Opinion ID: 6500751
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Refuge Act and Kuchel Act

Text: For the same reasons that FWS’s inclusion of the PUP process for Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Refuges does not violate NEPA, it does not violate the Refuge Act or the Kuchel Act either. As we have explained, FWS’s inclusion of the PUP process reflected its reasoned scientific judgment that some pesticide applications could be necessary to ensure a continued food supply for waterfowl, and that PUPapproved pesticide applications would have only minor effects on wildlife. Just as CBD has not shown that FWS 38 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND acted unreasonably under NEPA, it has not shown that FWS failed to ensure that pesticide use is a compatible use of the Refuges or that it is not consistent with proper waterfowl management under the Kuchel Act. See 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(d)(3)(A)(i); id. §§ 695l, 695n. We thus reject CBD’s challenges to the Conservation Plan’s approach to pesticide applications on Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges.