WildEarth Guardians v. United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services
(9th Cir., Apr. 21, 2025, No. 23-2944)
Introduction
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), concluding that the agency’s approval of a predator damage management (PDM) program in Nevada’s Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court held that the EA failed to adequately address localized environmental impacts, public health and safety risks, effects on sensitive lands, and scientific uncertainty surrounding lethal predator control.
Background
Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas are federally-owned lands designated by Congress to preserve their natural and undeveloped character. Grazing activities lawfully established before application of the wilderness designation are permitted to continue under federal law. PDM programs are services provided to protect privately-owned livestock from predation. Both non-lethal and lethal methods are used by USDA to manage various species.
Issues and Court’s Analysis
Wilderness Act Violation
Appellants argued that conducting PDM in Wilderness Areas violated the Wilderness Act and related statutes that designate Wilderness Areas in Nevada. The court rejected this argument relying on its prior decision in Forest Guardians v. APHIS, 309 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2002), which held that the Wilderness Act’s grazing exception permits predator control as a supportive activity.
NEPA Violations
Under NEPA, agencies may first prepare an EA to determine if a proposed action requires a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Agencies must evaluate both the “context” (local and broader impacts) and “intensity” (severity of effects) of the proposed action when assessing whether preparation of an EIS is warranted. Courts require agencies to provide a “convincing statement of reasons” if they decide not to prepare an EIS; conclusory claims are insufficient.
NEPA Violation – Localized Impacts
Appellants argued the EA was deficient because it “provide[d] only a broad-scale, generic analysis of possible effects of the statewide activities” and did not properly analyze potential localized impacts. The court agreed, finding the EA contained inconsistent and unclear descriptions of where PDM activities would occur. The court stated “[b]y leaving the public guessing where [USDA] proposes to conduct PDM, the agency vitiated NEPA’s purpose because it deprived the public of the ability to evaluate the impacts of the agency’s proposed actions.” Additionally, the court found USDA “failed to adequately explain its decision not to analyze local impacts in addition to its statewide assessment.”
NEPA Violation – Intensity Factors
Appellants contended an EIS was required because the EA failed to adequately assess three key “intensity” factors: (1) public health and safety risks from lead shot and cyanide use; (2) impacts on unique and sensitive areas, specifically Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas; and (3) scientific studies that raised substantial uncertainty about the effectiveness of lethal predator control. The court agreed with Appellants on all fronts. On the topic of public health and safety, the court observed that the EA failed to address whether the 600 pounds of lead ammunition anticipated to be used for PDM would result in a concentrated introduction of lead into the environment. Similarly, the court found USDA’s response to concerns about M-44 cyanide ejector devices inadequate, as the agency failed to meaningfully address documented incidents of serious injuries and pet deaths. With respect to impacts to unique areas, the court observed that “[a]ny impacts to nearby unique areas weigh in favor of ordering an EIS, regardless of the severity of the impact.” Finally, the court found that USDA failed to meet NEPA’s requirement to address scientific uncertainty by ignoring or inadequately responding to numerous recent peer-reviewed studies questioning the efficacy and risks of PDM. The court emphasized that a core NEPA obligation is to meaningfully engage with contrary scientific viewpoints, regardless of agency opposition or study location.
Conclusion
The court concluded the EA was deficient because it failed to adequately analyze key NEPA intensity factors and, along with inconsistencies in geographic scope and an unjustified statewide approach, did not demonstrate that USDA took the required hard look or sufficiently informed the public before issuing the FONSI. This case reinforces the need for detailed, transparent, and scientifically grounded NEPA analyses that consider broad and localized impacts and engage with scientific uncertainty.
[This alert does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is created by viewing or responding to this alert. Legal counsel should be sought for answers to specific legal questions.]