FOR PUBLICATION



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

T UL E LAK

E I R R I G A T I O N D I S T R I C T ; KLAM

A T H WA T E R U S E R S A S S O C I A T I O

N ; T AL LY H O F AR M S P AR T N E R S H I P , DBA W alker Brothers; F O UR H O RG A N I C S , L L C ; W O O D H O U S E F AR

M I N G A ND S E E D C O MP A

N Y ; T UL E LA

K E G RO W E R S A S S O C I A T I O

N , Plaintiffs-Appellants
,

v.

U N I T E D S T A T E S F I S H A ND W I L D L I F E S E R

V I C E , a federal agency of the United States Departm ent of the Interior; D E B H A ALA ND , in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Departm ent of the Interior; A UR

E L I A S K I P W I T H , in her official capacity as Director of the United States Fish and W ildlife Service; P A

UL S O U ZA , his official capacity as Regional Director of the United States Fish and No. 20-35515

D.C. Nos. 1:17-cv-00069-CL 1:17-cv-00098-CL 1:17-cv-00468-CL 1:17-cv-00531-CL

OPINIONT UL E LAK E I R R I G A T I ON D I S T R

I C T V

. U SFW S 2

W ildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Defendants-Appellees
,

A UD UB O

N S O C I E T Y O F P O R T LA ND , An Oregon nonprofit corporation; O R E G ON W I L D , An Oregon nonprofit corporation; WA T E R WA T C H O F O R

E G O N , An Oregon nonprofit corporation,Intervenor-DefendantsAppellees

.

Appeal from

the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Subm itted October 5, 2021

Portland, Oregon

Filed July 18, 2022

Before: W illiamA. Fletcher, Sandra S. Ikuta, and Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge W

. FletcherT UL E LAK E I R R I G A T I ON D I S T R

I C T V

. U SFW S 3

SUMMARY *

Environmental Law

The panel affirm ed the district court’s summ ary judgm ent to the U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service (the “Service”) in an action brought by Tulelake Irrigation District and associated agricultural groups (collectively “TID”) alleging that
, in im posing restrictions on the agricultural uses of lease land in
t he Tule Lake and Lower Klam ath Refuges in the K la ma t h Basin National W ildlife Refuge Com plex in southern Oregon and northern Cal i fo rnia, the Service violated environm ental laws.

On appeal, TID argued that the Se rv i c e violated the Kuchel Act of 1964 and the National W ildlife Refuge S ystem Im provem ent A c t as am ended by the Refuge Im provem ent Act (“Refuge Act”).

First, TID argued that in approving the co mb i n ed Environm ental Im

pact Statem ent and Com p rehensive Conservation Plan (“EIS/CCP” ) fo r five of the six wildlife refuges in the Klam ath Refuge Com plex, the Service

m isconstrued the Ku c h e l Act to require the S ervice to regulate uses of leased agricultural land in the two refuges to

ensure that the uses w ere “consistent” with “proper wildfowl

m anagem ent.” 16 U.S.C. § 695n. The p anel rejected TID’s interpretation of § 695n. The panel h eld that with respect to t h e textual argum ent m ade by TID, the language of § 695 n , whether considered in isolation or in the context of the rest o f

* This summ ary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It h as been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.T UL E LAK E I R R I G A T I ON D I S T R

I C T V

. U SFW S 4

the Kuchel Act, was unam biguous. The panel held that it did not, therefore, need to p roceed to step two of the Ch e v r on analysis. The panel concluded that the Kuchel Act required the Service to regulate the pattern of lease land agriculture in
t h e refuges to ensure consistency with proper w aterfo wl

m anagem ent.

Second, TIL argued that agriculture was a “purpose,” not

a “use,” of the Tu l e Lake and Lower Klam ath Refuges, and
t h a t a com

patibility determ ination by the Service wa s th erefore not authorized un der the Refuge A ct. T h e panel rejected TID’s argum ent that agriculture was a co e qu al
purpose rather than a “use” within the m eaning of the Refuge Act. W ith respect to the textual argum ent m ade by TID, the language of § 695 l was unam b iguous, m aking it unnecessary to proceed to step two of t h e Ch evron analysis. The panel held that the Refuge Act perm itted agricultural “use” within the K la ma t h Refuge Com plex only when the Service determ ines that it is “com

patible with the m ajor p urposes” for which the area was established.

The p anel held that under both the Ku c h el and Refuge Acts the Service was required to ensure that agricultural use of leased land in the Lower Klam ath and Tule Lake Refuges

was “consistent” with (under the Kuchel Act) and “com p atible” with (under the R efuge Act) “proper wildlife

m anagem ent.” The panel further hel d t h at the regulation in the EIS/CCP of agricultural uses of lease land was a proper exercise of the Service’s au t h ority under the Kuchel and Refuge Acts.T UL E LAK E I R R I G A T I ON D I S T R

I C T V

. U SFW S 5

C OUNSEL

Brittany K. Johnson (argued), Paul S. S imm ons, and Alexis K. Stevens, Som ach Simmo n s & Dunn, PC, Sacram ento, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Andrew M. Bernie (argued), A ndrew C. Mergen, and Ellen J. Durkee, Attorne y s ; Jean E. W illiam s, Acting Assistant Attorney G eneral; Environm ent and Natura l Resources Division, United States Departm ent of Justice, W ashington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellees.

Maura C. Fahey (argued) and O liver J. H

. S tiefel, C rag Law Center, P ortland, Oregon, for Intervenor-DefendantsAppellees.

Tim othy B eau Ellis,Vial Fotheringham LLP, Lake Oswego, Oregon, for am ici curiae Oregon Farm Bureau Federation, Klam ath-Lake County Farm Bureau, California Farm Bureau Fed eration, Modoc County Farm Bureau, and Siskiyou County Farm

Bureau.T UL E LAK E I R R I G A T I ON D I S T R

I C T V

. U SFW S 6

OPINION

W . FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:

In January 2017, the Unit e d S tates Fish and W ildlife Service ( “ Service”) issued a Record of Decision (“ROD”) adopting a com

bined Environm ental Im

pact S tatem ent and a Com prehensive Conservation Plan (“EIS/CCP”) for five o f the six wildlife refuges in the Klam ath Basin N ational W ildlife Refuge C om

p lex (“Klam at h Refuge Com plex” o r “Com plex”) in southern Oregon and n orthern California. This appeal is o ne of four consolidated appeals from a district
court decision rejecting various challenges to the S ervice’s action.

Tul elake Irrigation District and associated agricultural
groups (collective l y, “TID”) have interests in leased agricultural land (“lease land ” ) i n the Tule Lake and L ower Klam ath Refuges. In the appeal before u s, TID brought suit in federal district court alleging that, in im posing restrictions

on the agricultural uses of lease land in those refuges, the Service violated the Kuchel Act of 1964 (“Kuchel Act”), the National W ildlife R efuge System Im provem ent Act as

am ended by the Refuge Im p rovem ent Act ( “Refuge Act”), the National E nvironm ental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and the Clean W ater Act (“CWA”). The district court granted

summ ary judgm ent to the Service.

On appeal, TID argues only that the Service violated the Kuchel and Refuge Acts. TID argues that i n ap p r oving the EIS/CCP the S ervice m isconstrued the Kuchel Act to require the Service to regulate uses of leased agricultural land in the
two refuges to ensure that the uses are “consi s t e nt” with “proper wildfowl m anagem ent.” 16 U.S.C. § 695n.T UL E LAK E I R R I G A T I ON D I S T R

I C T V

. U SFW S 7

According to TI D, the Kuchel A ct does not authorize the Service to re g u l a te uses of lease land to ensure such consistency. TID further argues that the Service

m isconstrued the Refuge Act as requiring th e Se rvice to regulate uses of lease land to ensure that thos e u ses are “com p atible with the m ajor purposes for which s u ch [refuges]

were established.” 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(d)(1)(A). TID argues that agriculture is a “purpose,” not a “use,” of the T ule Lake and Lower K lam ath Refuges, and that a co mpatibility determ ination by the Service is therefo re n o t aut h o rized under the Refuge Act.

W e affirm

the district court.

I. Background

A. Statutory Background

The Klam ath Refuge Com plex is located in northern California and southern Oregon. The Com plex encom

passes approxim ately 200,000 acres and c o n s i s ts of six separate nation al wildlife refuges: the Tule Lake Refuge, the L ower Klam ath Refuge, the Upper Klam ath Refuge, the Clear Lake Refuge, the K lam ath Marsh Refuge, and t h e Be ar Valley Refuge. The EIS/CCP describes the Com plex as “internationally reno wn ed for its great abundance and diversity of birdlife.” TID challe n g es restrictions in the EIS/CCP on agricultural uses o f l e a se land in the Tule Lake and Lower Klam ath Refuges.

The Kuchel Act, enacted in 1964, codified a com p rom ise between wildlife conserv ation groups and agricultural i n t e rests. The Act applies to four of the wildlife refuges i n the Klam ath Refuge Com plex—the Tule Lake, L owerT UL E LAK E I R R I G A T I ON D I S T R

I C T V

. U SFW S 8

Klam ath, Upper Klam ath, and Clear Lake Refuges. 16 U.S.C. § 695k. As relevant to this appeal, the A ct provides:

Notwithstanding any other provisions o f law
, all lands owned by the Un i ted States lying within the Ex e cu t ive order boundaries of the Tule Lake National W ildlife Refuge, the Lower Klam ath National W ildlife Refuge, the Upper Klam ath National W ildlif e R ef u g e, and the Clear Lake W ildlife Refuge are hereby dedicated to wildlife conservation. S u ch lands shall be administered b y the Secretary of the Interior for the ma j or purpose of

w a t e r f o w l m a n a g e me n t

, b u t w i t h f

u l l consi d eration to optimum agricultural use that is consistent therewith.

Id. § 695 l (em p hases added). The Act further provides:

The Secretary shall, con sistent with proper waterfowl management , continue the present pattern of leasing [specified] reserved lands

.

. . wit h i n the E xecutive order boundaries o f the Lower Klam ath and Tule Lake Na t ional W ildlife Refuges . . . .

Id. § 695n (em

phasis added).

Two years after enacting the Kuchel Ac t , Congress enacted the National W ildlife Refuge System Adm inistration Act of 1 966—later am en ded in 1997 by the Refuge Im provem ent Act—to g o v ern the entire National W ildlife Refuge System
, including refuges i n t h e Klam ath RefugeT UL E LAK E I R R I G A T I ON D I S T R

I C T V

. U SFW S 9

Co m plex. W e refer to the 1966 Act, together with the 1 9 9 7

am endm ent, as the “Refuge Act.” The Refuge Act declares that “each re fu g e s hall b e m anaged to fulfill the m ission o f
t he System
, as well as the specific purposes for which t h at refuge was established.” 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)( 3)(A). The Act defines the m ission of the System as “a dminister[ing] a national network of lands and waters for th e conservation,

m anagem ent, and where appropria t e , r estoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resou r ces and their habitats within the United States.” Id. § 6 68dd(a)(2). The Act requires the Secretar y o f the Interior to “ensure that

. . . the purposes o f each refuge are carried out.” Id. § 668dd(a)(4)(D). The A ct

au t horizes the Secretary to “perm it the use of any [ refuge]

. . . for any purpose

. . . wh e ne ver he determines that such

uses are compatible with the major purposes for which such

areas w ere established .” Id. § 668dd(d)(1)(A) (em phases added).

The Refuge Act requires the Secretary to “pro p o se a

com prehensive con s e rvation plan for each refuge or related

com plex o f refuges”; “ p ub lish a notice of opportunity for pub lic comm ent in the F ederal Register on each proposed conservation plan”; “issue a f inal conservation plan for each planning unit consistent with the provisions of [the] Ac t”; and, “not less frequently than 15 years after the date o f issuance of a conservation plan

. . . and every 15 years thereafter, revise the conservation p lan as m ay be necessary.” Id. § 668dd(e)(1)(A). The challenged EIS/CCP w as adopted by the Service pursuant to this requirem ent.

B. Factual Background

I n t h e spring of 2010, the Service began the form al scoping process f

o r the first ever Com p r e h ensiveT UL E LAK E I R R I G A T I ON D I S T R

I C T V

. U SFW S 10

Conservation Plan for the Klam ath R efuge Com plex. In May 2016, the Service issue d a dr a ft CCP, accom panied by an EIS. After soliciting public comm ent s t o the draft, the Service filed the final joint E IS/CCP in D ecem ber 2016. The Service issued the ROD in January 2017.

A CCP is “a programm atic d ocum ent intended to analyze proposed m anagem ent actions o n a conceptual level,” except in those cases where suffi c ient inform ation is available to provide project-specific analysis. The EIS/CCP at issue here contains the Service’s refuge m anagem ent strategies f o r five of the six refuges in the Klam ath Refuge C om plex. For m any y ea r s prior to the prom

ulgation of the EIS/CCP, portions o f both the Tule Lak e a n d Lower K lam ath Refuges had been leased by the g overnm ent to private entities f or agricultural

use. I n t he EIS/CCP, the Service adopted m anagem ent strategies that required m odifications to agricultural uses on lease land in both refuges.

The Service b ased the EIS/CCP’s required m odifications of agricultural uses o n the leased land on its interpretations o f the Kuchel and Refuge Acts. In Appendix M to the EIS/CCP, the Service provided an extensive analysis of the Kuchel Act. The S ervice wrote that “‘proper waterfowl m anagem ent’ is the major purpo s e o

f the Act .” (Em

phasis added.) The Service added:

[T]here are additional s e c ondary refuge
purposes rela te d to agriculture derived from the Kuchel A ct. The Kuchel Act directs that the Secretary continue the “present pattern o f l ea s i n g , ” ma xi mi z e l e a s e r e v e n u e s i n specifically identified areas of the refuge s, and optim ize agriculture, all consistent withT UL E LAK E I R R I G A T I ON D I S T R

I C T V

. U SFW S 11

waterfowl m anagem ent.

. . . Be c a use the Kuchel Act provides that agricultural leasing will continue in specific areas of the refuges if

c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p r o p e r w a t e r f o w l management, the Service must cont inually evaluate agricultural uses and cropping patterns to ensure that the y a re consistent with proper waterfowl management.

(Em phasis added.)

The S ervice interpreted the Refuge Ac t t o require the

s ame evaluation of agricultural uses as the Kuchel Act. In Appendix G to the EIS/CCP, the Service wrote, “In reviewing the language in both statutes, the Service concluded that the
term ‘consistent therewit h ’ in the K uchel Act has the sam e

m eaning as ‘compatible’ under the [Refuge Act].”

For the Tule Lake Refuge, the Service c on sidered three agricultural m ana g e m e nt alternatives. One was a no-action alternative. The o ther two alternatives contained provisions regulating agricultural uses on lease land in the refuge, such

as requiring a lessee to leave an increased acreage of standing grain unharvested for d ap pling duck and geese, and
exp a n d in g a flooding program known as the “walking wetlands” program

. The Service selected Al t e rn ative C, which included expansions o f b oth the unharvested standing grain requirem ent and the w alking wetlands program

. Under the EIS/CCP, lease land contracts on the Tule Lake Refuge

are a l s o subject to additional conditions, such as a requirem ent to flood lease lands post-harvest, restrictions on harve sting m ethods, and a prohibition of post-harvest field work.T UL E LAK E I R R I G A T I ON D I S T R

I C T V

. U SFW S 12

For the Lower Klam ath Refuge, the Service c o n s idered four alternatives. One was a no-action alternative. The other three alternatives contained provisions applicable to agriculture on leased l an d in the refuge, sim ilar to those for the leased lan d in the Tule Lake Refuge. The Service selected Alternative C, which included an increas e in the unharvested grain r e quirem ent, a requirem ent for annual Special Use Perm it (“SUP”) applications by the Bureau o f Reclam ation to ensure support of waterfowl habitats, and an inc r e a s e of flood fallow agricultural practice “if needed to achieve habitat objectives.”

II. Proceedings Below

A m agistrate judge issued a Report and Recomm endation in which he recomm ended granting summ ary judgm ent to the Service. The district court adopted the recomm endation o f the m agistrate judge in its entirety and entered summ ary judgm ent to the Service. TID tim ely appealed.

III. Standard of Review

“W e review summ ary judgm ent rulings de novo.” Native Ecosystems Council v. Marten
, 883 F.3d 783, 789 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Defs. of Wildlife v. Zinke
, 856 F.3d 1 248, 1256 (9th Cir. 2017)). When reviewing an agency ’ s statutory interpretation, we apply Chevron, USA, Inc. v

. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). W e first ask “whether Congress has directly spoken to the p recise question at iss u e

. ” Id. at 842. If it has not, we defer to the agency’s construction as long as it “is based on a perm issible construction of the statute.” Id. at 843.T UL E LAK E I R R I G A T I ON D I S T R

I C T V

. U SFW S 13

IV. Argum ents on Appeal

TID argued in the district court and argues h e re t hat the EIS/CCP’s requirem ents, applicable to leased agricultural lands in the Tule Lake and Lower Klam ath Refuges, violate the Kuchel and Refuge Acts. First, TID argues that under the Kuchel A ct “all lease land farm ing is autom atically consistent with waterfowl m anagem ent,” and that the Service is the r e fo r e not authorized to lim it agricultural uses on leased land in the two refu g e s t o ensure “consistency” with proper waterfowl m anagem ent. Second, TID argues under the Refuge A ct that lease land farm ing i s a “purpose,” not a “use,” of t h e Klam ath Refuges, and that the Service is therefore not authorized to regulate agriculture practi ces to

ensure “com

patibility” with the p urposes of the refuges. W e address each argum ent in turn.

A . The Kuchel Act

TI D a rgues that the K

uchel Act d oes not authorize th e Service to regu l a t e agricultural u ses of lease land in the refuges to ensure consistency with “ proper waterfowl

m anagem ent.” TID relies on § 695n of the Act to support its
argum ent. W e quoted § 695n above. For the convenience o f the reader, here it is again in relevant part:

The Secretary shall, consist ent with proper wat erfowl management , continue the present pattern of leasing [specified] reserved lands

.

. . within the Executiv e o r der boundaries o f the Lower Kla ma th and Tule Lake National W ildlife Refuges . . . .T UL E LAK E I R R I G A T I ON D I S T R

I C T V

. U SFW S 14

16 U.S.C. § 695n (em

phasis added). TID argues that because the phrase “consistent w ith proper waterfowl m anagem ent” is set off by comm as it is a “nonrestrictive” clause. TID writes in its brief to us: “‘Consistent with proper waterfowl

m anagem ent’ is not an operative phrase in the sentence. It is

a n onrestrictive clause that, by definition, is not essential t o the m eaning of the sentence.” TID argues that the c l ause sim ply clar i fies that “the present pattern of leasing is consistent with proper waterfowl m anagem ent.” (Em phasis in original.)

Even if we were to consider the la n g u a ge of § 695n in isolation f rom the rest of the Kuchel Act, we would d isagree. When construing a statute, courts should “avoid any statutory interpretatio n that renders any section superfluous.” Cent. Mont. Elec. P ower Co-op, Inc. v. Adm’r of Bonneville P ower Admin.
, 84 0 F. 2 d 1472, 1478 (9th Cir. 1988). This canon h o lds true, as well, for interpretations of language w ithin a single section. S

ee Lockhart v. United States
, 577 U.S. 347, 354

– 57 (2016). TI D a dm its that its p roposed interpretation of § 695n would render superfluous the phrase “consistent with proper waterfowl m anagem ent.” In contrast, the Service’s interpretation gives the phrase a d istinct m eaning and function within the section. Unde r the S ervice’s interpretation, t h e p hrase requires the Service to ensure that the agricultural uses of lease land are consistent with proper waterfowl m anagem ent.

However, we do not con s i d e r t h e language of § 695n in isolation. Rather, as T ID itself recognizes, we m ust construe it in light of the rest of the Kuchel Act. Even if the m eaning of § 695n were unclear, “[i]t is necessary and required that an interpretation of a phrase of uncertain reach is not confined to

a single sentence when the text of the whole st atu t e givesT UL E LAK E I R R I G A T I ON D I S T R

I C T V

. U SFW S 15

instruction as to its m eaning.” Maracich v. Spears
, 5 70 U.S. 48, 65 (2013). Unlike TID’s interpretation of § 6 95n
, the Service’s interpretation com ports with the entirety of the Kuchel Act. Other parts of the Act unam biguously prioritize wildlife m anagem ent objectives over agricultural u ses on l e a s e d land. Section 695k of the A ct specifies that th e “policy” o f Congress in the Klam ath R efuge Com plex is “to preserve intact the necessary existing h abitat for m igratory waterfowl.” 16 U.S.C. § 6 9 5k. Section 695 l
, quoted above, requires the Secretary to adm inister “all lands” in the Klam ath R efuge Com

p lex “for t h e m ajor purpose o f waterfowl m anagem ent, b ut with full consideration to optimum agricultural use that is c o n s is tent therewith. ” Id. § 695 l (em

phasis added).

W e therefore reject TID’s interpretation of § 695n. W ith respect to the textual argum ent m ade b y TID, the language o f § 695n, whether considered in isolation or i n th e context o f the rest of the K

uchel Act, is unam

biguous. W e therefore do
not need to proceed to step two of the Chevron analysis. W e hold that the K

uchel Act requires the S ervice to regulate the pattern of le ase land agriculture in the refuges to ensure consistency with proper waterfowl m anagem ent.

B. The Refuge Act

The Refuge Act requires a CCP to “identify and describe

. . . the purposes of each refuge.” 1 6 U. S .C. § 668dd(e)(2)(A). The Secretary m ay “perm it the use of any

a r ea” within a refuge “whenever [s]he determ ines that s u c h

uses are com

patible with the m ajor purposes for which such

areas w ere established.” Id. § 668dd(d)(1)(A). Subject to an

e x c e pt i on not relevant here, the Secretary “shall not

. . . exp a n d
, renew, or extend an existing use of a refuge, unlessT UL E LAK E I R R I G A T I ON D I S T R

I C T V

. U SFW S 16

the Secretary has determ ined that the u s e is a com patible use.” Id. § 6 6 8dd(d)(3)(A)(i). A “com patible use” is a “use of a refuge th a t

. . . will not m aterially interfere with o r detract f rom the fulfillm ent of the

. . . purposes of the refuge.” Id. § 668ee(1).

TID argues that agriculture on lease land in the refuges is

a “purpose” rather than a “use” w ithin the m eaning of t h e Refuge Act, a nd that agriculture on lease land therefore has co-equal status with w a terfowl m anagem ent. As a result, according to TID, agricultural use of lease land is not subject
to a com p atibility determ ination b y the Service. W e d isagree.

“It is an elem entary principle of statutory construction that sim ilar language in sim ilar statutes should be interpreted sim ilarly.” United States v. Sioux
, 362 F .3d 1 241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Northcross v. Bd. of Educ. of Memphis City Schs.
, 412 U.S. 4 2 7
, 42 8 (1973)); see also Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist.
, 491 U. S. 701, 738–39 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring). When the Refu g e Ac t is read in conjunction with the K

uchel Ac t , i t is apparent that agriculture on lease land in the refuges is not a “purpose” holding co-equal status with waterfowl m anagem ent, and that lease land agriculture is not insulated froma com patibility determ ination.

W e look to the Kuchel Act to understand the d i stinction drawn in the Refuge Act b etween a “purpose” and a “use.” Section 695 l of the Kuchel Act, quoted above, characterizes “waterfowl m anagem ent” as the “m a j o r purpose” of the refuges, and prov ides that agriculture is a “use.” For the convenience of the reader, here it is again in relevant part:

Notwithstanding any other provisions o f law
, [refuge] lands

. . . a r e hereby d edicated toT UL E LAK E I R R I G A T I ON D I S T R

I C T V

. U SFW S 17

wildlife conservation. S uch lands shall be administered by the S

ec r e tary o f the Interior f or th e ma

j o r p u r p o se o f w a t e r f o wl management, but w ith full c onsideration to optimum agricultural use that is consist ent therewith.

1 6 U.S.C. § 695 l (em

p h ases added). W e recognize that t h e Executive Orders establishing the Lower Klam ath and Tule Lake Refuges in the 1920s characterized reclam ation ( i.e.
, agriculture) a s a purpose of the refuges. However, as m ade clear b y its introductory phrase “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law,” § 695 l supersedes those orders.

We therefore reject TID’s argum ent that agriculture i s a co-equal purpose rather t h a n a “use” within the m eaning o f the Refuge Act. W ith r e s p ec t to the textual argum ent m ade by T ID, the lan g u a g e o f § 695 l is unam biguous, m aking it unnecessary to proceed to step two o f the Chevron analysis. W e hold that the Refuge Act perm its agricultural “use” within the K lam ath Refuge Com ple x o n l y when the Service determ ines that it is “com

p atible with the m ajor purposes” for which such the area was established.

Conclusion

W e hold under both the Kuchel and Refuge Acts that the Service is required to ensure that agricultural use of leased land in the Lower Klam ath and Tule Lake Refuges is “co nsistent” with (Kuchel Act) and “com patible” with (Refuge Act) “proper wild l i f e m anagem ent.” W e hold, further, that the regulation in the EIS/CCP of agricultural usesT UL E LAK E I R R I G A T I ON D I S T R

I C T V

. U SFW S 18

of lease land is a proper exercise of the Service’s au t h o rity under the Kuchel and Refuge Acts.

AFFIRMED.