(CN) — Conservation groups have reignited a challenge to an environmental assessment that allowed allowed government agencies to control predators threatening livestock, including coyotes and mountain lions, in Nevada using lethal measures.
WildEarth Guardians and Western Watersheds Project accuse Wildlife Services, a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, of misinterpreting the Wilderness Act in the environmental assessment.
“The problem here with the agency’s interpretation is their conflating Congress’ permission to allow domestic livestock to graze forage in wilderness with the killing of native wildlife on behalf of commercial grazing operations,” Jennifer Schwartz, attorney for WildEarth Guardians, told a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit during oral arguments Tuesday. “Those activities are not one and the same.”
In June 2020, Wildlife Services, along with the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, issued an environmental assessment finding no significant environmental impact of its authorization of livestock predator damage management (PDM) in Nevada. Before that, the agency only responded to requests for predator management assistance in wilderness areas and wilderness study areas to protect human safety and health. The new approach allows the agency to practice predator damage management to protect livestock, as well, and agency takes around 4,000 of the state’s estimated 55,000 coyotes per year annually.
In 2023, the conservation groups sued the federal agencies, arguing they violated the National Environmental Protection Act by foregoing a more rigorous environmental impact statement, violated the Wilderness Act by authorizing commercial enterprises in wilderness areas, and exceeded their statutory authority. U.S. District Judge Larry R. Hicks, a George W. Bush appointee, rejected the conservation groups arguments for lack of merit.
Wildlife Services implored the Ninth Circuit panel Tuesday to uphold Hicks’ decision.
“There’s clear evidence in the record here that Wildlife Services drew from its over 80 years of experience dealing with this specific issue,” Katelin Shugart-Schmidt, Justice Department attorney representing the federal defendants, said.
U.S. Circuit Judge Morgan Christen, a Barack Obama appointee, asked Shugart-Schmidt to clear up questions about the geographic scope of predator management, noting that the environmental assessment identified separate lists of exempt areas, including Bureau of Land Management-designated areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs).
“The agency’s understanding is that PDM will not be conducted on ACECs under this EA,” Shugart-Schmidt said.
Christen earlier commented on the abundant use of acronyms in the parties’ filings.
“I’m not sure I’ve ever had a case with four pages of acronyms,” Christen said. “This might be a new record for me.”
Another acronym at issue in the case is EIS, which stands for environmental impact statement, something the conservation groups accuse the agency of improperly bypassing. Under the National Environmental Protection Act, agencies are required to prepare an environmental impact statement in addition to an environmental assessment when proposing actions that could significantly affect the environment.
The conservation groups argued that the scope of the predatory damage management the agency approved in the state automatically triggers the need for one, and further criticized the agency for lacking a comprehensive scientific review and shirking the suggestion to conduct its own study.
“Whether it would be challenging for Wildlife Services to accomplish such unbiased studies does not relieve the agency of its obligation to do so,” Schwartz said.
The agency argued that the conservation groups were incorrectly framing their scientific review and asserted that the environmental assessment included a thorough review.
Lastly, the agency argued that if it doesn’t provide predator management, someone less equipped will fill that need.
“We’re talking about a world where when Wildlife Services doesn’t engage in PDM, other entities step and fill that void and conduct that same activity but in a way that is less expert, less thoughtful, less accountable,” Shugart-Schmidt said.
U.S. Circuit Judges Carlos Bea and Mark J. Bennett, George W. Bush and Donald Trump appointees, respectively, completed the panel. The panel did not indicate when it would rule.