Western Watersheds Project v. Grimm, 921 F.3d 1141

Plaintiffs are five conservation groups challenging Wildlife Services (a federal APHIS component) for failing to prepare an EIS under NEPA before participating in lethal gray-wolf control in Idaho; they seek an injunction halting wolf-killing pending additional NEPA analysis.
The Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf was reintroduced and managed by USFWS until delisting in 2011, after which Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) assumed primary management and authorized sport hunting and other controls.
Since delisting, Wildlife Services has carried out lethal removals in response to livestock depredation and for ungulate protection (including aerial shooting); from 2011–2015 it continued relying on the 2011 EA/FONSI and annually declined to prepare a supplemental EIS.
Plaintiffs submitted member declarations describing aesthetic and recreational harms from fewer wolves and observed killing operations; they asserted a procedural NEPA injury and sought review of Wildlife Services’ decision not to prepare an EIS or supplement the EA.
The district court granted summary judgment to Wildlife Services for lack of Article III standing, finding Plaintiffs’ injuries were not redressable because IDFG could independently carry out the same lethal removals; the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing — injury	Procedural NEPA violation causes aesthetic/recreational harm to members who observe wolves	No meaningful contest to injury facts; focus was on redressability	Plaintiffs have concrete, particularized procedural injuries (aesthetic/recreational) sufficient for standing
Standing — redressability	Halting Wildlife Services pending NEPA could reduce lethal removals and change methods, protecting members' interests	Even if enjoined, IDFG would fill the gap and kill the same number of wolves, so relief would not redress injury	Redressability satisfied under relaxed procedural-injury standard; it is speculative that IDFG would fully replace Wildlife Services' effects
Reliance on precedent	N/A	District court relied on unpublished Goat Ranchers decision to deny standing	Court rejected Goat Ranchers as nonprecedential and factually distinguishable
NEPA procedural relief scope	Plaintiffs need only show that exercising the procedural right could protect their interests	Relief must actually change on-the-ground outcomes to be redressable	Procedural rights suffice where plausible that further NEPA review could alter agency action and benefit plaintiffs

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements require injury, causation, redressability)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (aesthetic/recreational injury can establish standing)
Salmon Spawning & Recovery Alliance v. Gutierrez, 545 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2008) (relaxed redressability for procedural injuries)
WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 795 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2015) (procedural-injury redressability when state replacement of federal action is speculative)
Wild Fish Conservancy v. Jewell, 730 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2013) (standing reviewed de novo)
Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 1233 (9th Cir. 2005) (EIS required where substantial questions exist about environmental significance)
Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 1998) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard for agency decision not to prepare an EIS)
Defenders of Wildlife v. EPA, 420 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2005) (procedural right can protect concrete interests)