Opinion ID: 6500751
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Refuges

Text: We begin with Lower Klamath and Tule Lake, which relate to CBD’s challenge. In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt established Lower Klamath Refuge as a preserve for native birds. This Refuge falls within the Klamath Reclamation Project, a massive system of water diversion and distribution that dates to the early twentieth century and that serves approximately 200,000 acres of croplands and 50,000 acres of Refuges and wetlands. The water network reflects more than a century of combined efforts by the federal government and the States of California and Oregon to distribute water to various stakeholders in the Basin region. Lower Klamath Refuge consists of about 54,000 acres, of which 5,605 are leased for commercial farming. Barley, oats, and wheat are all grown on leased lands in Lower Klamath Refuge. Additional land within Lower Klamath Refuge is cooperatively farmed by FWS and private parties, subject to sharecrop agreements. While there are some differences between the agricultural practices employed on leased and cooperatively farmed lands, all farming is subject to FWS’s ultimate control. Although the entire Basin has experienced drought conditions, Lower Klamath Refuge in particular has suffered from severe water shortages in recent years. Disagreements 12 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND over water in the Klamath Basin remain the subject of longrunning disputes in state and federal courts, and have also led to multilateral negotiations that have been ongoing for years. While we discuss these issues in greater detail in our companion opinions, the point for present purposes is that FWS in its Conservation Plan was constrained to devise Refuge management strategies based on the limited availability of water. Tule Lake Refuge was established in 1928 as a refuge for wild birds and animals. Like Lower Klamath, it falls within the Klamath Reclamation Project. Tule Lake Refuge consists of about 39,000 acres, of which roughly 14,800 are leased for commercial farming. Tule Lake lease crops include grains, alfalfa, potatoes, onions, and horseradish. FWS and private parties cooperatively farm additional land in the Refuge. Relevant to both Tule Lake and Lower Klamath—and CBD’s challenges to the Conservation Plan—are Congress’s directives that these Refuges be used for both conservation and agricultural purposes. In 1964, Congress passed the Kuchel Act, see 16 U.S.C. §§ 695k–695r, which provides that “all lands” within the subject Refuges are “dedicated to wildlife conservation” and are to be administered “for the major purpose of waterfowl management, but with full consideration to optimum agricultural use that is consistent therewith.” Id. § 695l. Mindful of its obligations under the Kuchel Act, FWS in the Conservation Plan authorized continued agriculture in both the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Refuges. In doing so, FWS incorporated into the Conservation Plan for all farmed lands an integrated pest management (IPM) plan intended to “ensure that all potential pest management strategies [are] considered for use (including CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 13 physical, cultural, biological, and chemical),” based on considerations of “human safety, environmental integrity, effectiveness, and cost.” Pest prevention options under the IPM plan include “crop rotation, cover crops, late or early planting dates, crop variety selection, tillage practices, and water and fertilizer management, as well as biological and chemical controls.” The IPM plan and associated best management practices “for mixing, handling, and applying pesticides” are included in the stipulations in the lease agreements. The IPM plan extended an existing IPM plan that had been in place on the Refuges since 1998. FWS incorporated an established Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) process into the IPM plan. The purpose of the PUP process is “to evaluate the specifics of proposed chemicals, treatment sites, application methods, and sensitive aspects of use.” A PUP committee administers the PUP process and oversees the approval of pesticides on the Refuges. That committee consists of representatives from FWS, the Bureau of Reclamation, and others “with expertise in integrated pest management, pesticide toxicology, crop production, land management, wildlife biology and the Endangered Species Act.” Upon their review of pesticide data and ecological risk assessments, PUP committee members “determine whether or not a proposed pesticide use presents excessive risk to Refuge wildlife resources and is consistent with Interior and Service regulations and policies.” The Conservation Plan explained that the “decision to approve or disapprove a new chemical is based on extensive toxicity data, proposed use of the pesticide, environmental conditions, degradation rates, solubility, and availability of other cultural, biological, or less toxic alternatives.” In addition to complying with applicable federal laws and its own regulations regarding pesticides, FWS engages in a 14 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND variety of management practices on the Refuges to further limit the adverse effects of pesticides, including the use of “no spray zones” and specially approved pesticides near water. The Conservation Plan does not approve any particular pesticide for use on any Refuge; instead, it created a series of processes for evaluating pesticides and managing their use.