WildEarth Guardians v. United States Department of Agriculture
795 F.3d 1148
9th Cir.2015Background
- WildEarth Guardians sued APHIS (USDA) challenging continued reliance on a 1994/1997 programmatic EIS (PEIS) for predator control and a 2011 Nevada environmental assessment (EA) that incorporated the PEIS, alleging NEPA violations and that outdated analyses permit harmful predator-control practices in Nevada.
- APHIS and Nevada jointly run the Nevada Wildlife Services Program (NWSP); APHIS funds, staffs, and supervises much of the program. A 2010 letter from Nevada’s wildlife director said Nevada would assume predator-control duties if APHIS withdrew.
- WildEarth submitted member declarations (notably Don Molde) alleging concrete recreational and aesthetic injuries from NWSP practices (reduced wildlife viewing, curtailed hiking due to traps, fewer ravens and coyotes observed).
- The district court dismissed Claims 1–4 for lack of standing: it found alleged injuries not causally tied to the PEIS and (as to Nevada-specific claims) not redressable because Nevada might continue predator control if APHIS stopped.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding WildEarth had associational standing to challenge both the PEIS (Claims 1–2) and the Nevada EA/finding of no significant impact (Claims 3–4), and that Molde’s injuries were redressable despite the possibility Nevada could act independently.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge 1994/1997 PEIS (Claims 1–2) | PEIS is relied on for NEPA compliance; Molde’s recreational/aesthetic injuries in Nevada flow from APHIS’s continued reliance on outdated PEIS | Injury not causally connected to a decades-old, nationwide PEIS | Held: Molde’s declaration shows concrete, geographically specific injury; as a procedural NEPA claim, causation/redressability standards are relaxed and standing exists |
| Standing to challenge 2011 Nevada EA / FONSI (Claims 3–4) — redressability | Updating or enjoining APHIS would alter NEPA compliance and could change NWSP practices that harm Molde | Even if APHIS stopped, Nevada would assume predator control (per Mayer Letter), so relief against APHIS wouldn’t redress injury | Held: Redressability satisfied. Multiple causes don’t defeat standing for procedural claims; Nevada’s future actions are speculative and APHIS materially contributes to the injury |
| Associational standing (WildEarth on behalf of members) | WildEarth’s purposes align with members’ interests; member (Molde) would have standing individually | — | Held: Association may sue on members’ behalf because Molde would have standing and no individual participation is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) (supplemental EIS required when new information shows significant environmental impacts not previously considered)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (environmental plaintiffs allege injury-in-fact by averring use of affected area and lessened aesthetic/recreational value)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing framework: injury, causation, redressability)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (procedural injury: plaintiffs need only show that agency action could reduce risk to some extent)
- Salmon Spawning & Recovery Alliance v. Gutierrez, 545 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2008) (relaxed causation/redressability standards for procedural claims)
- Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472 (9th Cir. 2011) (geographic nexus requirement for environmental standing)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, 588 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009) (member declarations showing past use and plans to return suffice for injury-in-fact)
- Barnum Timber Co. v. EPA, 633 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff need not eliminate other contributing causes to establish standing)
- Nuclear Info. & Res. Serv. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 457 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2006) (lack of alleged injury or existence of identical regulation by other agency can defeat standing)
- Washington Envtl. Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2013) (distinguishes procedural rights cases; causation/redressability stricter when not pursuing procedural claims)