The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the United States Department of Agriculture did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act in approving a predator management program for certain wilderness areas in Nevada. Wildearth Guardians v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 135 F.4th 717 (9th Cir. 2025).
The USDA approved a predator damage and conflict management program in Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas in Nevada. Its Environmental Assessment for the program under NEPA found that no significant environmental impacts would result from the program, which seeks to protect privately owned livestock from predators.
Although the court affirmed that lethal predator controls are authorized activities under the federal Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1131 et seq.), the court found numerous NEPA violations.
First, the court concluded that the EA was deficient because it provided only a broad-scale, generic analysis of possible program impacts statewide, thereby failing to adequately capture the localized impacts in specific regions where concentrated predator management activities would likely occur. The court also found that inconsistent descriptions of the applicable geographic boundaries in the EA hindered the public's ability to properly evaluate the program and its impacts.
Second, the court held that the EA contained an inadequate analysis of the impacts on public health and safety from the use of lead shot and cyanide for lethal predator controls; failed to consider the impacts on unique and sensitive wilderness areas; and did not sufficiently address the scientific research challenging the program’s efficacy. As with the failure to address localized impacts, the court found that the analysis in the EA was overly generic, and did not adequately consider the varied types of impacts that are likely to result from the predator management program.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the USDA was required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, and instead left it to the agency’s discretion, upon remand, to decide whether to prepare an EIS or to revise the EA to address the NEPA deficiencies.
[View source.]
