AUDUBON SOCIETY OF PORTLAND V. DEB HAALAND, No. 20-35508 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”) issued a Record of Decision (“ROD”) adopting a combined Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive Conservation Plan (“EIS/CCP”) for five of the six refuges in the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex (“Klamath Refuge Complex” or “Complex”) in southern Oregon and northern California. challenges to the Service’s action.
The Audubon Society of Portland (“ASP”) brought suit against the Service in the district court, arguing that the EIS/CCP violates the Kuchel Act of 1964 (“Kuchel Act”), the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act as amended by the Refuge Improvement Act (“Refuge Act”), the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) with respect to the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Refuges in the Complex. The district court granted summary judgment to the Service.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary with respect to the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Refuges in the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex violated various laws. The court explained that two key statutes: the Kuchel Act of 1964, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, as amended by the Refuge Improvement Act, govern the Service’s management.
The court concluded that to the degree the present pattern of agricultural leasing in the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Refuges was consistent with proper waterfowl management in those refuges, the Kuchel and Refuge Acts directed the Service to continue that present pattern of leasing. In reviewing the EIS/CCP, the panel recognized constraints on the Service and deferred to reasoned explanations provided by the Service in support of its decisions.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in an action brought by the Audubon Society of Portland (“ASP”) alleging that a combined Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive Conservation Plan (“EIS/CCP”) with respect to the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Refuges in the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex violated various laws. Two key statutes govern the Service’s management of refuges in the Klamath Refuge Complex: the Kuchel Act of 1964, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, as amended by the Refuge Improvement Act. The panel considered, and rejected, the four arguments ASP raised on appeal. First, ASP argued that the failure of the Service under the EIS/CCP to provide sufficient water for the Lower Klamath Refuge violated the Refuge Act. The panel noted its sympathies to ASP’s concerns because the water currently available for the Lower Klamath Refuge was inadequate to serve the purposes of the refuge. The panel held, however, it was satisfied on the record, given the constraints on the Service, whose ability to provide water was severely limited, 4 AUDUBON SOCIETY OF PORTLAND V. HAALAND that the EIS/CCP fulfilled the Service’s obligation under the Refuge Act. Second, ASP argued that the EIS/CCP’s continuation of the present pattern of agricultural leasing in the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Refuges violated the Kuchel and Refuge Acts, and was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). ASP’s core argument was that the EIS/CCP authorized an improper mix of agricultural land and natural habitat. The panel held that in the EIS/CCP, the Service considered the arguments made by ASP. Given the extensive evidence in the record supporting the choices made by the Service, the panel saw nothing that authorized it, as the reviewing court, to make different choices. The panel held that the balance struck by the EIS/CCP, with respect to the issues raised in the appeal, was consistent with the Kuchel and Refuge Acts, and with the APA. Third, ASP argued that the EIS/CCP delegated administrative responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation in violation of the Refuge Act. The panel held that the Bureau’s responsibilities under the EIS/CCP were not “administration” within the meaning of the Refuge Act’s anti- delegation provision. The Bureau in this case was assigned specified management functions and was, in all respects, subject to the supervision and approval of the Service. Fourth, ASP argued that the failure of the EIS/CCP to consider a reduced-agriculture alternative violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). The panel held that the Service sufficiently considered whether to reduce the acreage devoted to lease-land farming, and AUDUBON SOCIETY OF PORTLAND V. HAALAND 5 sufficiently explained why it did not list such reduction as an alternative in the EIS/CCP. The panel concluded that to the degree the present pattern of agricultural leasing in the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Refuges was consistent with proper waterfowl management in those refuges, the Kuchel and Refuge Acts directed the Service to continue that present pattern of leasing. In reviewing the EIS/CCP, the panel recognized constraints on the Service and deferred to reasoned explanations provided by the Service in support of its decisions.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.