## Facts

- Environmental and animal-welfare plaintiffs challenged predator-control (primarily coyote) actions authorized for the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests in Utah.
- The forests support wildlife and are also used for livestock grazing; predator control had generated recurring conflict between wildlife and livestock interests.
- Predator-control programs had been implemented for many years, with interruptions in 1991 and 1992.
- Federal authority for animal-damage management derived from the Animal Damage Control Act of 1931, directing the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct campaigns to destroy animals injurious to agriculture and livestock on national forests and public lands.
- Operational responsibility for animal-damage control activities resided with USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Animal Damage Control.
- Forest Service officials prepared Environmental Assessments (EAs) under NEPA addressing predator control, including non-lethal methods and lethal measures if non-lethal methods were ineffective.
- Plaintiffs exhausted administrative remedies through consolidated administrative appeals; the Regional Forester affirmed the Forest Supervisor’s decision, making the program subject to judicial review.
- Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to halt implementation of the predator-control program during the litigation.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the merits of their NEPA-related challenges to proceeding under EAs rather than preparing an EIS and to the adequacy of the EA analyses.
2. Whether plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable injury absent preliminary injunctive relief.
3. Whether the balance of harms and the public interest favored enjoining the predator-control program pending final resolution.

## Decision

- The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court found plaintiffs had not made the required showing of likelihood of success on the merits, given the scope of the administrative record and the EA analysis of impacts and alternatives, including non-lethal measures.
- The court found plaintiffs had not shown sufficiently immediate and irreparable environmental harm to justify interim relief, considering the program’s history and its limits and non-lethal components.
- The court concluded the balance of harms and the public interest did not favor stopping a congressionally authorized predator-control program at the preliminary stage.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires consideration of likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, balance of harms, and the public interest.
- NEPA is procedural; judicial review focuses on whether the agency took a “hard look” at environmental consequences and reasonable alternatives, not whether the court agrees with the agency’s policy choice.
- Review of agency action in this context is based on the administrative record and applies a deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard; courts generally defer to agency technical judgments in wildlife and land-management matters when supported by the record.
- Environmental injury may be irreparable, but a movant must still show a concrete, imminent likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain preliminary relief.

## Conclusion

The district court refused to preliminarily enjoin predator-control actions in two national forests because, on the record before it, plaintiffs did not establish a sufficient likelihood of success on NEPA claims or a sufficient showing of imminent irreparable harm, and the balance of harms and public interest did not support halting the program pending final adjudication.


S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Thompson, 811 F. Supp. 635 (D. Utah 1993)