`WILDEARTH GUARDIANS,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
`)
`
`AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT
`)
`
`HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE;
`)
`JANET L. BUCKNELL, in her official capacity
`)
`as Deputy Administrator of the Animal and
`)
`Plant Health Inspection Service,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`__________________________________________)
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01031-PJK-SCY Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 1 of 27
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil No. _______________
`
`PETITION FOR REVIEW
`OF AGENCY ACTION
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`WildEarth Guardians (“Guardians”) brings this lawsuit against Defendants U.S.
`
`Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”)
`
`and Janet L. Bucknall, the Deputy Administrator for APHIS’s Wildlife Services program.1
`
`Wildlife Services continues to kill predators and numerous other native wildlife species without
`
`supplementing stale environmental analyses that rely upon decades-old science for its so-called
`
`“Predator Damage Management” in New Mexico. In so doing, Wildlife Services is violating the
`
`National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4347; the implementing
`
`Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) regulations, 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500–1508; and the
`
`Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706.
`
`
`1 Wildlife Services is a program or component of APHIS, within the USDA. As all the
`allegations in this Complaint relate to the Wildlife Services program, which functions as a semi-
`autonomous agency, Defendants will hereinafter be collectively referred to as “Wildlife
`Services.”
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01031-PJK-SCY Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 2 of 27
`
`2.
`
`Every year, Wildlife Services—a program within the USDA—poisons, traps, and
`
`guns down several of our nation’s most majestic animals, including wolves, bears, coyotes, and
`
`mountain lions in a futile attempt to save livestock and other “resources.” Funded with millions
`
`of taxpayer dollars, and without modern scientific support, this program uses cruel and often
`
`archaic methods to capture and kill wildlife from their native ecosystems, largely at the behest of
`
`livestock producers. Across New Mexico, Wildlife Services uses fixed-wing aircraft and
`
`helicopters to aerially shoot coyotes; body-gripping traps, neck snares and leghold traps to kill
`
`mountain lions, black bears, bobcats, badgers, coyotes, skunks, and swift and gray foxes; gas
`
`cartridges and poisons to exterminate coyotes, foxes, and prairie dogs in their dens; sodium
`
`cyanide M-44 devices to kill canines like foxes and coyotes; and other poisons to eliminate
`
`native birds like ravens. Family pets and federally-protected endangered and threatened species
`
`have been and will continue to be accidentally injured or killed by the agency’s indiscriminate
`
`killing methods.
`
`3.
`
`Despite its extensive activities, Wildlife Services has never prepared an
`
`Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) disclosing the breadth of environmental impacts from
`
`its New Mexico wildlife killing programs to the public as NEPA requires. Instead, it continues to
`
`operate in the state under outdated Environmental Assessments (“EAs”) that rely on studies
`
`mostly dating back to the 1970s and 80s, but in some instances much earlier.
`
`4.
`
`NEPA, however, requires supplemental analysis when “significant new
`
`circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed
`
`action or its impacts” emerge. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(d)(l)(ii).2 More than 14 years have passed
`
`
`2 The CEQ regulations cited herein were recently revised and became effective on September 14,
`2020. See 85 Fed. Reg. 43304 (July 16, 2020) (Update to the Regulations Implementing the
`Procedural Provisions of the NEPA, Final Rule). There was little substantive change, however,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01031-PJK-SCY Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 3 of 27
`
`since Wildlife Services analyzed the environmental impacts of its New Mexico Predator Damage
`
`Management (“PDM”) Program in finalized NEPA documents. Also, more than 9 years have
`
`passed since Wildlife Services separately analyzed the environmental impacts of its New Mexico
`
`Aquatic Rodent Damage Management (“ARDM”) program. New information and circumstances
`
`relevant to its wildlife killing programs, such as new scientific publications on the
`
`ineffectiveness of lethal predator control and the negative cascading ecological consequences of
`
`removing keystone species from their native ecosystems, require that Wildlife Services prepare
`
`supplemental NEPA analyses.
`
`5.
`
`Through this Complaint, Guardians seeks a declaration that Wildlife Services’
`
`ongoing authorization and implementation of its wildlife killing programs in New Mexico
`
`violates federal law and is otherwise arbitrary and capricious. Guardians additionally seeks
`
`injunctive relief to redress the injuries caused by these violations of the law. Should Guardians
`
`prevail, it will seek an award of costs, attorneys’ fees, and other expenses pursuant to the Equal
`
`Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question
`
`jurisdiction) and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. (Administrative Procedure Act). It has authority to issue
`
`declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because a
`
`substantial part of the agency’s violations of law occurred and continue to occur in this district
`
`
`to the “supplemental NEPA analysis” regulation at issue here. Compare 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9
`(1978) to 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9 (2020).
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01031-PJK-SCY Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 4 of 27
`
`and injury to Guardians and its members occurred and continues to occur in this district.
`
`Guardians also maintains an office in this district.
`
`PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff WILDEARTH GUARDIANS (“Guardians”) is a non-profit conservation
`
`organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and the
`
`health of the American West. Guardians has been headquartered in Santa Fe, New Mexico for
`
`more than 30 years, with numerous staff members currently working and residing in New
`
`Mexico. Guardians also has more than 188,000 members and supporters across the West,
`
`including thousands of members and supporters who reside in and/or visit the State of New
`
`Mexico. Guardians has a long history of working to protect and restore native wildlife species
`
`across the West in general and New Mexico in particular, including Mexican gray wolves,
`
`mountain lions, black bears, coyotes, beavers, and prairie dogs. Guardians operates a wildlife
`
`program with campaigns focused on native carnivore protection and restoration, and on reining
`
`in the controversial, cruel, and destructive practices of Wildlife Services including the use of
`
`poisoning, trapping, and aerial gunning.
`
`9.
`
`Guardians’ staff, members, and supporters are dedicated to ensuring that Wildlife
`
`Services complies with all applicable federal laws. Wildlife Services’ wildlife killing program in
`
`New Mexico, along with its associated 2006 Environmental Assessments and Findings of No
`
`Significant Impact for Predator Damage Management Program (“2006 EA/FONSI”) and 2011
`
`EA/FONSI for the New Mexico Aquatic Rodent Damage Management Program, adversely
`
`impact Guardians’ interests in New Mexico’s wildlife that could be killed by Wildlife Services—
`
`intentionally or unintentionally—including Mexican gray wolves, black bears, coyotes, mountain
`
`lions, bobcats, foxes, raptors, ravens, skunks, prairie dogs, and others. Guardians also has
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01031-PJK-SCY Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 5 of 27
`
`members and supporters who are adversely affected by the threat that Wildlife Services poses to
`
`companion animals in New Mexico.
`
`10.
`
`Guardians’ members and supporters live and recreate in or near areas in New
`
`Mexico where implementation of Defendants’ wildlife killing program occurs for the purposes of
`
`hiking, observing wildlife, and other recreational and professional pursuits. Guardians’ members
`
`and supporters enjoy observing, attempting to observe, photographing, and studying wildlife,
`
`including signs of those species’ presence in these areas. The opportunity to possibly view
`
`wildlife or their signs in these areas is of significant interest and value to Guardians’ members
`
`and supporters, and it increases the use and enjoyment of public lands and ecosystems in New
`
`Mexico. Guardians’ members and supporters have regularly engaged in these activities in the
`
`past, and they intend to continue to regularly do so in the upcoming months.
`
`11.
`
`Guardians’ members and supporters have a procedural interest in ensuring that
`
`Wildlife Services’ activities comply with all applicable federal statutes and regulations.
`
`Guardians has worked to reform Wildlife Services’ activities throughout the United States,
`
`including in New Mexico. Guardians and its members and supporters have an interest in
`
`preventing Wildlife Services from being involved in lethal wildlife damage management,
`
`particularly predator control, and promoting the use of more effective and proactive nonlethal
`
`alternatives that foster communities’ coexistence with wildlife.
`
`12.
`
`In sum, the interests of Guardians’ members and supporters have been, and will
`
`continue to be, injured by Wildlife Services’ wildlife-killing activities in New Mexico and its
`
`failure to comply with NEPA in implementing its Predator Damage Management Program and
`
`Aquatic Rodent Damage Management Program.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01031-PJK-SCY Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 6 of 27
`
`13.
`
`The relief Guardians seeks in this complaint would redress the injuries of its
`
`members and supporters. The relief Guardians requests, if granted, would prevent Wildlife
`
`Services from engaging in predator damage management activities unless and until it complies
`
`with federal law. Guardians’ requested relief, if granted, could reduce the amount of lethal
`
`predator control and other wildlife killing conducted in New Mexico. The New Mexico
`
`Department of Game and Fish, New Mexico Department of Agriculture, local municipalities,
`
`and private livestock producers cannot completely replace Wildlife Services’ activities
`
`authorized through the 2006 EA/FONSI and 2011 EA/FONSI. Those entities do not have the
`
`equipment, such as fixed-wing aircraft for aerial gunning operations, or trained wildlife killing
`
`personnel utilized by Wildlife Services.
`
`14.
`
`Guardians’ interests, and those of its members and supporters, have been, are
`
`being, and, unless this Court grants the requested relief, will continue to be harmed by Wildlife
`
`Services’ actions and inactions challenged in this complaint. If this Court issues the relief
`
`requested, the harm to Guardians’ interests, and of the harm to their members and supporters’
`
`interests, will be redressed.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant USDA ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION
`
`SERVICE (“APHIS”) is an agency or instrumentality of the United States, within the USDA,
`
`whose Wildlife Services program is responsible for carrying out “predator damage control” and
`
`wildlife killings on behalf of the federal government in New Mexico and nationwide. Wildlife
`
`Services receives federal and cooperator funding to undertake wildlife damage management
`
`activities in New Mexico.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant JANET L. BUCKNALL is being sued in her official capacity as the
`
`Deputy Administrator of USDA APHIS’s Wildlife Service’s program.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01031-PJK-SCY Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 7 of 27
`
`I.
`
`National Environmental Policy Act
`
`LEGAL BACKGROUND
`
`17.
`
`Under NEPA, a federal agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
`
`(“EIS”) for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”
`
`42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). The human environment “shall be interpreted comprehensively to
`
`include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that
`
`environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.14.
`
`18.
`
`“The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are
`
`based on understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore,
`
`and enhance the environment.” Id. § 1500.1(c). The CEQ “regulations provide the direction to
`
`achieve this purpose.” Id. To that end, “NEPA procedures must insure that environmental
`
`information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before
`
`actions are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert
`
`agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.” Id. § 1500.1(b).
`
`19.
`
`To determine whether an action is significant—i.e., whether an EIS is necessary
`
`for the proposed action—an agency may first prepare an Environmental Assessment (“EA”). Id.
`
`§ 1501.4(b). “Significance” determinations are governed by CEQ regulations, which require
`
`agencies to consider both the context of the action and the intensity of the environmental
`
`impacts. Id. § 1508.27. If the agency determines that a full EIS is not necessary, the agency must
`
`prepare a finding of no significant impact (“FONSI”). Id. § 1501.4(e). A FONSI is a
`
`“document…briefly presenting the reasons why [the proposed] action…will not have a
`
`significant effect on the human environment.” Id. § 1508.13.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01031-PJK-SCY Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 8 of 27
`
`20.
`
`The environmental analysis must disclose and analyze the direct, indirect, and
`
`cumulative effects of the proposed action on the environment. Id. §§ 1502.16 (environmental
`
`consequences), 1508.7 (cumulative impacts), 1508.8 (direct and indirect effects), 1508.25(c)(3)
`
`(scope of impacts that must be considered).
`
`21.
`
`NEPA regulations allow for “tiering” of environmental reviews, when
`
`appropriate. Tiering is the process of incorporating by reference coverage of general matters in
`
`broader environmental impact statements, such as national program or policy statements, into
`
`subsequent narrower environmental analyses, such as regional or ultimately site-specific
`
`statements. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.28. Although tiering to a previous EIS may be permissible, the
`
`previous document must actually discuss the impacts of the narrower program or project at issue.
`
`
`
`22.
`
`After preparing an EIS or EA, an agency may not simply rest on the original
`
`document. The agency must gather and evaluate new information that may alter the results of its
`
`original environmental analysis, and continue to take a hard look at the environmental effects of
`
`its planned actions. See Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d 552, 557 (9th Cir.
`
`2000); S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Norton, 457 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1264 (D. Utah 2006) (citing
`
`Dombeck, 222 F.3d at 557).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23.
`
`NEPA requires that a federal agency prepare a supplemental NEPA document
`
`when “significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and
`
`bearing on the proposed action or its impacts” emerge. Id. § 1502.9(d)(l)(ii).
`
`II.
`
`Administrative Procedure Act
`
`24.
`
`NEPA does not contain an internal standard of review, therefore the APA governs
`
`judicial review. Under the APA, courts “shall hold unlawful and set aside” agency action,
`
`findings, or conclusions found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01031-PJK-SCY Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 9 of 27
`
`not in accordance with the law” or “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C.
`
`§ 706(2)(A), (D).
`
`25.
`
`In addition, APA section 706(1) authorizes reviewing courts to “compel agency
`
`action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” Id. § 706(1).
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`Wildlife Services’ Nationwide Wildlife-Killing Program
`
`26. Wildlife Services and its precursors have specialized in killing wildlife for more
`
`than 100 years and are responsible for the eradication of wildlife like wolves, bears, and other
`
`animals from much of the United States, particularly in the West. Wildlife Services contracts
`
`with other federal agencies, non-federal government agencies, and private landowners.
`
`27. Wildlife Services kills approximately 1.3 million native animals every year in the
`
`U.S. In 2019, Wildlife Services reported that it killed 303 gray wolves; 62,002 adult coyotes,
`
`plus an unknown number of coyote pups in 251 destroyed dens; 364,752 red-winged blackbirds;
`
`400 black bears; 308 mountain lions; 800 bobcats; 613 river otters; 2,667 foxes, plus an
`
`unknown number of fox pups in 94 dens; and 24,817 beavers.
`
`28.
`
`Each year, Wildlife Services unintentionally kills thousands of nontarget animals.
`
`The wildlife-killing program unintentionally killed roughly 2,700 nontarget animals in 2019,
`
`including bears, bobcats, foxes, muskrats, otters, porcupines, raccoons, and turtles. Its killing of
`
`nontarget birds included cardinals, ducks, eagles, herons, and turkeys. Dozens of domestic
`
`animals—including companion animals and livestock—were also killed. These killings
`
`undermine efforts to conserve and recover state and federally protected endangered wildlife,
`
`which often need protection in part due to Wildlife Services’ historic and ongoing practices.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01031-PJK-SCY Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 10 of 27
`
`29.
`
`Former employees have alleged that Wildlife Services underreports the numbers
`
`of animals the agency kills. Therefore, the actual numbers of animals Wildlife Services has killed
`
`are likely greater than reported.
`
`30. Many of the species Wildlife Services targets play critical roles in ecosystems,
`
`and their removals result in a cascade of unintended consequences. The loss of top predators is
`
`well documented to cause a wide range of unanticipated impacts that are often profound, altering
`
`processes as diverse as the dynamics of disease, wildfire, carbon sequestration, invasive species,
`
`and biogeochemical cycles. In short, the removal of so many animals from the environment—
`
`especially predators—significantly alters native ecosystems directly, indirectly, and
`
`cumulatively.
`
`31. Many of the methods Wildlife Services uses—including snares; leg-hold and
`
`body-gripping traps; and gas cartridges—are fundamentally nonselective, environmentally
`
`destructive, inherently cruel, and often ineffective. For example, leg-hold traps are
`
`internationally recognized as inhumane and have been banned or restricted in many countries
`
`and the Unites States. Upon being trapped, animals frantically struggle to free themselves both
`
`by attempting to pull their trapped limb out of the device and by chewing at the trap itself or
`
`even their own limbs. The force of the jaws clamping on the animal’s limb and the subsequent
`
`struggle result in severe trauma, including mangling of the limb; fractures; damage to muscles
`
`and tendons; lacerations; injury to the face and mouth; broken teeth; loss of circulation; frostbite;
`
`and amputation. Wildlife Services often fails to routinely check its traps. Thus, many animals
`
`experience prolonged suffering and sometimes eventually die of exposure.
`
`//
`
`///
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01031-PJK-SCY Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 11 of 27
`
`II.
`
`History of NEPA Analysis of Wildlife-Killing Programs in New Mexico
`
`32.
`
`In 1994, Wildlife Services prepared (and in 1997 amended) a Programmatic EIS
`
`(“1997 PEIS”) to analyze its nationwide wildlife damage control program. This outdated
`
`document relies on science from the 1970s and 80s, with some studies dating back decades
`
`further. In fact, in 2016, Wildlife Services issued a formal notice acknowledging that the 1994
`
`programmatic EIS is outdated, that the agency would no longer rely upon it, and that it intended
`
`to redo or revise all the NEPA documents currently tiered to the 1994 PEIS. Since publicly
`
`acknowledging the PEIS is woefully outdated, Wildlife Services has yet to initiate a new
`
`comprehensive analysis that publicly evaluates the overall ecological and economical costs of its
`
`nationwide wildlife damage control program according to current science and data.
`
`33.
`
`In 1997, Wildlife Services also issued three EAs/FONSIs for its Predator Damage
`
`Management Program in New Mexico, one for each of the three Wildlife Services districts in the
`
`state—Albuquerque, Las Cruces, and Roswell. Each EA in turn tiered to the 1994 PEIS.
`
`34.
`
`In 2006, Wildlife Services issued an EA for “Predator Damage Management in
`
`New Mexico.” According to Wildlife Services, this EA’s purpose was to “combine the 3 EAs
`
`into one comprehensive statewide EA.” The 2006 EA incorporated analysis from the three 1997
`
`EAs and the 1997 PEIS. The same year, Wildlife Services issued a FONSI and signed a decision
`
`for its PDM Program in New Mexico, which authorized the agency to continue killing coyotes,
`
`striped skunks, bobcats, cougars, black bears, and others at the request of the state wildlife
`
`agency (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish) and livestock owners, by means of
`
`shooting, snares, aerial gunning (shooting fleeing coyotes from airplanes or helicopters), denning
`
`(gassing coyotes dens), and M-44 sodium cyanide bombs.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01031-PJK-SCY Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 12 of 27
`
`
`
`35.
`
`In New Mexico, the 2006 Predator Damage Management Program EA/FONSI
`
`authorizes Wildlife Services’ statewide involvement in predator-killing programs. The 2006
`
`EA/FONSI authorizes the use of leg-hold traps, cage traps, neck snares, ground shooting,
`
`hunting dogs, aerial hunting, M-44s (sodium cyanide “bombs”), livestock protection collars
`
`filled with Compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate), gas cartridges (to kill animals in dens), and
`
`more.
`
`36.
`
`Target species listed in the 2006 Predator Damage Management Program EA
`
`include coyote, cougar, red, swift, and kit foxes, black bear, bobcat, raccoon, badger, opossums,
`
`weasels, mink, martens, ringtails, skunks, and white-nosed coati.
`
`37. Wildlife Services’ 2006 EA for its New Mexico PDM program also relies on an
`
`outdated 1992 programmatic Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
`
`(USFWS) (updated in 1999 to address jaguar after the species was federally listed as endangered
`
`in 1997) and a 2003 Biological Assessment and corresponding letter of concurrence from the
`
`USFWS for its analysis of potentially adverse effects to federally listed threatened and
`
`endangered species.
`
`38.
`
`In 2011, Wildlife Services issued a separate EA/FONSI for its “New Mexico
`
`Aquatic Rodent Damage Management” (“ARDM”) program. This 2011 EA extensively
`
`incorporates analysis from a previous 2004 ARDM EA and the 1997 PEIS. Furthermore, like
`
`Wildlife Services’ 2006 EA for its PDM program, the 2011 ARDM EA also relies on even more
`
`outdated analyses (i.e. consultations with the USFWS from the early 2000s and a corresponding
`
`2003 Biological Opinion) for determining the potential adverse effects of Wildlife Services’
`
`ARDM program, including both beaver killing and beaver dam removal, on federally listed
`
`threatened and endangered species that inhabit aquatic ecosystems and/or are dependent upon
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01031-PJK-SCY Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 13 of 27
`
`riparian areas, such as the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, southwestern willow
`
`flycatcher, Chiricahua leopard frog, Northern Mexican gartersnake, Jemez Mountains
`
`salamander, and Rio Grande silvery minnow.
`
`39.
`
`Both the 2006 EA/FONSI and the 2011 ARDM EA/FONSI report that Wildlife
`
`Services also unintentionally killed several nontarget animals from 1998–2004 in New Mexico,
`
`including gray, red, swift, and kit foxes, porcupines, striped skunks, badgers, mountain lions,
`
`javelina, bobcats, mule deer, and black bears.
`
`40.
`
`The 2006 Predator Damage Wildlife Program EA/FONSI for Wildlife Services’
`
`PDM Program in New Mexico covers the entire state. According to this EA, as of January 1,
`
`2003, Wildlife Services had active agreements to conduct predator damage management on
`
`about 24.8 million acres in New Mexico—or about 32% of the state’s surface area. Fifty-four
`
`percent of the land under agreement was privately-owned in 2003, or about 13.9 million acres.
`
`Next in line in terms of acreage was U.S. Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”)-managed lands
`
`to the tune of 6.7 million acres, followed by 2.9 million acres of state lands—including state trust
`
`lands—and 0.9 million acres of U.S. Forest Service (“USFS”)-managed lands. Wildlife Services
`
`also had agreements to kill predators on about 400,000 acres of “other” lands such as military
`
`installations, Tribal lands, and municipal lands.
`
`41.
`
`The 2011 EA/FONSI for Wildlife Services’ ARDM program in New Mexico
`
`covers the entire state to the extent an area has habitat that supports beavers.3 According to this
`
`2011 EA, Wildlife Services had active agreements at the time of the EA’s issuance to conduct
`
`beaver control activities on about 1.25 million acres throughout New Mexico, including on state
`
`
`3 The 2011 ARDM EA/FONSI also covers nutria, a species introduced to New Mexico in the
`early 1930s. However, Wildlife Services does not ordinarily kill nutria and this Complaint does
`not challenge Wildlife Service’s treatment or analysis of nutria in New Mexico.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01031-PJK-SCY Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 14 of 27
`
`and federal public lands. According to its website, the number of beavers killed by Wildlife
`
`Services has fluctuated greatly over the past decade, e.g., 23 reported in 2012; 57 reported in
`
`2013; 2 reported in 2014; 11 reported in 2015; 2 reported in 2016; 0 reported in 2017 and 2018;
`
`and 5 reported in 2019. This kill data does not account for the number of beaver dam removals
`
`carried out by Wildlife Services and are also in addition to beaver killing and dam removal
`
`carried out by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMGF) and private landowners
`
`in response to reported property damage, as well as beavers killed for their fur under state
`
`hunting/trapping licenses.
`
`42.
`
`As of the date of this Complaint, Wildlife Services has not supplemented its 2006
`
`or 2011 EAs. Indeed, Wildlife Services has never prepared a comprehensive EIS analyzing the
`
`impacts of its wildlife killing programs in New Mexico and instead continues to rely on the
`
`outdated 2006 and 2011 EAs that tier to the 1997 PEIS—a document Wildlife Services has
`
`disavowed without updating.
`
`43. Wildlife Services continues to kill thousands of animals in New Mexico every
`
`year. In 2018, Wildlife Services reported killing 2,650 coyotes, 519 striped skunks, 1,103 black-
`
`tailed prairie dogs, 18 gray and kit foxes, 2 mountain lions, 1 black bear, and thousands of other
`
`animals in New Mexico. In 2019, Wildlife Services reported killing 2,808 coyotes, 1,595 black-
`
`tailed prairie dogs, 419 striped skunks, 23 gray, swift and kit foxes (17 of which were
`
`“unintentional”), 2 mountain lions, 1 black bear, and thousands of other animals in New Mexico.
`
`Wildlife Services has also killed nearly 100 beavers since it issued the ARDM in 2011.
`
`//
`
`///
`
`////
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01031-PJK-SCY Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 15 of 27
`
`III. New Information and Circumstances Affecting Wildlife-Killing Programs
`in New Mexico
`
`
`
`44.
`
`Since Wildlife Services prepared its 2006 PDM EA/FONSI and the 2011 ARDM
`
`EA/FONSI, new information and circumstances demonstrate that supplemental NEPA analysis is
`
`required for the agency’s wildlife killing programs in New Mexico.
`
`45.
`
`Numerous studies published in the last 15 years call into question Wildlife
`
`Services’ presumption that killing predators effectively protects commercial livestock in the
`
`long-term. For example, a well-regarded 2014 study by Wielgus and Peebles found that killing
`
`predators to protect livestock can backfire and may increase livestock depredation.4 Other
`
`studies5 found little or no scientific support for the proposition that killing predators such as
`
`wolves, mountain lions, and bears reduces livestock losses over time.
`
`46. Moreover, many of the species that Wildlife Services targets play critical
`
`ecological roles, yet the 2006 PDM EA never assessed the cascading effects of removing
`
`predators from their native ecosystems. Indeed, for certain species and actions the 2006 PDM EA
`
`rests on science from the years immediately following World War II to justify its predator killing
`
`program. Undeniably, significant new developments have occurred in the science of wildlife
`
`management in 70 years. For example, it is now well established that killing predators such as
`
`coyotes, mountain lions, and bears create conditions favorable for pandemics to emerge,
`
`diminish ecosystem functions, reduce carbon sequestration, and increase instances of irruptions
`
`of invasive species, and cost taxpayers millions—and perhaps billions—of dollars in lost
`
`
`4 R. B. Wielgus & K. A. Peebles, Effects of wolf mortality on livestock depredations, PLOS ONE,
`9, 1–16 (2014).
`5 L.M. van Eeden et al., Carnivore conservation needs evidence-based livestock protection,
`PLOS BIOLOGY 16(9): e2005577 (2018); A. Treves et al., Predator control should not be a shot
`in the dark, FRONTIERS ECOLOGY & ENV’T. 14, 380–388 (2016).
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01031-PJK-SCY Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 16 of 27
`
`ecosystem services.6 Numerous studies have been published since the PDM EA was developed
`
`demonstrating that removing apex and mesopredators such as mountain lions and coyotes results
`
`in a “trophic cascade” of unintended consequences and wide-ranging adverse ecological effects.7
`
`For example, the 2006 PDM EA never addressed the myriad environmental effects of lethally
`
`removing large numbers of coyotes from native ecosystems.
`
`47.
`
`In an arid region such as New Mexico, which is undergoing rapid ecological
`
`changes from climate disruption,8 it is more important than ever that Wildlife Services takes a
`
`hard look at the environmental consequences of removing so many animals critical to regulating
`
`ecosystems. The Fourth National Climate Assessment predicts that climate disruption will lead
`
`“to aridification (a potentially permanent change to a drier environment) in much of the
`
`Southwest, through increased evapotranspiration, lower soil moisture, reduced snow cover,
`
`earlier and slower snowmelt, and changes in the timing and efficiency of snowmelt and runoff.”
`
`48.
`
`Supplemental analysis is therefore necessary to address both the ecological
`
`impacts of removing coyotes, cougars and other predators from their native ecosystems and the
`
`cumulative effects to New Mexico’s sensitive ecosystems which depend on functional predator-
`
`prey relationships, such as the well-documented decreases in songbird and rodent diversity
`
`
`6 Bradley J. Bergstrom et al., License to Kill: Reforming Federal Wildlife Control to Restore
`Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function, 7 CONSERVATION LETTERS 131 (2014); J.A. Estes et al.,
`Trophic Downgrading of Planet Earth, 333 SCIENCE 301 (2011).
`7 W. J. Ripple & R. L. Beschta, Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: The First 15 Years after Wolf
`Reintroduction, BIOL. CONSERVATION 145, 205–213 (2012); W. J. Ripple et al., Trophic
`Cascades from Wolves to Grizzly Bears in Yellowstone, J. ANIM. ECOL. 83, 223–233 (2014); R.
`L. Beschta et al., Riparian Vegetation Recovery in Yellowstone: The First Two Decades after
`Wolf Reintroduction, BIOLOGY CONSERVATION 198, 93–103 (2016); Taal Levi et al., Deer,
`Predators, and Lyme Disease, PROC. OF THE NAT’L ACAD. OF SCI., 109 (27) 10942–947 (2012);
`B. J. Bergstrom et al., supra note 5, at 131–142.
`8 FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT, U.S. Global Change Res