WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, & PREDATOR DEFENSE Plaintiffs, v. USDA APHIS WILDLIFE SERVICES Defendant., No. 1:17-CV-206-BLW, 2018 WL 6251358 (D. Idaho Nov. 29, 2018); For years, Wildlife Services has responded to requests from Idaho livestock producers to kill or remove predators like coyotes that threaten their herds. When the agency decided to expand its operations to kill or remove predators to game animals and protected species, it prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and circulated it to various agencies and the public. That draft prompted numerous critical comments, especially from other agencies with long experience and expertise in managing game animals and protected species: The Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, among others.Instead of studying these concerns in greater depth in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Wildlife Services largely rejected these criticisms, finding that they were invalid for various reasons. Based on that analysis, Wildlife Services issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and decided to implement the Preferred Alternative contained in the EA. The Preferred Alternative would have authorized Wildlife Services to provide additional assistance in efforts to reduce predation on wildlife species identified as needing protection by the IDFG, USFWS and other natural resource management agencies. Wildlife species which could potentially be protected under this alternative if a need is identified by the applicable regulatory agency include the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) (hereafter referred to as sage-grouse), mule deer and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus and 0. virginianus, respectively), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), northern and southern Idaho ground squirrels (Spermophilus brunneus burnneus, and S. b. endemicus, respectively) and waterfowl (various species).AR-37624. To block implementation of the Preferred Alternative, plaintiffs – referred to collectively as WWP in this decision – filed this lawsuit, asking the Court to find, among other things, that Wildlife Services violated NEPA by failing to prepare an EIS. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and in a decision issued June 23, 2018, the Court granted WWP’s motion and denied the motion filed by the Wildlife Service. See Memorandum Decision (Dkt. No. 33).