Did the Seventh Circuit err in concluding that the National Park Service's approval of military helicopter training exercises on property conveyed for the purpose of recreation was not 'arbitrary and capricious' where such use was not subject to a 'determin[ation]' by the Secretary of the Interior that such use is 'necessary to safeguard the interests of the Government' pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Did the Seventh Circuit err in concluding that the National Park Service’s approval of military helicopter training exercises on property conveyed for the purpose of recreation was not “arbitrary and capricious” where such use was not subject to a “determin[ation]” by the Secretary of the Interior that such use is “necessary to safeguard the interests of the Government” pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act? Is the arbitrary and capricious standard of review appropriate for an agency’s threshold determination, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.), of whether an action is categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental impact statement and environmental assessment? -iiRULE 29.6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT There are no parent corporations or publicly held companies involved in this case. -iilRELATED CASES STATEMENT Sauk Prairie Conservation Alliance v. United States Department of the Interior, et al., No. 3:17-cv-00035, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Order Denying Preliminary Injunction dated June 26, 2017. Judgment entered May 3, 2018. Sauk Prairie Conservation Alliance v. United States Department of the Interior, et al., No. 18-2213, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Judgment entered December 12, 2019.