FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TULELAKE IRRIGATION

DISTRICT; KLAMATH WATER

USERS ASSOCIATION; TALLY

HO FARMS PARTNERSHIP,

DBA Walker Brothers; FOUR

H ORGANICS, LLC;

WOODHOUSE FARMING AND

SEED COMPANY; TULELAKE

GROWERS ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES FISH AND

WILDLIFE SERVICE, a federal

agency of the United States

Department of the Interior;

DEB HAALAND, in her official

capacity as Secretary of the

United States Department of

the Interior; AURELIA

SKIPWITH, in her official

capacity as Director of the

United States Fish and

Wildlife Service; PAUL

SOUZA, 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

OPINION
2 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. USFWS

Wildlife Service, Pacific

Southwest Region,

Defendants-Appellees,

AUDUBON SOCIETY OF

PORTLAND, An Oregon

nonprofit corporation;

OREGON WILD, An Oregon

nonprofit corporation;

WATERWATCH OF OREGON,

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 Submitted October 5, 2021

Portland, Oregon

Filed July 18, 2022

Before: William A. Fletcher, Sandra S. Ikuta, and

Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge W. Fletcher
TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. USFWS 3

SUMMARY*

Environmental Law

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”) in an

action brought by Tulelake Irrigation District and associated

agricultural groups (collectively “TID”) alleging that, in

imposing restrictions on the agricultural uses of lease land in

the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Refuges in the Klamath

Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex in southern Oregon

and northern California, the Service violated environmental

laws.

On appeal, TID argued that the Service violated the

Kuchel Act of 1964 and the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act as amended by the Refuge Improvement

Act (“Refuge Act”). 

First, TID argued that in approving the combined

Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive

Conservation Plan (“EIS/CCP”) for five of the six wildlife

refuges in the Klamath Refuge Complex, the Service

misconstrued the Kuchel Act to require the Service to

regulate uses of leased agricultural land in the two refuges to

ensure that the uses were “consistent” with “proper wildfowl

management.” 16 U.S.C. § 695n. The panel rejected TID’s

interpretation of § 695n. The panel held that with respect to

the textual argument made by TID, the language of § 695n,

whether considered in isolation or in the context of the rest of

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
4 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. USFWS

the Kuchel Act, was unambiguous. The panel held that it did

not, therefore, need to proceed to step two of the Chevron

analysis. The panel concluded that the Kuchel Act required

the Service to regulate the pattern of lease land agriculture in

the refuges to ensure consistency with proper waterfowl

management. 

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

a “use,” of the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Refuges, and

that a compatibility determination by the Service was

therefore not authorized under the Refuge Act. The panel

rejected TID’s argument that agriculture was a coequal

purpose rather than a “use” within the meaning of the Refuge

Act. With respect to the textual argument made by TID, the

language of § 695l was unambiguous, making it unnecessary

to proceed to step two of the Chevron analysis. The panel

held that the Refuge Act permitted agricultural “use” within

the Klamath Refuge Complex only when the Service

determines that it is “compatible with the major purposes” for

which the area was established.

The panel held that under both the Kuchel and Refuge

Acts the Service was required to ensure that agricultural use

of leased land in the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Refuges

was “consistent” with (under the Kuchel Act) and

“compatible” with (under the Refuge Act) “proper wildlife

management.” The panel further held that the regulation in

the EIS/CCP of agricultural uses of lease land was a proper

exercise of the Service’s authority under the Kuchel and

Refuge Acts.
TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. USFWS 5

COUNSEL

Brittany K. Johnson (argued), Paul S. Simmons, and Alexis

K. Stevens, Somach Simmons & Dunn, PC, Sacramento,

California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. 

Andrew M. Bernie (argued), Andrew C. Mergen, and Ellen J.

Durkee, Attorneys; Jean E. Williams, Acting Assistant

Attorney General; Environment and Natural Resources

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington,

D.C.; for Defendants-Appellees.

Maura C. Fahey (argued) and Oliver J. H. Stiefel, Crag Law

Center, Portland, Oregon, for Intervenor-DefendantsAppellees.

Timothy Beau Ellis,Vial Fotheringham LLP, Lake Oswego,

Oregon, for amici curiae Oregon Farm Bureau Federation,

Klamath-Lake County FarmBureau, California Farm Bureau

Federation, Modoc County Farm Bureau, and Siskiyou

County Farm Bureau.
6 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. USFWS

OPINION

W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:

In January 2017, the United States Fish and Wildlife

Service (“Service”) issued a Record of Decision (“ROD”)

adopting a combined Environmental Impact Statement and a

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (“EIS/CCP”) for five of

the six wildlife refuges in the Klamath Basin National

Wildlife Refuge Complex (“Klamath Refuge Complex” or

“Complex”) in southern Oregon and northern California. 

This appeal is one of four consolidated appeals from a district

court decision rejecting various challenges to the Service’s

action. 

Tulelake Irrigation District and associated agricultural

groups (collectively, “TID”) have interests in leased

agricultural land (“lease land”) in the Tule Lake and Lower

Klamath Refuges. In the appeal before us, TID brought suit

in federal district court alleging that, in imposing restrictions

on the agricultural uses of lease land in those refuges, the

Service violated the Kuchel Act of 1964 (“Kuchel Act”), the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act as

amended by the Refuge Improvement Act (“Refuge Act”),

the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and the

Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The district court granted

summary judgment to the Service.

On appeal, TID argues only that the Service violated the

Kuchel and Refuge Acts. TID argues that in approving the

EIS/CCP the Service misconstrued the Kuchel Act to require

the Service to regulate uses of leased agricultural land in the

two refuges to ensure that the uses are “consistent” with

“proper wildfowl management.” 16 U.S.C. § 695n. 
TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. USFWS 7

According to TID, the Kuchel Act does not authorize the

Service to regulate uses of lease land to ensure such

consistency. TID further argues that the Service

misconstrued the Refuge Act as requiring the Service to

regulate uses of lease land to ensure that those uses are

“compatible with the major purposes for which such [refuges]

were established.” 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(d)(1)(A). TID argues

that agriculture is a “purpose,” not a “use,” of the Tule Lake

and Lower Klamath Refuges, and that a compatibility

determination by the Service is therefore not authorized under

the Refuge Act. 

We affirm the district court. 

I. Background

A. Statutory Background

The Klamath Refuge Complex is located in northern

California and southern Oregon. The Complex encompasses

approximately 200,000 acres and consists of six separate

national wildlife refuges: the Tule Lake Refuge, the Lower

Klamath Refuge, the Upper Klamath Refuge, the Clear Lake

Refuge, the Klamath Marsh Refuge, and the Bear Valley

Refuge. The EIS/CCP describes the Complex as

“internationally renowned for its great abundance and

diversity of birdlife.” TID challenges restrictions in the

EIS/CCP on agricultural uses of lease land in the Tule Lake

and Lower Klamath Refuges.

The Kuchel Act, enacted in 1964, codified a compromise

between wildlife conservation groups and agricultural

interests. The Act applies to four of the wildlife refuges in

the Klamath Refuge Complex—the Tule Lake, Lower
8 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. USFWS

Klamath, Upper Klamath, and Clear Lake Refuges. 

16 U.S.C. § 695k. As relevant to this appeal, the Act

provides: 

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law,

all lands owned by the United States lying

within the Executive order boundaries of the

Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the

Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, the

Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, and

the Clear Lake Wildlife Refuge are hereby

dedicated to wildlife conservation. Such

lands shall be administered by the Secretary

of the Interior for the major purpose of

waterfowl management, but with full

consideration to optimum agricultural use

that is consistent therewith.

Id. § 695l (emphases added). The Act further provides:

The Secretary shall, consistent with proper

waterfowl management, continue the present

pattern of leasing [specified] reserved lands .

. . within the Executive order boundaries of

the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National

Wildlife Refuges . . . .

Id. § 695n (emphasis added).

Two years after enacting the Kuchel Act, Congress

enacted the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration

Act of 1966—later amended in 1997 by the Refuge

Improvement Act—to govern the entire National Wildlife

Refuge System, including refuges in the Klamath Refuge
TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. USFWS 9

Complex. We refer to the 1966 Act, together with the 1997

amendment, as the “Refuge Act.” The Refuge Act declares

that “each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of

the System, as well as the specific purposes for which that

refuge was established.” 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(3)(A). The

Act defines the mission of the System as “administer[ing] a

national network of lands and waters for the conservation,

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish,

wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the

United States.” Id. § 668dd(a)(2). The Act requires the

Secretary of the Interior to “ensure that . . . the purposes of

each refuge are carried out.” Id. § 668dd(a)(4)(D). The Act

authorizes the Secretary to “permit the use of any [refuge]

. . . for any purpose . . . whenever he determines that such

uses are compatible with the major purposes for which such

areas were established.” Id. § 668dd(d)(1)(A) (emphases

added). 

The Refuge Act requires the Secretary to “propose a

comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge or related

complex of refuges”; “publish a notice of opportunity for

public comment in the Federal Register on each proposed

conservation plan”; “issue a final conservation plan for each

planning unit consistent with the provisions of [the] Act”;

and, “not less frequently than 15 years after the date of

issuance of a conservation plan . . . and every 15 years

thereafter, revise the conservation plan as may be necessary.” 

Id. § 668dd(e)(1)(A). The challenged EIS/CCP was adopted

by the Service pursuant to this requirement. 

B. Factual Background

In the spring of 2010, the Service began the formal

scoping process for the first ever Comprehensive
10 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. USFWS

Conservation Plan for the Klamath Refuge Complex. In May

2016, the Service issued a draft CCP, accompanied by an

EIS. After soliciting public comments to the draft, the

Service filed the final joint EIS/CCP in December 2016. The

Service issued the ROD in January 2017. 

A CCP is “a programmatic document intended to analyze

proposed management actions on a conceptual level,” except

in those cases where sufficient information is available to

provide project-specific analysis. The EIS/CCP at issue here

contains the Service’s refuge management strategies for five

of the six refuges in the Klamath Refuge Complex. For many

years prior to the promulgation of the EIS/CCP, portions of

both the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Refuges had been

leased by the government to private entities for agricultural

use. In the EIS/CCP, the Service adopted management

strategies that required modifications to agricultural uses on

lease land in both refuges. 

The Service based the EIS/CCP’s required modifications

of agricultural uses on the leased land on its interpretations of

the Kuchel and Refuge Acts. In Appendix M to the EIS/CCP,

the Service provided an extensive analysis of the Kuchel Act. 

The Service wrote that “‘proper waterfowl management’ is

the major purpose of the Act.” (Emphasis added.) The

Service added:

[T]here are additional secondary refuge

purposes related to agriculture derived from

the Kuchel Act. The Kuchel Act directs that

the Secretary continue the “present pattern of

leasing,” maximize lease revenues in

specifically identified areas of the refuges,

and optimize agriculture, all consistent with
TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. USFWS 11

waterfowl management. . . . Because the

Kuchel Act provides that agricultural leasing

will continue in specific areas of the refuges if

consistent with proper waterfowl

management, the Service must continually

evaluate agricultural uses and cropping

patterns to ensure that they are consistent

with proper waterfowl management.

(Emphasis added.)

The Service interpreted the Refuge Act to require the

same 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 therewith’ in the Kuchel Act has the same

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

For the Tule Lake Refuge, the Service considered three

agricultural management alternatives. One was a no-action

alternative. The other 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 dappling duck and geese, and

expanding a flooding program known as the “walking

wetlands” program. The Service selected Alternative C,

which included expansions of both the unharvested standing

grain requirement and the walking wetlands program. Under

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

are also subject to additional conditions, such as a

requirement to flood lease lands post-harvest, restrictions on

harvesting methods, and a prohibition of post-harvest field

work. 
12 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. USFWS

For the Lower Klamath Refuge, the Service considered

four alternatives. One was a no-action alternative. The other

three alternatives contained provisions applicable to

agriculture on leased land in the refuge, similar to those for

the leased land in the Tule Lake Refuge. The Service

selected Alternative C, which included an increase in the

unharvested grain requirement, a requirement for annual

Special Use Permit (“SUP”) applications by the Bureau of

Reclamation to ensure support of waterfowl habitats, and an

increase of flood fallow agricultural practice “if needed to

achieve habitat objectives.” 

II. Proceedings Below 

A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation

in which he recommended granting summary judgment to the

Service. The district court adopted the recommendation of

the magistrate judge in its entirety and entered summary

judgment to the Service. TID timely appealed. 

III. Standard of Review

“We review summary judgment 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 1248, 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). We

first ask “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise

question at issue.” Id. at 842. If it has not, we defer to the

agency’s construction as long as it “is based on a permissible

construction of the statute.” Id. at 843.
TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. USFWS 13

IV. Arguments on Appeal 

TID argued in the district court and argues here that the

EIS/CCP’s requirements, applicable to leased agricultural

lands in the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Refuges, violate

the Kuchel and Refuge Acts. First, TID argues that under the

Kuchel Act “all lease land farming is automatically consistent

with waterfowl management,” and that the Service is

therefore not authorized to limit agricultural uses on leased

land in the two refuges to ensure “consistency” with proper

waterfowl management. Second, TID argues under the

Refuge Act that lease land farming is a “purpose,” not a

“use,” of the Klamath Refuges, and that the Service is

therefore not authorized to regulate agriculture practices to

ensure “compatibility” with the purposes of the refuges. We

address each argument in turn.

A. The Kuchel Act

TID argues that the Kuchel Act does not authorize the

Service to regulate agricultural uses of lease land in the

refuges to ensure consistency with “proper waterfowl

management.” TID relies on § 695n of the Act to support its

argument. We quoted § 695n above. For the convenience of

the reader, here it is again in relevant part:

The Secretary shall, consistent with proper

waterfowl management, continue the present

pattern of leasing [specified] reserved lands .

. . within the Executive order boundaries of

the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National

Wildlife Refuges . . . .
14 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. USFWS

16 U.S.C. § 695n (emphasis added). TID argues that because

the phrase “consistent with proper waterfowl management”

is set off by commas it is a “nonrestrictive” clause. TID

writes in its brief to us: “‘Consistent with proper waterfowl

management’ is not an operative phrase in the sentence. It is

a nonrestrictive clause that, by definition, is not essential to

the meaning of the sentence.” TID argues that the clause

simply clarifies that “the present pattern of leasing is

consistent with proper waterfowl management.” (Emphasis

in original.) 

Even if we were to consider the language of § 695n in

isolation from the rest of the Kuchel Act, we would disagree. 

When construing a statute, courts should “avoid any statutory

interpretation that renders any section superfluous.” Cent.

Mont. Elec. Power Co-op, Inc. v. Adm’r of Bonneville Power

Admin., 840 F.2d 1472, 1478 (9th Cir. 1988). This canon

holds true, as well, for interpretations of language within a

single section. See Lockhart v. United States, 577 U.S. 347,

354–57 (2016). TID admits that its proposed interpretation

of § 695n would render superfluous the phrase “consistent

with proper waterfowl management.” In contrast, the

Service’s interpretation gives the phrase a distinct meaning

and function within the section. Under the Service’s

interpretation, the phrase requires the Service to ensure that

the agricultural uses of lease land are consistent with proper

waterfowl management.

However, we do not consider the language of § 695n in

isolation. Rather, as TID itself recognizes, we must construe

it in light of the rest of the Kuchel Act. Even if the meaning

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 statute gives
TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. USFWS 15

instruction as to its meaning.” Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S.

48, 65 (2013). Unlike TID’s interpretation of § 695n, the

Service’s interpretation comports with the entirety of the

Kuchel Act. Other parts of the Act unambiguously prioritize

wildlife management objectives over agricultural uses on

leased land. Section 695k of the Act specifies that the

“policy” of Congress in the Klamath Refuge Complex is “to

preserve intact the necessary existing habitat for migratory

waterfowl.” 16 U.S.C. § 695k. Section 695l, quoted above,

requires the Secretary to administer “all lands” in the

Klamath Refuge Complex “for the major purpose of

waterfowl management, but with full consideration to

optimum agricultural use that is consistent therewith.” Id.

§ 695l (emphasis added).

We therefore reject TID’s interpretation of § 695n. With

respect to the textual argument made by TID, the language of

§ 695n, whether considered in isolation or in the context of

the rest of the Kuchel Act, is unambiguous. We therefore do

not need to proceed to step two of the Chevron analysis. We

hold that the Kuchel Act requires the Service to regulate the

pattern of lease land agriculture in the refuges to ensure

consistency with proper waterfowl management. 

B. The Refuge Act

The Refuge Act requires a CCP to “identify and describe

. . . the purposes of each refuge.” 16 U.S.C.

§ 668dd(e)(2)(A). The Secretary may “permit the use of any

area” within a refuge “whenever [s]he determines that such

uses are compatible with the major purposes for which such

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

exception not relevant here, the Secretary “shall not . . .

expand, renew, or extend an existing use of a refuge, unless
16 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. USFWS

the Secretary has determined that the use is a compatible

use.” Id. § 668dd(d)(3)(A)(i). A “compatible use” is a “use

of a refuge that . . . will not materially interfere with or

detract from the fulfillment 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” within the meaning of the

Refuge Act, and that agriculture on lease land therefore has

co-equal status with waterfowl management. As a result,

according to TID, agricultural use of lease land is not subject

to a compatibility determination by the Service. We disagree.

“It is an elementary principle of statutory construction

that similar language in similar statutes should be interpreted

similarly.” United States v. Sioux, 362 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th

Cir. 2004) (citing Northcross v. Bd. of Educ. of Memphis City

Schs., 412 U.S. 427, 428 (1973)); see also Jett v. Dallas

Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 738–39 (1989) (Scalia, J.,

concurring). When the Refuge Act is read in conjunction

with the Kuchel Act, it is apparent that agriculture on lease

land in the refuges is not a “purpose” holding co-equal status

with waterfowl management, and that lease land agriculture

is not insulated from a compatibility determination.

We look to the Kuchel Act to understand the distinction

drawn in the Refuge Act between a “purpose” and a “use.” 

Section 695l of the Kuchel Act, quoted above, characterizes

“waterfowl management” as the “major purpose” of the

refuges, and provides that agriculture is a “use.” For the

convenience of the reader, here it is again in relevant part:

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law,

[refuge] lands . . . are hereby dedicated to
TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. USFWS 17

wildlife conservation. Such lands shall be

administered by the Secretary of the Interior

for the major purpose of waterfowl

management, but with full consideration to

optimum agricultural use that is consistent

therewith.

16 U.S.C. § 695l (emphases added). We recognize that the

Executive Orders establishing the Lower Klamath and Tule

Lake Refuges in the 1920s characterized reclamation (i.e.,

agriculture) as a purpose of the refuges. However, as made

clear by its introductory phrase “[n]otwithstanding any other

provision of law,” § 695l supersedes those orders.

We therefore reject TID’s argument that agriculture is a

co-equal purpose rather than a “use” within the meaning of

the Refuge Act. With respect to the textual argument made

by TID, the language of § 695l is unambiguous, making it

unnecessary to proceed to step two of the Chevron analysis. 

We hold that the Refuge Act permits agricultural “use” within

the Klamath Refuge Complex only when the Service

determines that it is “compatible with the major purposes” for

which such the area was established.

Conclusion

We hold under both the Kuchel and Refuge Acts that the

Service is required to ensure that agricultural use of leased

land in the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Refuges is

“consistent” with (Kuchel Act) and “compatible” with

(Refuge Act) “proper wildlife management.” We hold,

further, that the regulation in the EIS/CCP of agricultural uses
18 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. USFWS

of lease land is a proper exercise of the Service’s authority

under the Kuchel and Refuge Acts.

AFFIRMED.