AUDUBON SOCIETY OF PORTLAND V. DEB HAALAND, No. 20-35509 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
The Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) challenged the Conservation Plan’s pest management approach for the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Refuges. Western Watersheds challenged the Plan’s limited allowance of livestock grazing on portions of Clear Lake Refuge. Appellants brought their challenges under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, and the Kuchel Act.
The Ninth Circuit considered, and rejected, CBD’s three challenges to the Conservation Plan. First, CBD argued that FWS failed to consider reduced-pesticide alternatives for Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Refuges. The panel concluded that CBD’s arguments were unavailing. FWS adequately explained that some amount of pesticide use was necessary on the Refuges to ensure sufficient crop production, on which Refuge waterfowl now depend. Also, FWS could conclude that reduced-pesticide alternatives would not have been reasonable given the uses and purposes of the Refuges. Thus, NEPA did not obligate FWS to consider reduced-pesticide alternatives.
The court concluded that FWS did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law by continuing to use the PUP process to evaluate potential pesticide applications on the Refuges, and by allowing for pesticide use as a last resort.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) on challenges by the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) and Western Watershed Project to two discrete aspects of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for three of the five National Wildlife Refuges in the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. CBD challenged the Conservation Plan’s pest- management approach for the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Refuges. Western Watersheds challenged the Plan’s limited allowance of livestock grazing on portions of Clear Lake Refuge. Appellants brought their challenges under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, and the Kuchel Act. The panel considered, and rejected, CBD’s three challenges to the Conservation Plan. First, CBD argued that FWS failed to consider reduced-pesticide alternatives for Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Refuges. The panel concluded that CBD’s arguments were unavailing. FWS adequately explained that some amount of pesticide use was necessary on the Refuges to ensure sufficient crop production, on which Refuge waterfowl now depend. Also, FWS could conclude that reduced-pesticide alternatives would not have been reasonable given the uses and purposes CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 5 of the Refuges. Thus, NEPA did not obligate FWS to consider reduced-pesticide alternatives. Second, CBD argued that FWS failed to take a sufficiently hard look under NEPA at the environmental effects of pesticides on the Refuges in concluding that pesticides could continue to be used with minimal environmental consequences. The panel held that the record confirmed that FWS took a hard look at the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of its decision to re-adopt and extend the Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) process for reviewing potential pesticide applications on the Refuges. Also, the agency sufficiently explained its conclusions. The panel rejected CBD’s argument that FWS was required to examine specific pesticides in conducting the hard look analysis. The panel held that CBD’s remaining challenges to FWS’s hard- look analysis were equally unpersuasive. Third, CBD argued that FWS violated the Refuge and Kuchel Acts by permitting continued pesticide use on the Refuges. The panel held that for the same reasons that FWS’s inclusion of the PUP process for Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Refuges did not violate NEPA, it did not violate the Refuge Act or Kuchel Act either. The panel rejected CBD’s challenges to the Conservation Plan’s approach to pesticide applications on these Refuges. The panel concluded that FWS did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law by continuing to use the PUP process to evaluate potential pesticide applications on the Refuges, and by allowing for pesticide use as a last resort. The panel next turned to Western Watersheds’ appeal challenging FWS’s decision to continue managed livestock grazing on Clear Lake Refuge. 6 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND First, Western Watersheds argued that FWS violated NEPA by failing to consider a formal reduced-grazing alternative. The panel held that FWS adequately explained in the Conservation Plan why reduced-grazing or no-grazing alternatives were not reasonable. Also, FWS adequately explained its reasons for not considering an alternative that would eliminate limited grazing with cattle from the adjacent Modoc National Forest. FWS reasonably explained that managed grazing on Clear Lake Refuge was essential to protecting and restoring sage-grouse habitat. Thus, FWS did not violate NEPA by failing to consider a formal reduced- grazing alternative. Second, Western Watersheds argued that FWS violated NEPA by failing to take a hard look at the effects of continued grazing on the greater sage-grouse and two species of suckerfish. As to the sage-grouse, the panel held that the Conservation Plan discussed at length the potential effects of grazing on sage-grouse and why grazing would be beneficial to sage-grouse habitat. The panel concluded that the agency took a sufficiently hard look at the effects on grazing on sage-grouse, including the cumulative effect. As to the suckerfish, the panel held that the Conservation Plan took a sufficiently hard look at the effects of managed livestock grazing on suckerfish in Clear Lake Refuge. Third, Western Watersheds maintained that FWS violated the Refuge Act because grazing was an incompatible use of the Refuge. The panel held that for the same reasons that FWS’s decision to continue managed grazing on Clear Lake Refuge did not violate NEPA, it did not violate the Refuge Act either. CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 7 The panel concluded that FWS did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law in continuing the long- standing practice of managed grazing on Clear Lake Refuge.
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.