. See NPS-7546. This figure was reported to be “well above” the five year average of 6,807. NPS-7380. B. The Grizzly Bear, the 2007 Biological Opinion, and the 2013 Addendum Separate and apart from the direct management of the elk herd as part of the 2007 Management Plan, the plan also has the potential to affect the recovery of a threatened species: the grizzly bear. Although the grizzly bear population in the lower-48 states once numbered 50,000, between 1800 and 1975 the population was reduced to less than 1,000 bears. See FWS-211. In 1975, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). See FWS-1-3. Once a species is listed, the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit any person from committing a “take” of a member of' that species, which includes, among other things, harassing, harming, hunting, shooting, wounding, or killing the animal, without authorization from the FWS. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1538(a), 1532(19); 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.21(c), 17.31(a). After a species is listed as endangered or threatened, Section 7 of the ESA requires every federal agency, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to “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.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). As part of its formal consultation, the FWS issues what is called a “biological opinion” (or “BiOp”) which sets forth whether the service believes that the action will jeopardize the continued existence of the species. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(4). If the FWS concludes that the action is unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence' of the species, but is nonetheless likely to result in some “‘incidental take’” of the species, “the BiOp must set forth an Incidental Take Statement, which specifies the permissible ‘amount or extent’ of this impact on the species.” Oceana, Inc. v. Pritzker, 125 F.Supp.3d 232, 237 (D.D.C.2015) (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4)(B)); see also 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i)(1). The FWS’s BiOp must also specify the “reasonable and prudent measures” that the Director “considers necessary or appropriate to minimize” the action’s impact. 50- C.F.R. § 402.14(i)(1)(ii). Finally, regulations require that the FWS and the applicable agency reinitiate formal consultation in four situations, including if “the amount or extent of [the] taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded,” if “new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered,” or if “the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.16. Consistent with the ESA, the NPS initiated consultation with the FWS concerning the 2007 Management Plan’s impact on the grizzly bear population. After considering the status of the species and the various effects of the 2007' Management Plan, the FWS concluded that the plan, “as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the grizzly bear.” FWS-1689. Although the FWS noted that “some adverse effects may occur” as a result of the plan — including an “elevated risk of hunting-related conflicts occurring” in the Park — the agency determined that the increased risk “would be minimal in the long term,” but “higher in the short-term.” FWS-1690. Given the exacerbated short-term risk of a hunting-related grizzly bear mortality in the Park, the FWS anticipated that “1 grizzly bear (adult or juvenile) over the 15-year implementation period of the Plan could be incidentally taken as a result of the proposed action.” FWS-1691. The FWS reiterated that “this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species.” Id. The BiOp also established one reasonable and prudent measure it considered “necessary and appropriate to minimize impacts of incidental take of grizzly bears”: it instructed the NPS to “[minimize the likelihood of hunting-related human/grizzly bear conflict ... through education of hunters.” FWS-1692. ■The-incidental take authorized by the BiOp was reached in November 2012. In that month, a man and his two .sons, who were taking part in the elk reduction program in the Park, had a surprise encounter with a grizzly bear. The bear charged at the men and was shot, resulting in the bear’s death. See NPS-5863. Because the level of incidental take was reached, the NPS requested to reinitiate formal consultation with the FWS ■ regarding the 2007 Management Plan’s effects on the grizzly bear. See FWS-1564. The NPS asserted in a memorandum to the FWS that conditions associated with the elk reduction program “remain[ed] largely the same as they were in 2007 except that, as anticipated in the [2007 Management] plan, grizzly bear distribution and numbers in the south end of the park appear to have increased.” FWS-1565. The NPS asserted that it “believed] continued implementation of the [2007 Management Plan] is likely to incur additional losses of grizzly bears from hunter-grizzly bear conflicts, which will adversely affect grizzly bears,” but that it also believed “the number of bears affected will be small and will not jeopardize the continued existence of the Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly bear population.” FWS-1567. In response, the FWS issued an “addendum” to its 2007 BiOp that purported to “tier[ ] off of [the FWS’s] original biological opinion” and provide a new incidental take statement for grizzly bears “which reflects current conditions within the Park and Refuge.” FWS-1662. The new incidental take statement was intended to “supersede” the previous 2007 statement and would be “valid for the remaining 9 years under the 2007 biological opinion, through the year 2022.” Id. After briefly discussing the contemporary status of the grizzly bear, the addendum concluded that, “given the current estimated population of grizzly bears” in the GYE, and “overall sustainable annual mortality levels ..., the number of bears affected by the Plan will be small and will not jeopardize the continued existence of the Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly bear population.” FWS-166S-64. Thus, the FWS anticipated that “up to 4 additional grizzly bears in the Park and 2 grizzly bears in the Refuge” may be “incidentally taken directly or indirectly as a result of the Plan during the remaining 9 years this biological opinion is valid.” FWS-1664. ' C. Procedural History Plaintiffs in these related cases challenge various aspects of the NPS’s and the FWS’s actions in managing the annual elk reduction program and in consulting regarding the 2007 Management Plan’s impact on the grizzly bear. Although some, of the claims overlap — and the plaintiffs’ briefing incorporates certain arguments by reference — the parties’ raise different claims in each case. In the first case, Mayo v. Jarvis, Plaintiffs Timothy Mayo and Kent Nelson bring claims against the NPS and the FWS related to the elk reduction program and the FWS’s 2013 Addendum to its BiOp regarding the grizzly bear. Mr. Mayo and Mr. Nelson are both avid wildlife photographers who live near the Park and visit regularly. See Mayo Compl. ¶¶ 5, 12, ECF No. 1-1. Mayo brings four claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the ESA. First, he claims that the NPS violated the Grand Teton National Park Enabling Act by failing to set forth an adequate basis for believing that the annual elk reduction program is “necessary for the purpose of proper management and protection of the elk,” as required by 16 U.S.C. § 673(c)a. Id. ¶¶ 68-70. Second, he argues that the NPS similarly failed to make a finding that the elk reduction program will not impair the Park, and thus violated the Organic Act, which instructs the NPS to “conserve” natural parks’ wildlife “by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Id. ¶¶ 71-72. Third, he claims that the NPS violated NEPA by failing to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement each year in connection with the elk reduction program. Id. ¶¶ 73-74. And finally, Mayo-contends that.the 2013 Addendum to the FWS’s BiOp violated Section 7 of the ESA. Id. ¶¶ 75-80. Although the complaint was originally founded on the 2014 elk reduction program, after the Governor of Wyoming and the NPS’s Regional Director approved the 2015 hunt, Mayo filed a supplemental complaint incorporating the 2015 hunt. See generally Mayo Supp. Compl., ECF No. 32. In the second case, Sierra Club v. Jewell, Plaintiffs Sierra Club, the Western Watersheds Project, and the Center for Biological Diversity bring distinct, but in some cases overlapping, challenges. Sierra Club exclusively challenges the 2013 Addendum to the FWS’s BiOp concerning the grizzly bear, and asserts four causes of action under the ESA. First, Sierra Club contends that when FWS made its “no jeopardy” determination the agency failed to consider all of the additional incidental takings of grizzly bear that the agency already anticipated to take place in the GYE. Sierra Club Compl. ¶¶ 39-46, ECF No. 1. Second, Sierra Club claims that the agency’s use of an addendum did not suffice to reinitiate formal consultation as required by the ESA and its regulations. Id. ¶¶ 47-52. Third, Sierra Club urges that the FWS failed to consider additional “reasonable and prudent measures” to minimize the impact of the anticipated incidental take set forth in the addendum. Id. ¶¶ 53-57. Lastly, Sierra Club asserts that the NPS, too, violated the ESA by relying on the FWS’s invalid addendum when discharging the NPS’s own duties to comply with the ESA. Id. ¶¶ 58-62. The Court granted the motions of the State of Wyoming and Safari Club, International, to intervene as defendants. See Mayo ECF Nos. 6, 20; Sierra Club ECF Nos. 13; 22. Mayo and Sierra Club have each moved for summary judgment in their respective cases, see Mayo ECF No. 35; Sierra Club ECF No. 26, and Defendants, Wyoming, and Safari Club have cross-moved for summary judgment, see Mayo ECF Nos. 39, 40, 43; Sierra Club ECF Nos. 28, 30, 33. III. LEGAL STANDARD A court may grant summary judgment when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When assessing a motion for summary judgment in án APA case, however, “the district judgé sits as an appellate tribunal.” Am. Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson, 269 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C.Cir.2001). In such cases the complaint “actually presents no factual allegations, but rather only arguments about the legal conclusion to be drawn about the agency action.” Marshall Cnty. Health Care Auth. v. Shalala, 988 F.2d 1221, 1226 (D.C.Cir.1993). Therefore, “[t]he entire case on review is a question of law, and only a question of law.” Id. The Court’s review “is based on the agency record and limited to determining whether the agency acted arbitrarily or capriciously,” Rempfer v. Sharfstein, 583 F.3d 860, 865 (D.C.Cir.2009), or in violation of another standard set out in section 10(e) of the APA, see 5 U.S.C. § 706. Because the ESA does not contain its own standard of review provision, judicial review is likewise governed by the APA’s arbitrary and capricious standard. Cabinet Mountains Wilderness/Scotchman’s Peak Grizzly Bears v. Peterson, 685 F.2d 678, 685-86 (D.C.Cir.1982). The scope of a court’s “arbitrary and capricious” review “is narrow” and “a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983). To satisfy the standard, an agency “must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Id. (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168, 83 S.Ct. 239, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962)). An agency’s action is arbitrary and capricious if it “has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Id. And when undertaking that review, a court is to “give an extreme degree of deference to the agency when it is evaluating scientific data within its technical expertise.” Cmtys. for a Better Env’t v. EPA, 748 F.3d 333, 336 (D.C.Cir.2014) (quoting City of Waukesha v. EPA, 320 F.3d 228, 247 (D.C.Cir.2003)); see also Defs. of Wildlife & Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 815 F.3d 1, 14, 2016 WL 790900, at *11 (D.C.Cir. Mar. 1, 2016) (“Because predicting the future status of wildlife is a difficult task, the court has acknowledged deference is appropriate to the agency’s evaluation of scientific data within its technical expertise.”). IV. ANALYSIS Plaintiffs collectively bring challenges under four statutes: NEPA, the ESA, the Organic Act, and the Grand Teton National Park Enabling Act. The Court will discuss each in turn. A. The NEPA Claims 1. Statutory Background NEPA was enacted in 1970 “to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere.” 42 U.S.C. § 4321. The Act “declares a broad national commitment to protecting and promoting environmental quality,” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 348, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989), and requires agencies to “consider fully the environmental effects of their proposed actions,” Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship v. Salazar, 616 F.3d 497, 503 (D.C.Cir.2010) [hereinafter TRCP]. To accomplish that goal, NEPA instructs all federal agencies to prepare and solicit public comment on an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for. every “major Federal action[] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). By statute, an EIS must address : (1) “the environmental impact of the proposed action,” (2) “any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented,” (3) “alternatives to the proposed action,” (4) “the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity,” and (5) “any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented." Id. § 4332(C)(i)-(v). In requiring agencies to consider and prepare an EIS discussing these factors, the Act has “twin aims”: it “places upon an agency the obligation to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action,” and it also “ensures that the agency will inform the public that it has.indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process.” Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97, 103 S.Ct. 2246, 76 L.Ed.2d 437 (1983). The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) has promulgated regulations interpreting NEPA and clarifying which agency actions require the preparation of an EIS. See generally 40 C.F.R. § 1500 et seq. Those regulations allow an agency to prepare a more limited Environmental Assessment .(“EA”) if it is not clear that the agency’s action will require the production of a full EIS. See 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b). An EA is “a concise public document” that “[b]riefly provide[s] sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement.” Id. § 1508.9(a)(1). If, after producing an EA, an agency determines that an EIS is not required, it may issue a “finding of no signification impact” (“FONSI”), setting forth the reasons why the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Id. §§ 1501.4(d), 1508.13. NEPA imposes only “procedural requirements” on federal agencies. Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 756-57, 124 S.Ct. 2204, 159 L.Ed.2d 60 (2004). The Act is merely “meant to ensure” that an agency makes “a fully informed and well-considered decision”; NEPA, of its own accord, does not require an agency to arrive at the “best decision” from an environmental standpoint. TRCP, 616 F.3d at 503 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 558, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978)). While the procedures “are almost certain to affect the agency’s substantive decision, it is now well settled that NEPA itself does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process.” Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350, 109 S.Ct. 1835. As a result, “NEPA is ‘not a suitable vehicle’ for airing grievances about the substantive policies adopted by an agency, as ‘NEPA was not intended to resolve fundamental policy disputes.’” Grunewald v. Jarvis, 776 F.3d 893, 903 (D.C.Cir.2015) (quoting Found. on Econ. Trends v. Lyng, 817 F.2d 882, 886 (D.C.Cir.1987)). “If the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action are adequately identified and evaluated, the agency is not constrained by NEPA from deciding that other values outweigh the environmental costs.” Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350, 109 S.Ct. 1835. Thus, NEPA only; requires that all federal agencies take a “ ‘hard look’ at the environmental consequences before taking a major action.” Balt. Gas & Elec., 462 U.S. at 97, 103 S.Ct. 2246 (citing Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 n. 21, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976)). “The role of the courts is simply to ensure that the agency has adequately considered and disclosed the environmental impact of its actions and that its decision is not arbitrary or capricious.” Id. at 97-98, 103 S.Ct. 2246; see also Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. at 763, 124 S.Ct. 2204 (“An agency’s decision not to prepare an EIS can be set aside^ only upon a showing -that it was ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’”) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). Courts must therefore “review an agency’s compliance with NEPA’s requirements deferentially.” Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 196 (D.C.Cir.1991), An agency “need only follow a ‘rule of,reason’ in preparing an EIS” and when determining “which alternatives the agency must discuss, and the extent to which it must discuss them.” Id. at 195 (internal quotation mark omitted) (emphasis in original) (quoting Alaska v. Andrus, 580 F.2d 465, 475 (D.C.Cir.1978)). The agency “bears the responsibility for defining at the outset the objectives of an- action” and a court will “uphold an agency’s definition of objectives so long as the .objectives that the agency chooses are reasonable, and [will] uphold its discussion of alternatives so long as the alternatives are reasonable and the agency discusses them in reasonable detail.” Id. at 195-96. 2. NEPA Coverage of the Elk Reduction Program Mayo claims that the NPS has failed to comply with NEPA because the agency prepares neither an EA nor an EIS before authorizing the elk reduction program in the Park each year. Mayo Pls.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 22-23 (“Mayo Pls.’ Mem. Supp.”), ECF No. 35; see also Mayo Compl. ¶ 73; Mayo. Supp. Compl. ¶ 8. Mayo argues that the NPS undertakes a major federal action when it makes “a new discretionary decision every year concerning whether, and on what specific terms, to authorize the elk hunt in a national park.” Mayo Pls.’ Mem. Supp. at 22. Defendants do not dispute that the NPS does not prepare an EA or EIS each year when authorizing the annual elk reduction program, and they do not appear to contest that the annual elk hunts generally fall within NEPA’s definition of a major federal action. Instead, they claim that they fulfilled their NEPA obligations when they analyzed the environmental consequences of the 2007 Management Plan. Defendants argue that when the agency set overall goals for the management of the Jackson elk herd and analyzed the anticipated environmental consequences of each proposed alternative, it also took a “hard look” at the particular environmental consequences of continuing the elk reduction program in the Park as one management tool. See Mayo Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Cross-Mot. Summ. J. & Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. at 15-18 (“Mayo Defs.’ Mem. Supp.”), ECF No. 39. On the facts of this case, the Court agrees with the NPS’s understanding of the agency’s NEPA obligation. To understand why requires some background about the 2007 Management Plan and the alternative it adopted. NPS’s preferred alternative, Alternative 4 (and the one eventually adopted), called for adaptive management of both the bison and elk herd populations and their habitat, through which “a dynamic framework for decreasing the need for supplemental feeding on the refuge” would be developed “based on existing conditions, trends, new research findings, and other changing circumstances.” NPS-1920. Under that approach, “the elk herd reduction program in the park” would “be used to assist the state in managing herd sizes, sex and age ratios, and summer distributions.” Id. More specifically, Alternative 4 proposed to reduce the number of elk wintering on the Refuge to approximately 5,000 elk, reduce the number of elk summering in the Park to 1,600 elk, and to manage the overall Jackson elk herd at the WGFD’s 11,000 population objective. See NPS-1924; NPS-2011; NPS-2210. The NPS also proposed to establish an elk bull-to-cow ratio that is “more reflective of non-hunted populations,” and initially recommended a 35-to-100 ratio based on the summer elk herd. NPS-2012. To reach these goals, the 2007 Management Plan proposed using hunting on both the Refuge and in the Park, in addition to reestablishing the elk’s natural winter habitat. NPS-2003 (describing objectives and strategies for improving elk grazing habitat); NPS-2240 (explaining that “a decrease to the 5,000 Refuge population target would be “gradual” and “accomplished through a short-term increase in harvest in the park and on the southern part of the refuge,” although “[t]he reduction in herd size would come primarily from the park segment”). The EIS canvassed the environmental consequences- that would result both from achieving the selected goals and implementing the management actions the agencies anticipated using to meet them. For example, the EIS anticipated that the elk herd’s distribution would increase as the elk came to rely more heavily on standing forage and native winter range, NPS-2241, and that the elk’s competitiveness and aggressiveness would be reduced as supplemental feeding and elk numbers on the range decreased, NPS-2243. In addition, the EIS predicted that “[c]hanges in hunting practices” would cause “short-duration adverse effects,” particularly on the southern portion of the Refuge, where harvesting elk “in these traditionally safe areas” would “increase agitation and nervousness, energetic expenditures, and possibly decreasing nutrition because of reductions in foraging.” NPS-2243. Overall, the EIS noted that Alternative 4 would “continue to enhance health and sustainability of the Jackson elk herd in the long term,” although to a lesser extent than some of the alternatives. NPS-2249. More to the point, it is clear that the EIS took the requisite “hard look” at the potential environmental effects that might result from continuing the elk reduction program in the Park as a method of managing the herd. To begin with, the 2007 Management Plan itself explained that it intended the EIS’s “level of analysis” to be “sufficient to allow several management actions to be carried out without having to complete additional analyses (e.g., environmental assessments) prior to implementation.” Id. Those additional management actions were forecasted to include changes to “the number of elk and bison inhabiting the National Elk Refuge, Grand Teton National Park, and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Park,” changes to the “elk herd reduction program in the park, including changes to hunt areas,” and changes to “elk hunting on the refuge, including changes to hunt areas.” NPS-1974-76. Beyond this assertion of the EIS’s scope, a thorough review of the EIS reveals that throughout its discussion of Alternative 4, and where relevant, the NPS specifically considered the environmental effects of utilizing elk hunting in the Park as a management strategy. For example, the NPS discussed whether elk hunting would have an adverse impact on the natural scenery and other wildlife enjoyment in the park’ As the EIS noted, “[cjontinued elk herd reduction in parts of Grand Teton National Park would detract from the naturalness of the scenery for some visitors during the fall and early winter.” NPS-2160; see also NPS-2415 (explaining that “[h]unting in the park would continue to adversely affect the experiences of some visitors during the fall and early winter” and that “[i]nitially the number of elk harvested in the park would be higher than now, but in the long term fewer elk would be taken”). But the EIS nevertheless concluded that “[m]oderate to large numbers of elk and bison on the refuge and in the park would continue to be important elements of the scenery of Jackson Hole.” NPS-2160. Overall, the agency believed that Alternative 4 “would not result in the impairment of visual resources in the park.” Id. The NPS also explained how the elk reduction program might affect visitors’ opportunities to observe elk in the Park. The EIS anticipated that a reduction of the Park segment of the elk' herd from approximately 2,676 elk to 1,600 elk, as Alternative 4 called for, “could result in fewer viewing opportunities for a minority of park visitors, potentially reducing the quality of the outdoor experience for some people.” NPS-2415. While the NPS noted that possibility, it concluded that any adverse effects “would be relatively minor because .most visitors from May through October do not see elk,” and because in most years “a moderate to large number of elk (but fewer than under baseline conditions and Alternative 1) would continue to be observable during spring and fall migrations, so viewing opportunities might not. change substantially.” Id. And NPS also explained that it did not' believe Park visitors would face fewer opportunities to observe the elk’s unique mating patterns. The NPS predicted that, “although elk numbers would be lower than Alternative 1, bull-to-cow ratios could be higher, which means that opportunities for seeing and hearing bugling elk during the fall rut would not decline proportionally.” Id. The effects of hunting on the size, sustainability, and health of the elk herd was also considered. Hunting would lead to “[m]oderate to major reductions in the number of elk,” decreasing herd densities, with an objective to lower the number of the Park herd segment that winters in the Refuge to approximately 1,600 elk. NPS-2242. This decrease, in turn, would reduce the aggregate number of elk wintering there and “produce a more sustainable situation, with fewer elk being more able to survive on standing forage without supplemental feed.” NPS-2248. This would also keep the elk mortality level from rising more than a negligible amount. Id. In addition, elk hunting targeting female cows (rather than bulls) would help to “readjust” the bull to cow ratio, which the NPS described as lower than in a more natural elk population that was neither fed nor hunted. NPS-2247. The EIS also discussed the possibility of hunting accidents. The NPS noted that “[hjunting accidents in both the park and the refuge have been relatively low over the last two decades,” and that only four, non-fatal hunting accidents involving firearms had been reported in Wyoming in 2003. NPS-2401. Thus, the EIS concluded that the eventual reduction in the number of elk harvested under Alternative 4 would “lower the potential for hunting accidents.” NPS-2401. Finally, the EIS considered the adverse effects the 2007 Management Plan, generally, and the elk reduction program, specifically, would have on endangered and threatened species, including the grizzly bear. The EIS explained that, as winter feeding abated,, up to 2,000 more elk could end up feeding off of “native winter range,” leading to a higher rate of elk mortality from which grizzly bears “could benefit if more winter-killed elk and bison died in areas accessible to bears after they emerged from hibernation in the spring.” NPS-2309, In a similar manner, the EIS explained that “[i]f, or when, no supplemental feeding was provided, the vulnerability and mortality of elk and bison on the refuge could be higher, and wolves, grizzly bears, and bald eagles could benefit compared to baseline conditions and Alternative 1.” Id. The EIS did acknowledge the potential negative effects on grizzly bears, but ultimately considered those effects to be limited. The EIS noted that hunters “walking and horseback riding through the hunt zones and rifles being fired ... on the eastern side of the park could disturb wolves, grizzly bears, and bald eagles in the immediate area of each hunting party for a short period of time,” but considered those impacts “negligible.” NPS-2305. The EIS further explained that the grizzly bear’s population expansion “southward” and the continuation of the “elk reduction program in the park” could increase “the risk of conflicts between hunters and grizzlies.” Id. But the EIS posited that in the Park, specifically, “the potential risk of deputized elk hunters killing grizzly bears would be less compared to baseline conditions” because, over the course of the plan’s implementation “there would be fewer elk in the park and the elk reduction program would likely be changed as a result.” NPS-2309. In addition, the EIS pointed out that, as of 2007, “no grizzly bears are known to have been killed ... during the elk reduction program in Grand Teton National Park,” and therefore concluded that “grizzly bears would likely not be affected or [would be] affected to a minor degree.” NPS-2305. These provide only some examples of the specific considerations the EIS gave to the continued use of the elk reduction program in the Park. And, to be sure, each of these particular discussions was relatively modest in relation to the overall plan— which spanned more than 600 pages and considered all aspects of the Elk and Bison Management program across several federal lands. But they demonstrate that the agency sufficiently considered and took a “hard look” at the possible environmental impact of continuing to allow elk hunting in the Park. See Balt. Gas & Elec., 462 U.S. at 97-98, 103 S.Ct. 2246 (explaining that a court’s role “is simply to ensure, that the agency has adequately considered and disclosed the environmental impact of its actions and that its decision is not arbitrary or capricious”). Mayo contends, however, that the 2007 Management Plan constitutes a broad, programmatic EIS which cannot “obviate the need for NEPA compliance on the annual site-specific decisions.” Mayo Pls.’ Mem. Opp’n to Defs.’ & Intervenors’ Mots. Summ. J. & Reply at 10 (“Mayo Pls.’ Opp’n & Reply”), ECF No. 45. Courts have, “long recognized” a distinction between what are .called “programmatic and site-specific environmental analyses.” Ctr. for Food Safety v. Salazar, 898 F.Supp.2d 130, 149 (D.D.C.2012). On the theory that “a- systematic program is likely to generate disparate yet related impacts,” a.programmatic EIS “reflects the broad environmental consequences attendant upon a wide-ranging federal program” and “looks ahead and assimilates ‘broad issues’ relevant to one program design.” Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Appalachian Reg’l Comm’n, 677 F.2d 883, 888 (D.C.Cir.1981). A site-specific EIS, by contrast, “addresses more particularized considerations arising once the overall program reaches the ‘second tier,’ or implementation stage of its development.” Id. Typically, a “site-specific” EIS will “be necessary to supplement the environmental analysis of a programmatic impact statement.” Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Adm’r, Energy Research & Dev. Admin., 451 F.Supp. 1245, 1258 (D.D.C.1978), aff'd in relevant part 606 F.2d 1261 (D.C.Cir.1979) (footnote omitted). CEQ’s regulations accommodate the relationship between programmatic and regional, or site-specific, analyses through a process called “tiering.” See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.28. Tiering refers to the consideration of “general matters in broader environmental impact statements (such as national program or policy statements),” which are then “incorporated] by reference” in “subsequent narrower statements or environmental analyses (such as regional or basinwide program statements or ultimately site-specific statements).” Id.; see also Nevada v. Dep’t of Energy, 457 F.3d 78, 91 (D.C.Cir.2006) (describing tiering). There is no doubt that the 2007 Management Plan’s EIS is, in part, a programmatic document. It analyzes a range of management activities affecting both the bison and elk herds in multiple federal management areas. And the plan labels itself as such. See NPS-1974 (“The bison and elk management planning document, when finalized, will provide programmatic coverage in accordance with [NEPA].”). At the same time, however, not every programmatic NEPA analysis will require a subsequent, site-specific analysis for all actions covered in the programmatic analysis. This district court has indicated as much, explaining that a subsequent, site-specific EIS “is not necessary if all the environmental analysis required by section 102(2)(C) of NEPA is contained in the programmatic statement.” Adm’r, Energy Research & Dev. Admin., 451 F.Supp. at 1259. Several other courts have held the same. See, e.g., Salmon River Concerned Citizens v. Robertson, 32 F.3d 1346, 1356 (9th Cir.1994) (“A comprehensive programmatic impact statement generally obviates the need for a subsequent site-specific or project-specific impact statement, unless new and significant environmental impacts arise that were not previously considered.” (emphasis added)); United States v. 162.20 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Clay Cnty., State of Miss., 733 F.2d 377, 381 (5th Cir.1984) (“A site-specific impact statement is not necessary, however, if the programmatic impact statement contains all the analysis required by section 102(2)(C) of NEPA.”); Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Andrus, 619 F.2d 1368, 1377 (10th Cir.1980) (explaining that “if an EIS prepared for a whole program contains a reasonable, good faith discussion -of each of the five NEPA requirements applicable to future actions contemplated in order to -implement the program, [then] no separate or supplemental EIS will be required for each future component action, unless a significant change occurs in the interval”); Ventling v. Bergland, 479 F.Supp. 174, 180 (D.S.D.1979) (“[W]here the programmatic EIS is sufficiently detailed, and there is no change in circumstances or departure from the policy in the programmatic EIS, no useful purpose would be served by requiring a site-specific EIS.”). The 'D.C; Circuit has similarly suggested that an agency may choose to couple a programmatic analysis with a site-specific analysis. See Scientists’ Inst. for Pub. Info., Inc. v. Atomic Energy Comm’n, 481 F.2d 1079, 1092 (D.C.Cir.1973) (holding that the agency must prepare a NEPA analysis for a comprehensive federal research program for the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor — separate and apart from the analysis prepared for major test facilities — but explaining that it was “of little moment whether that analysis is issued as a separate NEPA statement or ... included with a NEPA statement on a particular facility”); see also Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 606 F.2d 1261, 1271 (D.C.Cir.1979) (citing Scientists’ Institute and explaining that the agency “in its discretion, could have chosen to explore alternatives to the particular [waste] tanks” at issue in that case “in either a ‘programmatic’ or ‘site-specific’ format”). Such “[questions of format ... properly reside within the discretion of the issuing agency.” Scientists’ Inst., 481 F.2d at 1092; cf. Grunewald, 776 F.3d at 904-05 (emphasizing an agency’s discretion and concluding that the NPS did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it declined to consider the Exotic Plant Management Plan arid the Deer Management Plan for Rock Creek Park in the District of Columbia in a single, programmatic document). ' Thus, the Court does not read NEPA to foreclose an agency, in its discretion, from simultaneously analyzing both the broad environmental consequences of a federal program and certain narrower features of the program. If an agency does so, “[a] single EIS may cover both programmatic impacts and impacts of particular projects contained within the broader program.” Vt. Pub. Interest Research Grp. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 247 F.Supp.2d 495, 528 (D.Vt.2002) (emphasis added) (citing Scientists’ Inst., 481 F.2d at 1092); accord Salmon River Concerned Citizens, 32 F.3d at 1356; Ventling, 479 F.Supp. at 180. Accordingly, the Court is similarly not persuaded that every EIS will necessarily fall squarely into the “programmatic” or “site-specific” category, or that an EIS may only serve a single purpose, rendering the categories mutually exclusive. The terms “programmatic” and “site-specific” are certainly useful guideposts for determining whether the environmental impact of a particular federal action has been adequately considered in a .particular EIS. But the relevant task for the Court always remains simply determining whether the relevant NEPA document afforded the agency the opportunity to take the requisite “hard look” at the environmental consequences of the particular challenged’ action. Balt. Gas & Elec., 462 U.S. at 97, 103 S.Ct. 2246. Here, as already explained above, the 2007 Management Plan’s EIS considered a multitude of environmental effects that would flow from the continued use of hunting in the Park. Indeed, despite embracing the overall description of a programmatic document, the EIS, itself, states that: “this planning document / environmental impact statement provides more than programmatic coverage for elk and bison management.” NPS-2143 (emphasis added). It envisioned providing sufficient analysis to permit changes to the “elk herd reduction program in the park, including changes to hunt areas,” and to .“elk hunting on the refuge, including changes to hunt areas.” NPS-1974-76. On this basis, the out-of-circuit case on which Mayo most heavily relies, Fund for Animals v. Mainella, 283 F.Supp.2d 418 (D.Mass.2003) is easily distinguishable. There, a federal district court in Massachusetts considered the NPS’s approval of waterfowl, upland game, and pheasant hunting in the Cape Cod National Seashore, a component of the National Park System. See Mainella, 283 F.Supp.2d at 423, 425-26. The NPS had produced a General Management Plan for the National Seashore in 1998, which discussed the hunting and pheasant stocking programs. See id. at 425-26. But the EIS prepared as part of that management plan had “specifically adumbrated the limitations of its intended scope,” and expressly provided that “[i]n the future, implementation of specific actions included in the approved final general management plan would require the preparation of more detailed environmental assessments” which “would be tiered to this programmatic impact statement.” Id. at 424 (emphasis in original) (quoting EIS). The court therefore- concluded that the 1998 EIS “did not, and was not intended to, take a hard site-specific, detailed look at hunting” and, therefore, “[i]n the words of the General Management Plan,” a more - detailed assessment was “needed before the Seashore’s NEPA obligations are satisfied with respect to hunting.” Id. at 432, 434. The 2007 Management Plan here, by contrast, contains nearly the exact opposite representation— it asserts that the EIS does contain detail “sufficient to allow several management actions to be carried out without having to complete additional analyses (e.g., environmental assessments) prior to implementation.” NPS-2143 (emphasis added). And its analysis accordingly considered the environmental impacts of the elk hunts in the Park. Moreover, the court in Mainella also noted that the 1998 EIS “did not examine the direct and indirect effects of hunting, for example, by examining the effect of hunting on the population of the various different species hunted in the Seashore, the' impact of the presence of hunters in different areas within the Seashore, or public safety concerns associated with hunting weapons being used in the Seashore.” 283 F.Supp.2d at 432-33. But here, as explained above, the 2007 Management Plan’s EIS specifically discussed these types of concerns when it analyzed, among other things, the elk reduction program’s impact on elk populations and distribution, the potential for public safety hazards, and the effects on threatened species. See, e.g., NPS-2241-43; NPS-2401; NPS-2304-09. Instead, the closest analogue to the EIS issued in this case is an out-of-circuit district court case which Defendants point to but Mayo fails to distinguish (or even discuss) altogether. See Mayo Defs.’ Mem. Supp. at 18, 27. In Vermont Public Interest Research Group v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, a federal district court in Vermont considered an EIS developed to analyze a program to control the sea lamprey, a parasitic eel-like fish, in Lake Champlain and twenty-seven of its streams or tributaries. 247 F.Supp.2d 495, 502-04 (D.Vt.2002). The plan called for a “tributary-specific approach” that would employ two different methods to control the lamprey: lampricides (a type of pesticide) and physical barriers and traps that would inhibit adult lamprey migration from tributaries to Lake Champlain. Id. at 503-04. The EIS screened each stream for “site-specific information” in order to determine which methods of control would be most suitable. Id. at 504. In response to a NEPA challenge claiming that site-specific analyses were necessary because the EIS , failed to sufficiently evaluate the environmental impacts upon each particular stream, the court acknowledged that the EIS provided a “comprehensive analysis of the environmental effects of controlling sea lamprey in Lake. Champlain’s tributaries” and was therefore “programmatic.” Id. at 528. But the court went on to note that the EIS “also provides individual analysis for each tributary” that adequately examined the potential environmental impacts for each. Id. (emphasis added). Noting that “[subsequent individual actions falling under the auspices of the program require additional assessment only where localized environmental effects have not been fully evaluated in the programmatic statement,” the court rejected the NEPA challenge. Id. (emphasis added)., While Mayo casts each annual decision whether to hold an Elk hunt, and the concomitant determinations regarding the number of hunting licenses to issue or the areas in the Park to open to the hunt, as site-specific decisions, the Court (like the NPS) disagrees. Although these decisions are made annually, they are made on only one site: the Park. Indeed, with respect to elk hunting, the 2007 Management Plan encompasses only two “sites”: the Grand Teton National Park, and the National Elk Refuge. See Mayo Defs.’ Reply at 6, ECF No. 49. In many instances, the EIS specifically distinguishes among the two sites and describes the unique environmental effects the NPS anticipates hunting will cause in each location. See, e.g., NPS-2414-15 (considering the wildlife viewing impacts caused by hunting on the Range and Park, respectively); NPS-2158-60 (same). Thus, the 2007 Management Plan, despite its programmatic label, also adequately considered the environmental effects of hunting specific to the Park. Accord Vt. Pub. Interest Research Grp., 247 F.Supp.2d at 528. And, consequently, the other cases Mayo cites holding .that subsequent, site-specific NEPÁ analyses were required are also distinguishable on their facts. In each of those eases, a court was confronted with a far broader programmatic management plan of nationwide scope, and each court concluded that the plan at issue had not considered the relevant site-specific environmental effects. See, e.g., Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 469 F.3d 768, 783-84 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that programmatic EIS considering how to implement the Geothermal Steam Act nationwide, and subsequent, more geographically-focused EAs which specified that additional EAs would be conducted, both failed to anal