WildEarth Guardians et al v. Suckow et al
Filing
57
ORDER: 1 WildEarth's First Amended Petition for Review is denied. Judgment shall enter accordingly. Entered by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 3/10/2021. (cpear)
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 23
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 17-cv-00891-RM
WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, a non-profit organization, and
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, a non-profit organization,
Petitioners,
v.
KEITH WEHNER, in his official capacity as the Director of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection – Wildlife Services’ Western Region,
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE-WILDLIFE SERVICES, a federal
program, and
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, a federal department,
Respondents.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Petitioners WildEarth Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity (collectively,
“WildEarth”) bring this action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) seeking a
declaration that Keith Wehner1, in his official capacity as the Director of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection – Wildlife Services’ Western Region, Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (collectively, “Wildlife Services”), and
the U. S. Department of Agriculture have violated the National Environmental Policy Act
(“NEPA”). This matter is fully briefed; the Court finds that oral argument would not materially
assist in the disposition of this matter. Thus, it is ripe for decision. Upon consideration of the
petition and the administrative record (“AR”), applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised,
1
Keith Wehner is the acting Director of Wildlife Services’ Western Region and, therefore, was automatically
substituted as the defendant in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 23
the Court finds and orders as follows.
I.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A.
NEPA
NEPA represents a “‘broad national commitment to protecting and promoting
environmental quality.’” Cure Land, LLC v. U.S.D.A., 833 F.3d 1223, 1229 (10th Cir. 2016)
(quoting Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 348 (1989)). Thus, NEPA
“‘imposes procedural requirements [on agencies] intended to improve environmental impact
information available to agencies and the public.’” Cure Land, LLC, 833 F.3d at 1229
(underscore in original) (quoting New Mexico ex rel. Richardson v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565
F.3d 683, 704 (10th Cir. 2009)). NEPA does not, however, “‘require agencies to reach particular
substantive environmental results.’” Cure Land, LLC, 833 F.3d at 1229 (quoting Los Alamos
Study Grp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 692 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 2012)).
To comply with NEPA, agencies are required to take “a hard look at the environmental
consequences before taking a major action.” Cure Land, LLC, 833 F.3d at 1229 (quotation
marks and citation omitted). Thus, first, NEPA “places upon an agency the obligation to
consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action.” WildEarth
Guardians v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 784 F.3d 677, 690 (10th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks
and citation omitted). Then, second, NEPA “ensures that the agency will inform the public that
it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process.” WildEarth
Guardians, 784 F.3d at 690 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Under NEPA, where it is unclear whether a proposed action’s environmental effects will
significantly affect the quality of the human environment, an agency may prepare an
environmental assessment (“EA”). Cure Land, LLC, 833 F.3d at 1230; 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b).
2
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 23
“If the EA leads the agency to conclude that the proposed action will not significantly affect the
environment, the agency may issue a finding of no significant impact [FONSI] and proceed with
the federal action without further ado.” Cure Land, LLC, 833 F.3d at 1230 (quotation marks and
citation omitted); 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5(c) & (e). A FONSI is “a document by a Federal agency
briefly presenting the reasons why an action . . . will not have a significant effect on the human
environment and for which an environmental impact statement [EIS] therefore will not be
prepared.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(l).
B.
Agency Review
The Court reviews an agency’s compliance with NEPA under the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551
et seq. Cure Land, LLC, 833 F.3d at 1230. The review is “‘highly deferential’ to the agency.”
Id. (quoting Citizens’ Comm. to Save Our Canyons v. Krueger, 513 F.3d 1169, 1176 (10th Cir.
2008)). An agency decision will not be set aside unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Cure Land, LLC,
833 F.3d at 1230. An agency’s action is arbitrary and capricious if it has relied on factors which
Congress has not intended it to consider, failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or
offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before it. Wyoming v.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 661 F.3d 1209, 1227 (10th Cir. 2011). Agency action also is arbitrary
and capricious if it “is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the
product of agency expertise.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). A presumption of
validity is afforded to agency action and the burden is on the plaintiff who challenges such
action. Id.
II.
BACKGROUND
Wildlife Services is a federal program within the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
3
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 23
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service that specializes in resolving wildlife conflicts.2 (AR
at 9.) Wildlife Services’ Colorado branch (“WS-Colorado”) provides predator damage
management (“PDM”) to help reduce conflicts with predators that impact livestock, agricultural
and natural resources, property, and human and health safety. (AR at 34.) WS-Colorado has
been conducting PDM in Colorado for more than a century. (AR at 30.) WS-Colorado does not
act unilaterally; rather, it responds to requests from private and public entities, tribes, and other
federal, state, and local governmental agencies for assistance with wildlife management. (AR at
17.)
In April 2018, Wildlife Services, in cooperation with the Colorado Department of
Agriculture, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest
Service, issued an EA for WS-Colorado’s ongoing PDM program to consider the environmental
consequences of four proposed courses of action. Historically, WS-Colorado has prepared four
EAs for its PDM program which served as the baseline for the 2018 EA at issue here.3 (AR at
26.) The purpose of WS-Colorado’s activities examined in the EA is to reduce environmental
harms caused by predators that prey on or harass livestock and wildlife, damage other
agricultural resources and property, impact wildlife species, or threaten human health and safety
in Colorado. The predator species of management concern most often include coyotes, black
bears, mountain lions, striped skunks, red fox, and racoons. (AR at 11.)
The EA examined four plans of action, or alternatives, in deciding to how best address
PDM requests. These are to: (1) continue the current federal integrated PDM program (no
action); (2) utilize lethal PDM methods only for corrective control; (3) provide technical
2
Unless otherwise indicated, the page references in this Order are to the page numbers as set forth in the AR found
at the bottom right-hand corner of the document.
3
WildEarth’s original petition for review of agency action filed in 2017 challenged WS-Colorado’s 2016 EA. (ECF
No. 1.) The petition was subsequently amended in August 2018 and now attacks the 2018 EA.
4
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 23
assistance only; and (4) provide no PDM. (AR at 100.) Based on the economic, environmental,
and societal impact of each approach, WS-Colorado determined that Alternative 1 was the
preferred alternative to accomplish its PDM goals and objectives. Under Alternative 1, WSColorado would continue to provide technical and operational assistance in response to predator
management requests using a variety of lethal and non-lethal methods.4 (AR at 104.) The EA
concluded that continuing WS-Colorado’s predator management program would not have
significant environmental impacts. (AR at 260.) Thus, WS-Colorado issued a FONSI and did
not prepare an EIS.
III.
DISCUSSION
WildEarth asks the Court to vacate the EA and FONSI alleging that WS-Colorado did not
take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts of the PDM program. (ECF No. 47 at 8.)
WildEarth also asks the Court to compel WS-Colorado to prepare an EIS because the proposed
program significantly impacts the environment.5 (Id.) WS-Colorado contests these requests,
arguing that it complied with NEPA and applicable regulations in finding no significant
environmental impact from its predator management program and, therefore, did not need to
order an EIS. (ECF No. 48 at 15.)
A.
The Environmental Assessment
WildEarth raises three issues with the adequacy of the EA, that it: (1) fails to sufficiently
analyze the efficacy of lethal PDM techniques; (2) fails to consider the impact of oil and gas and
4
“Non-lethal methods consist primarily of actions, tools, or devices used to disperse or capture a particular animal
or a local population, modify habitat or animal behavior, create exclusion between predators and damage potential,
and/or practicing husbandry to reduce the risk of or alleviate damage and conflicts.” (AR at 343.) Methods such as
traps, snares, pursuit dogs, and cable devices are considered non-lethal but can be used lethally in some
circumstances. (AR at 348.) Lethal methods include shooting, and chemical fumigants and pesticides. (AR at 463.)
5
WildEarth challenges the EA and FONSI with regard to the proposed PDM program as a whole and as it applies to
two specific state projects conducted by a local agency, Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The Court will address WSColorado’s EA and FONSI under the NEPA framework as a whole as this includes the two state projects.
5
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 23
residential development in mule deer habitats; and (3) relies on inaccurate data in finding no
significant impact on black bear and coyote populations. These arguments are subspecies of the
ultimate issue of whether WS-Colorado took the requisite “hard look” under NEPA at the
environmental impacts of its proposed action in the EA.
As noted previously, NEPA imposes procedural requirements on agency action.
“Importantly, the statute does not impose substantive limits on agency conduct. Rather, once
environmental concerns are ‘adequately identified and evaluated’ by the agency, NEPA places
no further constraint on agency actions.” Friends of the Bow v. Thompson, 124 F.3d 1210, 1213
(10th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
1.
Efficacy of Lethal PDM
WildEarth urges WS-Colorado to cease using lethal means to address predator damage in
Colorado. As WildEarth alleges, this is because lethal techniques employed by WS-Colorado
are not a reliable and effective means of depredation. In support of its position, WildEarth
references three scientific articles contained in the record which call into question the efficacy of
these lethal PDM techniques. (ECF No. 47 at 18-21.) Concerned citizens echoed this belief
during the EA public comment period, submitting numerous comments on the ethics and
humaneness of lethal PDM. (AR at 310-12.) In response, WS-Colorado argues that it
considered many scientific articles both favoring and opposing lethal control techniques in
reaching its decision. (ECF No. 48 at 23-27.) WS-Colorado further notes that it addressed the
public comments at length, distinguishing various articles put forth which disparage lethal PDM
activities in the EA. (Id. at 23.)
The EA is rife with analysis and discussion of scientific articles concerning lethal and
non-lethal means of PDM. (See, e.g., AR at 39, 52-53, 56, 69-70, 310-12.) In fact, all three
6
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 23
articles WildEarth contends were not adequately considered are discussed in the EA. For
example, Dr. Treves’ article which criticized research methods used for evaluating the
effectiveness of lethal PDM to protect livestock is examined at length. (AR at 69-71.) WSColorado conducted a detailed analysis of the article and determined that Dr. Treves “has
misinterpreted and improperly assessed the quality and conclusions of many peer-reviewed
articles included” in his paper. (AR at 70.) As a consequence, WS-Colorado doubted the
conclusions and recommendations set forth in Dr. Treves’ paper, outlining at least six channels
of error. This is precisely the type of discussion NEPA requires.
The EA also recognized that the “lethal PDM methods discussed in the EA have been
shown to be effective in resolving conflicts with mammalian predators.” (AR at 310.)
Specifically, WS-Colorado’s determination of the effectiveness of Alternative 1 is based on field
studies across multiple states, interviews with property owners and state wildlife officials,
logbook samples cross-referenced with management information system data, and reviews of
cooperative service agreements and NEPA documentation on predator control. (AR at 76.)
An additional aspect of the overall effectiveness of Alternative 1 discussed in the EA is
cost efficacy. Based on scientific research and a multi-factor evaluation, the EA determined that
lethal PDM activities included in Alternative 1 have a benefit to cost ratio somewhere between
2:1 to 27:1, meaning that at least every ten dollars spent on lethal PDM activities protects twenty
dollars’ worth of livestock. (AR at 75-78.) The EA explained that while this financial analysis
is not required under the federal regulations, it was illustrative of the overall effectiveness of the
proposed lethal PDM techniques. (AR at 72.) Finally, in its efficacy evaluation, field studies in
the EA indicated that the cumulative take of target predators would not have a significant impact
on the environment because WS-Colorado kills only a small percentage of those predator
7
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 23
populations. (AR at 143-144.)
While lethal PDM activities may not be the most socially acceptable method of quelling
predation, scientific literature included in the EA indicates they are effective and sometimes
necessary. There is a healthy breadth of discussion in the EA concerning the efficacy of lethal
PDM. This record shows that WS-Colorado followed the procedure prescribed under NEPA.
The outcome or result which ensues from taking these steps is ancillary to the procedural
process. There is reliable scientific research on which both parties rely, amounting to a
“disagreement among experts or in the methodologies employed” and that “is generally not
sufficient to invalidate an EA.” Silverton Snowmobile Club v. U.S. Forest Serv., 433 F.3d 772,
782 (10th Cir. 2006). In the presence of fairly conflicting scientific literature, WS-Colorado
made a systematic determination in deciding which view to endorse. WS-Colorado, as the
agency tasked to make this tough choice, must have discretion in deciding which technique to
employ. Thus, the EA shows that WS-Colorado took the requisite “hard look” at the impact of
lethal PDM activities on the environment. See Forest Guardians v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.,
611 F.3d 692, 704 (10th Cir. 2010) (explaining that a court cannot “displace the [agency’s]
choice between two fairly conflicting views”).
2.
Impact of Oil and Gas and Residential Development
Next, WildEarth argues that WS-Colorado failed to consider oil and gas development and
human population growth as contributing factors to decreased mule deer populations in
Colorado. (ECF No. 47 at 22.) WS-Colorado disagrees, arguing that it considered these factors
as they relate to habitat loss. (ECF No. 48 at 28.)
The EA must “[b]riefly discuss the . . . environmental impacts of the proposed action.”
40 C.F.R. § 1501.5(c)(2). An effect or impact from planned action includes “changes to the
8
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 23
human environment from the proposed action or alternatives that are reasonably foreseeable and
have a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action or alternatives.” 40 C.F.R. §
1508.1(g). This does “not include those effects that the agency has no ability to prevent due to
its limited statutory authority or would occur regardless of the proposed action.” 40 C.F.R. §
1508.1(g)(2).
The EA explicitly considered the impacts of oil and gas development on animal habitats.
(AR at 90-93.) After such consideration, WS-Colorado concluded oil and gas development
“adversely affect[s] certain wildlife species,” and that deer populations are decreasing as a result
of habitat loss, but that the cumulative impact of PDM techniques employed by WS-Colorado
would not contribute to that loss, “and are not expected to contribute to adverse effects on most
of the wildlife species” affected by oil and gas development. (AR at 92.) WS-Colorado also
stated that it has no authority to affect decisions of other entities, such as the Bureau of Land
Management, which control oil and gas development on public land, and that oil and gas
development would occur regardless of the chosen PDM protocol. (AR at 91.)
The EA additionally considered human population growth as a factor contributing to
decreased animal populations, explaining that Colorado is one of the fastest growing states in the
nation, and that the “growth in the human population and many wildlife species ha[s] led to
increased conflicts” which only heightened the need for intervention. (AR at 46.)
These discussions demonstrate that WS-Colorado considered and accounted for the
impact of oil and gas development and human population growth as contributing factors to
wildlife conflicts in the EA. WS-Colorado analyzed various studies which discussed the effect
of oil and gas development on certain species’ habitats, including deer and elk. Thus, WSColorado had a rational basis and considered relevant factors in reaching its determination.
9
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 23
Silverton Snowmobile Club, 433 F.3d at 782 (finding that the agency “satisfied NEPA’s ‘hard
look’ requirement” where it considered “that human activity in the area was expected to increase
dramatically in the next decade” in determining the proper restrictions on recreation activities
adjacent to a protected species’ habitat).
3.
Black Bear and Coyote Data
For its last attack on the EA, WildEarth argues that WS-Colorado relied on inaccurate
data relating to target predator species. Specifically, WildEarth claims WS-Colorado neglected
to analyze human population growth and climate change as factors contributing to increased
levels of black bear and human conflicts in Colorado. (ECF No. 47 at 29-30.) WildEarth also
claims that WS-Colorado erroneously estimated coyote populations. (ECF No. 47 at 30-32.)
With regard to black bear data, the EA surveyed human population growth, climate
change, and the increase in bear population as factors contributing to added conflicts between
people and bears. (AR at 46, 97, 159.) WildEarth fails to provide information refuting this
point. Thus, WS-Colorado’s review of factors contributing to increased black bear and human
conflicts is sufficient under NEPA.
Examining coyote population estimates used in the EA yields a similar result. WSColorado relied on a scientific study which estimated the coyote density at 1.84 coyotes per
square mile in calculating the coyote population in Colorado. (AR at 146.) WildEarth claims
that because the EA mistakenly cited to a badger population study, conducted by the same
scientists as the coyote study, instead of the coyote population study that the EA did not comply
with the requirements of NEPA. The Court disagrees. Even though the article was miscited,
WS-Colorado relied on the correct data in estimating the coyote population. This single
oversight in an EA with hundreds of sources amounts to mere flyspeck and does not undercut the
10
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 23
validity of the population estimate. See Hillsdale Envtl. Loss Prevention, Inc. v. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 702 F.3d 1156, 1165 (10th Cir. 2012) (“Deficiencies in an [environmental
assessment] that are mere ‘flyspecks’ and do not defeat NEPA’s goals of informed
decisionmaking and informed public comment will not lead to reversal.”) (alternation in original)
(citation omitted).
In all, the record shows that WS-Colorado rationally evaluated the effects of its proposed
PDM activities on the environment and had a sufficient basis for its findings. Assessing the
potential impact of those activities involves technical and scientific matters of agency expertise,
and the Court will not displace WS-Colorado’s choice between two fairly conflicting views.
Accordingly, WS-Colorado satisfied NEPA’s “hard look” requirement.
B.
Finding of No Significant Impact
As WS-Colorado did here, an agency may conduct an EA in determining whether
performing an EIS is necessary. Having determined in the EA that its PDM activities would not
have a significant impact on the environment, WS-Colorado issued a FONSI. WildEarth
disagrees with this course of action, arguing that, based on the EA, WS-Colorado was required to
perform an EIS. (ECF No. 47 at 32.) WS-Colorado maintains that its EA was accurate and that
issuing a FONSI and forgoing preparation of an EIS was not arbitrary and capricious. (ECF No.
48 at 31.)
In reviewing an agency’s decision to issue a FONSI instead of an EIS, the Court asks
whether the agency’s method of analyzing environmental effects “had a rational basis and took
into consideration the relevant factors.” WildEarth Guardians v. Conner, 920 F.3d 1245, 1257,
1262 (10th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted). This review is limited to whether
the agency weighed the relevant factors, not “whether it could have discussed environmental
11
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 23
impacts in more detail.” Conner, 920 F.3d at 1257 (explaining that “we review whether the
agency’s decision was reasoned, and we defer to the agency’s expertise and discretion”).
An agency may forgo preparing an EIS and issue a FONSI if it “concludes that the
[proposed] action will not have a significant effect on the human environment.” Id. at 1261. In
determining the significance of proposed action on the environment, an agency considers the
action’s “context and intensity.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27. Among the factors affecting “intensity”
relevant to this review are effects that are “individually insignificant but cumulatively
significant,” effects on “unique characteristics” of the project area such as “ecologically critical
areas,” effects that may be “highly controversial . . . highly uncertain or involve unique and
unknown risks,” and the degree of effects on “endangered and threatened species.” 40 C.F.R. §
1508.27(b). The existence of an effect alone does not necessarily trigger the obligation to
conduct an EIS; the “relevant analysis is the degree to which the proposed action affects a listed
factor.” Conner, 920 F.3d at 1261 (emphasis in original) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
WildEarth challenges the FONSI with respect to five significance factors, arguing that
the PDM activities: (1) have a cumulatively significant impact on target predator populations; (2)
adversely affect public health and safety; (3) harm land areas with unique characteristics; (4)
have highly controversial and uncertain effects; and (5) have an adverse effect on threatened or
endangered species. WildEarth alleges that these significance factors individually and
cumulatively demonstrate the need for an EIS. The Court will address each factor in turn.
1.
Cumulative Impact on Target Predator Populations
WildEarth first argues that when considering the proposed take by WS-Colorado of target
predators combined with killings from other sources (e.g., hunters), the cumulative impact on
target species populations would be significant thereby harming the environment. (ECF No. 47
12
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 23
at 35.)
WS-Colorado’s analysis of the impact of the proposed PDM action determined that it
would not significantly reduce the population of predatory animals. Specifically, that the
cumulative take of black bears, coyotes, and mountain lions was a very small percentage and was
well-within population sustainability rates. (AR 143-44.) The EA cited various studies to show
that these predators can sustain certain harvest levels without significant impact to their
population and overall survival. (AR 142-180.) In determining the impact WS-Colorado’s lethal
predator management activity has on each target predator population, the EA accounted for
hunting and other man-made sources of mortality in addition to WS-Colorado’s take. This is
particularly useful in finding no cumulative significant impact on the environment in the EA.
See Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 235 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1132 (D. Or. 2002) (finding
that an EIS was required in part because the EA failed to include cumulative impact analysis
addressing the total mortality rate of the target species). Also, of note, the EA anticipated the
potential for an increase in the number of coyotes, black bears, and mountain lions killed by WSColorado and determined that the cumulative take would still remain within sustainable harvest
rates. (AR at 148, 159, 162-63.)
Here, coyotes, which comprise the majority of predators killed by WS-Colorado because
of the species’ abundance in Colorado, have a long-term sustainable harvest rate of 60%. (AR at
144.) WS-Colorado takes an average of 1.35% of the coyote population in Colorado from its
PDM activities. (AR at 146.) The EA assessed the cumulative take of coyotes, primarily those
also killed by hunters, in determining the cumulative take is on average 32% of the population,
well below the sustainable rate. (AR at 144.) Thus, WS-Colorado concluded that its PDM
activity would have no significant impact on the coyote’s sustainability in Colorado.
13
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 23
Likewise, WS-Colorado’s take of black bears does not significantly impact the
population. Studies in the EA revealed that the long-term harvest rate for black bears is 14%.
(AR at 159.) On average, WS-Colorado kills 0.4% of the black bears in Colorado. (Id.) When
considered in addition to the sportsman harvest of black bears, the cumulative take of black bears
is on average 7%. This is well below the sustainable harvest threshold and, as a result, would
have a low impact on the species.
Similarly, WS-Colorado’s take of mountain lions does not significantly impact the
population. The EA contained studies from other states showing that the mountain lion
population has the capacity to rapidly replace annual losses under 30%-50% removal. (AR at
161.) Even at the highest end of that harvest range, studies indicated that the mountain lion
population would recover within three years. (AR at 163.) From 2012 to 2016, WS-Colorado
took on average 0.21% of the mountain lion population in Colorado. (Id.) The proposed
cumulative harvest of mountain lions is well within sustainability rates. In all, the EA shows that
the cumulative impact on coyote, black bear, and mountain lion populations would not be
significant. Thus, WildEarth’s argument as to this factor does not show that WS-Colorado is
required to prepare an EIS.
2.
Human Health and Safety
WildEarth next argues that WS-Colorado’s PDM program may have significant effects
on public safety, particularly because it permits the use of a lethal gas discharge device called a
M-44.6 (ECF No. 47 at 37.) The EA addressed the potential and actual effect M-44 devices
have on human health and safety as well as on the environment. (AR at 227.) Between 2012
and 2016, WS-Colorado used M-44 devices to take on average twenty-six coyotes and one red
6
M-44 devices are spring-activated devices which deploy a sodium cyanide capsule when activated. (AR at 360.)
These devices were developed for the lethal removal of coyotes and other canine predators. (AR at 359.)
14
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 23
fox annually. (Id.) The EA explained that WS-Colorado does not use M-44s on public lands, no
humans or pets were exposed to M-44s used by WS-Colorado between 2012 and 2016, and WSColorado’s annual take of predators with M-44s represented 0.2% of those taken nationally by
the device. (Id.)
WildEarth points to various instances where humans or pets were exposed to sodium
cyanide because of contact with M-44s. (ECF No. 26 at 11-12.) The most recent of such
instances occurred in 2000, when a domestic dog was killed in Colorado after triggering an M-44
device set on private land.7 (Id.) Tragic events like this certainly raise concerns about the
humaneness of using M-44 devices to mitigate predation. But, to prevent them from occurring,
for many years WS-Colorado has followed a comprehensive use and restrictions directive when
utilizing these devices. (AR at 11437.) This directive limits M-44 use to only on private lands
with the landowner’s permission and requires that, whenever a device is set, it be accompanied
by conspicuous, bi-lingual warning signs to alert people of its presence. (AR at 140.)
Additionally, research in the EA demonstrates WS-Colorado has had a successful track record of
using M-44s since 2000.
These rigorous precautionary measures coupled with WS-Colorado’s successful
implementation of the device over recent years indicate that the EA rationally concluded WSColorado’s use of M-44s for PDM does not pose a significant risk to human health and safety.
See, e.g., Cascadia Wildlands v. Williams, 251 F. Supp. 3d 1349, 1362 (D. Or. 2017), aff’d sub
nom. Cascadia Wildlands v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 752 F. App’x 457 (9th Cir. 2018)
(explaining that the EA “rationally concludes that the risks to public health and safety are not
significant” where the EA discusses the use of lethal predator management and explains that
7
Based on the AR, this was the last time a M-44 killed a domestic animal in Colorado.
15
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 23
shooting is highly selective, that traps and snares would be surrounded by warning signs and that
each of these activities occur in relatively remote areas with low human presence). Thus,
WildEarth’s argument as to this factor does not show WS-Colorado was required to prepare an
EIS.
3.
Ecologically Critical Areas
WildEarth next argues that WS-Colorado’s proposed program may be implemented in
areas with unique characteristics which indicates there may be significant effects to the
environment such that an EIS is required. (ECF No 47 at 32.) In response, WS-Colorado asserts
that the mere possibility that PDM activities could occur near Wilderness Areas (“WAs”) does
not require it to prepare an EIS. (ECF 48 at 36.)
As discussed previously, the potential of a project “to affect one of these factors does not
require an agency to prepare an EIS. The relevant analysis is the degree to which the proposed
action affects this interest, not the fact it is affected.” Hillsdale Envtl. Loss Prevention, Inc. v.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 702 F.3d 1156, 1180 (10th Cir. 2012) (explaining that plaintiffs’
“attempt to create a per se rule that any potential impact to drinking water, however minor,
requires preparation of an EIS is thus unconvincing”).
As WildEarth posits, killing predators such as black bears, coyotes, and mountain lions
found in WAs may impact the natural condition of these lands by depriving visitors of the
opportunity to view these animals in their biological habitat. However, the degree of this
potential affect is minimal based on a series of precautionary measures WS-Colorado uses to
protect the environment. First, the EA explained that the amount of PDM activities expected to
occur in designated WAs “is either none, or so minor that the effects of any of the alternatives
that involve WS-Colorado lethal work would not likely be significantly different from the effects
16
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 23
of a ‘No Control in Wilderness Areas’ alternative.” (AR at 132.) Second, in the rare instance
where WS-Colorado’s program occurs on designated WAs it is “only when and where requested
by the land management entity.” (AR at 140.) Any such assistance is conducted in accordance
with all guidelines and regulations applicable to WS-Colorado and the land management
agencies. (AR at 141.) These guidelines prohibit certain predator management methods and
specify certain time periods when these activities may occur to ensure that the activities do not
conflict with public enjoyment of the land. (Id.) Third, WS-Colorado strives to protect the
physical environment by limiting vehicle access in WAs, restricting it to existing roads and
strictly prohibiting the use of M-44s. (Id.) Finally, before conducting any PDM activities, WSColorado consults with public land management agencies to develop appropriate work plans to
mitigate disturbances to the public’s use and enjoyment of WAs. (AR at 472.) Accordingly,
WS-Colorado had a reasonable basis for its conclusion that its PDM program would not have a
significant impact on the unique characteristics of wilderness lands. Thus, WildEarth’s argument
as to this factor does not support that WS-Colorado was required to prepare an EIS.
4.
Highly Controversial and Uncertain Risks
WildEarth next argues that the proposed PDM program poses highly controversial and
uncertain effects and involves unique and unknown risks which require preparation of an EIS.
(ECF No. 47 at 40.) WS-Colorado disputes this, arguing that the risks are not highly uncertain
because it has utilized these PDM techniques for decades. (ECF No. 48 at 39.)
Highly controversial effects require more than public opposition to proposed action; there
needs to be a “substantial dispute as to the size, nature, or effect of the action.” Middle Rio
Grande Conservancy Dist. v. Norton, 294 F.3d 1220, 1229 (10th Cir. 2002). Highly uncertain
effects are those which may be resolved by the further collection of data, or where the additional
17
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 23
data may “obviate the need for speculation.” Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
428 F.3d 1233, 1240 (9th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted). It is important to
note that the word “highly” is used to modify “controversial” and “uncertain” in the NEPA
regulations, which means “that information merely favorable to [WildEarth’s] position in the
NEPA documents does not necessarily raise a substantial question about the significance of the
project’s environmental effects.” Native Ecosystems Council, 428 F.3d at 1240 (explaining that
“[s]imply because a challenger can cherry pick information and data out of the administrative
record to support its position does not mean that a project is highly controversial or highly
uncertain”). Thus, “something more must exist for [a] court to label a project highly
controversial or highly uncertain.” Id. WildEarth fails to provide something more here.
Turning first to whether the proposed program is highly controversial, the EA discussed
scientific articles which doubt the efficacy of lethal predator control methods and their impact on
predator populations. These articles clearly questioned the use of lethal predator damage
techniques, and while they do not substantially dispute the size and effect of WS-Colorado’s
program, the mere existence of competing, scientific views indicates that there is some
controversy surrounding the proposed program. Citizen groups and individuals disputed the
effect of the proposed lethal PDM action, raising concerns about the impact killing predators
may have on their enjoyment of a given species in its natural habitat. This dispute, however, is
not substantial as data contained in the EA makes clear that the number of predators taken by
WS-Colorado will not have a significant impact on target predator populations, preserving an
abundance of animals for future viewing enjoyment. While killing animals is inherently
controversial, there needs to be more to demonstrate that WS-Colorado arbitrarily decided its
PDM activities are not highly controversial.
18
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 23
To make this showing, WildEarth relies on two cases which involved highly
controversial agency programs. WS-Colorado maintains that this case differs from those where
the controversy factor is implicated, primarily because the citizen groups and individuals who
objected to the proposed action have not raised a substantial dispute to the program’s efficacy.
In W. Watersheds Project v. USDA APHIS Wildlife Servs., the court found that the
“factors of controversy, uncertainty, and unique lands” all weighed in favor of preparing an EIS.
320 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1150 (D. Idaho 2018). There, “several federal agencies with long
experience and expertise in managing game animals and protected species . . . expressed serious
concerns about [the] proposed expansion of lethal predator control.” Id. at 1147. This proposed
expansion included “killing native wildlife at the request of the [Idaho Department of Fish and
Game] to benefit other desired wildlife species,” and a “new proposal to kill ravens and other
predators.” Id. at 1140–41. The EA at issue in W. Watersheds Project examined various
alternatives and decided to discontinue the agency’s existing activities to include a more
expansive list of target predators as well as to allow other “unidentified predator control
activities.” Id. at 1140. Ultimately, the court found the agency’s decision to forego conducting
an EIS was arbitrary and capricious, reasoning that the agency provided unconvincing responses
to criticism from the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, and the Idaho Department
of Fish and Game to the proposed action. Id. at 1150. The court finally noted that it was
reviewing a “unique case” and that it was “rare . . . to encounter such an unanimity of critical
comments from other agencies.” Id.
The chief concerns present in W. Watersheds Project are absent from this case.
Particularly, here, there is no unanimous criticism from multiple government agencies with
expertise in the controversial areas of the proposed program. Instead, various federal and state
19
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 23
agencies actually collaborated with WS-Colorado to ensure the EA was as comprehensive and
thorough as required under NEPA in addressing PDM alternatives. In this regard, the same
agencies that opposed the proposed action in W. Watersheds Project supported WS-Colorado’s
finding of no significant impact. Moreover, the preferred alternative here is to continue the
current program, or no action, and does not implicate new or unidentified predator control
techniques that posed controversial and uncertain effects in W. Watersheds Project. For these
reasons, W. Watersheds Project is distinguishable from this case.
WildEarth also argues this matter is analogous to Wildlands v. Woodruff, 151 F. Supp. 3d
1153 (W.D. Wash. 2015). There, the court found that, among others, the “highly controversial”
factor favored preparation of an EIS. Wildlands, 151 F. Supp. 3d at 1165. In Wildlands, the
highly controversial factor was triggered because the agency “summarily dismissed” a
“disagreement among experts regarding the effectiveness of removal to address depredation.”
Id. Unlike the agency in Wildlands, WS-Colorado discussed opposing viewpoints on the
efficacy of lethal PDM methods at length in the EA. The Court recognizes that there exists some
controversy as to the effectiveness of lethal control methods as indicated by the sheer volume of
scientific research opposing lethal PDM in the record. However, WS-Colorado was not
unreasonable when it decided that any controversy which exists is slight and amounts to a
disagreement among experts. WildEarth fails to show that WS-Colorado’s explanation for its
decision runs counter to the evidence before it or that it failed to consider an important aspect of
the controversy. Thus, WildEarth’s argument as to this factor does not demonstrate WSColorado needed to prepare an EIS.
Turning next to whether the proposed program may have “highly uncertain” effects on
the environment, WS-Colorado points out that it is not engaging in a new activity with unknown
20
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 23
effects on the environment. (ECF No. 48 at 39.) WS-Colorado maintains that it has employed
these PDM techniques for decades and has detailed data tracing their effect. The record supports
this position. (See, e.g., AR at 26, 30, 147-48, 158-59, 161-62.)
Nevertheless, WildEarth claims that the proposed PDM activities contemplate highly
uncertain effects because when a trap or poison device is placed “on the landscape, it is unknown
what the result of that lethal device will be.” (ECF No. 47 at 41.) To a certain extent this is true
as it would seemingly be difficult to predict the precise result of some PDM techniques, but the
fact remains that these devices are used to kill target predators and that WS-Colorado’s use of
these techniques over recent years has had no significant impact on target animal populations or
on the environment. WS-Colorado considered information concerning the use of lethal PDM
techniques—in particular, M-44s—in the EA to determine that the impact on non-target species
is negligible and that there is no impact on human health and safety from these control
techniques. (AR at 227, 471-73.) A discrepancy in population estimates based on varying
studies does not amount to highly uncertain effects on animal sustainability projections. WSColorado relied on the most accurate data available, and where studies varied, it chose the
lowest, most conservative rate to estimate populations. (See, e.g., AR at 147-48, 158-59, 16162.) The intensity of uncertainty is low, and while these effects may not be favorable to
WildEarth’s cause, they are somewhat certain. Thus, WildEarth’s argument as to this factor does
not show that WS-Colorado was required to prepare an EIS.
5.
Endanger Protected Species
WildEarth lastly argues that WS-Colorado’s PDM activities may have significant effects
on threatened or endangered species. (ECF No. 47. 43.) WS-Colorado disputes this, claiming
that the potential for this effect is too attenuated to trigger the obligation to prepare an EIS.
21
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 23
(ECF No. 48 at 43.)
In the EA, WS-Colorado considered the degree to which its preferred PDM program
might affect threatened or endangered species, highlighting various measures to reduce any
potential impact on eight protected species. (AR at 137-39.) In conjunction with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, WS-Colorado has taken and will continue
to take preventative measures to avoid any accidental killing or capture of threatened or
endangered species. (AR at 473.)
WildEarth is particularly concerned with the potential effect on Canada lynx because, in
the past, Wildlife Services accidentally took a lynx when targeting other species. (ECF No 47 at
44.) WildEarth hangs it hat on the only accidental take of a Canada lynx across the nation in the
past thirty years, which occurred in Idaho, to suggest that endangered species are at risk under
the proposed PDM program. (AR at 191.) While WS-Colorado’s parent agency was responsible
for this accidental take, the lynx was captured outside its typical habitat and was later released
alive. (Id.) In the EA, WS-Colorado determined that because Canada lynx live in “high
elevation spruce-fir habitats rarely utilized by livestock, it is extremely unlikely” that the
proposed program would impact lynx. (Id.)
Based on studies included in the EA and ongoing efforts with government agencies
tasked with protecting these species, it is unlikely that WS-Colorado’s PDM program will
adversely affect the Canada lynx or other recognized endangered or threatened species. Thus,
WildEarth’s argument as to this factor does not support that WS-Colorado was required to
prepare an EIS.
In light of the record as a whole, WS-Colorado’s evaluation of the significance factors
was not arbitrary or capricious. WildEarth has “failed to show what could be accomplished
22
Case 1:17-cv-00891-RM Document 57 Filed 03/10/21 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 23
through an EIS” and the Court finds no clear error of judgment in WS-Colorado’s conclusion
that the effects of the PDM program are not significant enough to require an EIS. Conner, 920
F.3d at 1264.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the forgoing, it is ORDERED that
1. WildEarth’s First Amended Petition for Review (ECF No. 26) is DENIED;
2. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Respondents and against Petitioners; and
3. The Clerk shall close the case.
DATED this 10th day of March, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge
23
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?