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

Heading: CBD Appeal

Text: We begin with CBD’s challenges to the Conservation Plan, which are threefold. First, CBD argues that FWS failed to consider reduced-pesticide alternatives for Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Refuges. Second, CBD argues that FWS failed to take a sufficiently hard look at the effects of pesticides on these Refuges. Third, CBD argues that FWS violated the Refuge and Kuchel Acts by permitting continued pesticide use on the Refuges. These challenges lack merit. We hold that FWS did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law by continuing to use the Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) process to evaluate potential pesticide applications on the Refuges, and by allowing for pesticide use as a last resort. CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 23
First, FWS did not act unlawfully under NEPA by not considering formal reduced-pesticide alternatives for Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Refuges. “NEPA requires an EIS to describe and analyze ‘every reasonable alternative within the range dictated by the nature and scope of the proposal.’” Alaska Survival v. Surface Transp. Bd., 705 F.3d 1073, 1087 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Friends of Southeast’s Future v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 1059, 1065 (9th Cir. 1998)). But an EIS “need not consider an infinite range of alternatives, only reasonable or feasible ones.” City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1207 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting City of Carmel, 123 F.3d at 1155). And, as noted, alternatives eliminated from detailed study need only be briefly discussed. See id. In this case, the Conservation Plan considered four formal alternatives for Lower Klamath Refuge and three alternatives for Tule Lake. Each alternative, while differing in various other respects, incorporated and expanded the integrated pest management (IPM) plan that FWS had been using on the Refuges since 1998. The PUP process, by which specific pesticide applications may be studied and approved—“as a last line of defense against pests, not as the first option of control”—is just one of the IPM plan’s many pest-control components. Alternative C, FWS’s selected alternative for Lower Klamath Refuge, committed FWS to “evaluate and permit chemical applications according to Service and [Interior] policies,” “scout, map, and control priority weed species with an emphasis on protecting highpriority wildlife habitats,” and “[e]xpand use of nonpesticide tools to control invasive species in wetland and upland units (e.g., grazing, restoration plantings).” The selected alternative for Tule Lake Refuge, also Alternative C, included similar commitments. 24 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND CBD does not maintain that FWS should have considered a complete prohibition on chemical pesticide use on the Refuges. But it claims that FWS failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives under NEPA because FWS did not consider mandating a reduction in existing pesticide use. We conclude that CBD’s arguments are 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. And 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 range of alternatives that an agency must consider under NEPA is based on the purpose and need of the proposed agency action. Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 376 F.3d 853, 865 (9th Cir. 2004). So we “begin[] by determining whether or not the Purpose and Need Statement was reasonable.” Id. Here, FWS defined the purposes and needs of the Conservation Plan (which included the EIS) as “develop[ing] and implement[ing] a comprehensive 15-year management plan for the Refuge Complex consistent with refuge purposes; refuge goals and objectives; and applicable laws, regulations, and policies.” FWS further articulated particular purposes for the covered Refuges, including “provid[ing] wetland and agricultural habitats that meet food and cover requirements sufficient to support migratory waterfowl.” The agency’s explanation of the purposes and needs of its proposed action was reasonable, and CBD does not argue otherwise. The next question is whether FWS considered reasonable alternatives given the Conservation Plan’s purposes and needs. Westlands, 376 F.3d at 868. “The CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 25 touchstone for our inquiry is whether an EIS’s selection and discussion of alternatives fosters informed decision-making and informed public participation.” Id. (quoting California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 767 (9th Cir. 1982)); see also Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. Blank, 693 F.3d 1084, 1099 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that agencies are required “to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice” (quoting Presidio Golf Club v. Nat’l Park Serv., 155 F.3d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir. 1998))). In this case, FWS considered multiple pest-control methods and reasonably included a long-standing PUP process by which a committee of experts could review and, if necessary, approve, pesticide applications. FWS fostered informed public participation in the Conservation Plan, which included consideration of reducing pesticide use. During the Conservation Plan’s scoping process, which took place years before the Plan was eventually adopted, FWS solicited and received numerous public comments and held four public meetings. FWS summarized the scoping discussion in a report issued in January 2011. FWS explained that some commenters suggested that “agriculture enhances uses of the refuge[s] by many waterfowl” and that “crops supply more than 50% of feed for the Pacific Flyway.” But it recounted how others argued that “agriculture is incompatible on national wildlife refuges.” Similarly, “[m]any respondents called for totally prohibiting the use of chemicals including pesticides and fertilizers,” with some maintaining “that non-organic farming should cease.” There were also public comments about row crops, like onions, which were criticized for having “minimal wildlife use” and “requir[ing] pesticides and fertilizers.” From the beginning of the planning process, therefore, FWS provided for “informed decision-making and informed public participation” as to pesticide use on the 26 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND Refuges, and specifically whether it should be reduced. See Protect Our Cmtys. Found. v. Jewell, 825 F.3d 571, 579 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Churchill Cnty. v. Norton, 276 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2001)). Following the scoping process, FWS determined that agriculture was a compatible use of the Refuges, subject to certain stipulations. That determination is the subject of one of our companion opinions in these consolidated appeals, in which we hold that FWS’s decision to permit continued farming on Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Refuges was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. And in this case, FWS’s decision to continue allowing a process by which specific pesticide applications can be approved largely followed from the decision to continue farming certain portions of the Refuges. The Plan specifically explained that over time, agricultural crops had become an “integral” source of food for Refuge wildlife: grains grown on the Refuges “provide a rich source of carbohydrates” for waterfowl and “provide[] more food (kcal/acre) for less water than wetland plants,” which is critical given water shortages. FWS thus concluded that Refuge agricultural programs are “a component of the overall habitat management program,” and that crops grown on the Refuges are “an integral part of achieving waterfowl population objectives.” Although some crops grown on Tule Lake Refuge, like horseradish and onions, “have no food value for waterfowl,” FWS found that they were still “important crops in soil rotation for reducing pests and improving soil health,” and they had historically been permitted “to obtain maximum lease revenues while consistent with proper waterfowl management.” Crop cultivation requires pest management. Underscoring this, the Conservation Plan recounted the CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 27 history of pesticide applications in Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Refuges, dating back to 1946, citing over a dozen studies and explaining that studies show low concentrations of pesticides in water bodies and limited adverse impacts on wildlife. To that end, the Conservation Plan merely incorporates and expands an IPM plan that has now been in place on the Refuges since 1998. The Conservation Plan’s allowance of pesticides was also limited, in that the IPM plan does not itself authorize the use of any particular pesticide. Instead, it provides a rigorous process through which farmers can request permission to apply a specific pesticide to a specific crop at a specific time. For this reason, among others, FWS reasonably declined to consider alternatives so detailed as to address individual pesticides, as that would have required a wider range of alternatives than would have been reasonable given the Conservation Plan’s purposes and needs. See Westlands, 376 F.3d at 868. Adaptive management plans like the IPM plan, which provide “flexibility in responding to environmental impacts,” are permissible under NEPA. Protect Our Communities, 825 F.3d at 582. In responding to multiple public comments, FWS explained that pesticide applications are necessary to manage pests in the “highly altered nature of the refuge environment and surrounding area.” FWS thus reasonably included a process by which some pesticide applications could be approved in each of the alternatives it developed. “Those challenging the failure to consider an alternative have a duty to show that the alternative is viable.” Alaska Survival, 705 F.3d at 1087. And here, CBD has not provided a sufficient basis for questioning FWS’s determination not to further consider reduced pesticide options. 28 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND CBD acknowledges that there are “fewer options to reduce pesticide use” in Lower Klamath Refuge, given how limited the pesticide use in that Refuge already is. CBD instead argues that FWS should have considered allowing only organic farming on Lower Klamath Refuge. But FWS explained in response to public comments that it would “not make organic agriculture a strict requirement” because it “is dependent on a consistent water supply and external economic forces that are beyond [FWS’s] control.” The Conservation Plan explained in detail the challenging water shortages that Lower Klamath Refuge faces. FWS also explained that “even in organic systems[,] over time crop pests tend to build up in the system, often precipitating a need to convert land back to conventional agriculture.” FWS’s explanations for not mandating organic-only agriculture in Lower Klamath Refuge were based on its scientific judgment and are entitled to deference. See Alaska Survival, 705 F.3d at 1087 (explaining that “[w]ithout evidence to the contrary, we defer to the [agency’s] technical expertise regarding” the feasibility of a proposed alternative); Native Ecosystems, 697 F.3d at 1051 (“A court generally must be ‘at its most deferential’ when reviewing scientific judgments and technical analyses within the agency’s expertise under NEPA.” (quoting N. Plains Res. Council, Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 668 F.3d 1067, 1075 (9th Cir. 2011))). FWS therefore sufficiently explained its reasons for not considering an organic-only alternative. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a) (requiring agency to “briefly discuss the reasons” for eliminating alternatives from detailed study). As to Tule Lake Refuge, CBD argues that FWS should have limited pesticide use “to only a few herbicides” and should have disallowed the planting of “insecticideCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 29 intensive potatoes and onions,” as FWS already does on Lower Klamath Refuge. But FWS explained that row crops like potatoes and onions, despite providing limited food value for waterfowl, are nonetheless valuable in reducing crop pests and improving soil health. The Kuchel Act also specifically contemplates row crops. See 16 U.S.C. § 695n (requiring that “not more than 25 per centum of the total leased lands may be planted to row crops”). Row crops require different and additional pesticides than the crops grown on Lower Klamath Refuge, justifying the flexibility that the PUP process provides in evaluating pesticide applications on the two Refuges. CBD identifies no authority that would have required FWS to simplistically limit pesticide applications on Tule Lake Refuge to those permitted on Lower Klamath. FWS leases about 14,800 acres for farming on Tule Lake Refuge, versus only approximately 5,600 acres on Lower Klamath Refuge. It is understandable that the much larger farming area in Tule Lake would require a broader pesticide approach. The two Refuges also differ in terms of soil health, hydrology, and climate, which in turn leads to different crop-growing strategies. Given these differences, CBD has not shown that it would have been reasonable or feasible, see City of Sausalito, 386 F.3d at 1207, for FWS to impose identical restrictions on pesticide use on the two Refuges. In sum, FWS adequately explained why a process by which pesticides could be approved for use on the Refuges was essential to meeting the Conservation Plan’s purposes, and CBD has not shown that FWS unreasonably failed to address any feasible reduced-pesticide alternative. 30 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND
We next consider whether, under NEPA, FWS took a sufficiently thorough “hard look” at the environmental effects of pesticides on the Refuges in concluding that pesticides could continue to be used with minimal environmental consequences. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 982 F.3d at 734. In performing this review, we do not “fly-speck” FWS’s analysis and “hold it insufficient on the basis of inconsequential, technical deficiencies.” Swanson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Or. Env’t Council v. Kunzman, 817 F.2d 484, 492 (9th Cir. 1987)). Instead, we “employ a ‘rule of reason’ to determine whether it contains ‘a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences.’” Id. (quoting Or. Env’t Council, 817 F.2d at 492). Under NEPA, we “refrain from acting as a type of omnipotent scientist,” Tri-Valley CAREs, 671 F.3d at 1126, and “must defer to an agency’s decision that is ‘fully informed and well-considered,’” N. Alaska Env’t Ctr., 457 F.3d at 975 (quoting Save the Yaak Comm. v. Block, 840 F.2d 714, 717 (9th Cir. 1988)). The record confirms that FWS took a “hard look” at the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of its decision to readopt and extend the PUP process for reviewing potential pesticide applications on the Refuges. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.16, 1508.7, 1508.8. The Conservation Plan explained that “[e]vidence of adverse impacts associated with current pesticide use on the refuges is limited.” FWS further determined that the PUP process, which it described in considerable detail, ensures that only pesticide applications that “would likely cause minor, temporary, or localized effects to refuge biological resources and CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 31 environmental quality would be allowed for use.” The agency sufficiently explained these conclusions. The PUP process has been in use on the Refuges since it was analyzed and adopted as part of the 1998 IPM plan, which FWS incorporated into the Conservation Plan. In the Conservation Plan’s 53-page appendix dedicated solely to the IPM plan, FWS thoroughly described the PUP process and explained how the process enables careful review of pesticide applications. FWS explained that the selective use of pesticides is based upon pest ecology (including mode of reproduction), the size and distribution of its populations, site-specific conditions (e.g., soils and topography), known efficacy under similar site conditions, and the capability to utilize best management practices . . . to reduce/eliminate potential effects to non- target species, sensitive habitats, and potential to contaminate surface and groundwater. FWS has also emphasized that the PUP process is a “screening risk assessment . . . intended to be complemented by the National Pesticide Consultations done by the National Marine Fisheries Service, [FWS], and EPA.” FWS’s judgment that the PUP process is sufficiently rigorous for evaluation of pesticide applications is entitled to deference. See Native Ecosystems, 697 F.3d at 1051. Although CBD suggests that FWS was required to revisit the 1998 IPM plan’s analyses and reevaluate whether the PUP process remained sufficient, it was reasonable for FWS to decline to do so when it had no indication that the PUP process was inadequate. See Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. 32 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 767 (2004) (requiring no new EIS based on “new potential information” where it “would serve ‘no purpose’ in light of NEPA’s regulatory scheme as a whole”). Nor has CBD shown that the 1998 IPM plan’s analysis was so stale—only 12 years old at the time the planning process here began—that FWS could not reasonably rely on it. See League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Connaughton, 752 F.3d 755, 763 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that although the agency’s “surveys were aged—more than 15 years old by the time the Final EIS was released,” there “was no reliable evidence that showed their results were likely incorrect,” so the agency’s conduct was not arbitrary or capricious). That is particularly so in the absence of CBD identifying any materially changed circumstances. See 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(a) (“NEPA’s purpose is not to generate paperwork or litigation, but to provide for informed decision making and foster excellent action.”). We also reject CBD’s argument that FWS was required to examine specific pesticides in conducting the “hard look” analysis. The Conservation Plan did not approve particular pesticides, but instead re-adopted and extended the rigorous PUP process to approve pesticide applications where necessary. CBD points to nothing in NEPA or our case law that required granular evaluation of specific pesticides under these circumstances, particularly when, as here, FWS already publishes annually a complete listing of the approved pesticide applications. In any event, in an appendix to the Conservation Plan and in response to public comments, FWS included tables showing the current and potential future uses of pesticides on Lower Klamath and Tule Lake and provided a detailed spreadsheet containing information on pesticides that had been approved for use on the Refuges. The record thus reflects that FWS familiarized CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 33 itself with the specific pesticides that had been used on the Refuges. In addition to the stiff controls that the PUP process imposes, and further supporting its “hard look,” FWS based its conclusion that pesticide effects are minor on (1) an earlier analysis from the 1998 IPM plan’s Environmental Assessment (“EA”), (2) a 2007 Formal Section 7 Consultation for the Implementation of the Pesticide Use Program on Federal Leased Lands, Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges (“2007 BiOp”), and (3) recent monitoring data. Although CBD concedes that FWS properly incorporated these analyses into the Conservation Plan, CBD argues that they were insufficient to support a “hard look.” We disagree. The 1998 IPM plan’s EA supports the agency’s conclusions about the manageable effects of pesticides on the Refuges. See Tri-Valley CAREs, 671 F.3d at 1124 (explaining that “[a] court generally must be ‘at its most deferential’ when reviewing scientific judgments and technical analyses within the agency’s expertise” (quoting N. Plains, 668 F.3d at 1075)). The EA found that “[n]o mortalities have been documented from current-generation pesticides in waterfowl, fish-eating birds, or raptors on the refuges.” The EA also found “that no pesticide-related wildlife deaths ha[d] been documented on the [Refuges] since 1990.” The EA described how “waterfowl numbers have risen dramatically where new wetlands . . . have been created, despite the use of pesticides adjacent to these wetlands.” And the EA discussed a variety of studies showing declines in pesticide concentrations on the Refuges, including one that specifically found in the Tule Lake sumps “only ultratrace to nondetectable concentrations of pesticides.” See 43 C.F.R. § 46.120(a) (“When available, 34 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND the [agency] should use existing NEPA analyses for assessing the impacts of a proposed action and any alternatives.”). Consistent with the EA, the 2007 BiOp on which FWS relied similarly found that “the use of pesticides and fertilizers on federal lease lands would not likely adversely affect Lost River sucker or shortnose sucker.” In addition to these two earlier analyses, FWS relied on various other studies that supported its findings. For example, citing three past studies, FWS noted that “more recently, no pesticides have been documented in refuge waters at concentrations that are toxic to fish and wildlife.” And given the absence of material changes at the Refuges in the intervening years, FWS could reject CBD’s contention that these studies were too dated. See Native Ecosystems, 697 F.3d at 1051 (“[A]n agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts.”). Recent monitoring data underscores the Conservation Plan’s hard-look analysis and supports FWS’s view that the PUP process has not led to adverse environmental consequences. In 2007 and 2011, FWS conducted water sampling at four locations in Tule Lake adjacent to leased land farming operations (Tule Lake is the Refuge that CBD identifies as involving greater pesticide use). FWS’s sampling was conducted every two weeks during the pesticide application seasons. During the first monitoring season, of the 51 samples, 160 compounds, and 3,260 analyses that were examined, only two pesticide detections raised any concerns, and both were low-level detections. During the second monitoring season, which took place after the Conservation Plan’s scoping had concluded, only two pesticide compounds were detected, and the overall monitoring “suggest[ed] that no CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 35 pesticides are entering Tule Lake from the application of pesticides on federal lease lands.” FWS thus concluded that the data “shows that of the pesticides applied to croplands on Tule Lake Refuge only a few are present in the water body and at concentrations low enough that they should not be adversely affecting fish within the lake.” Collectively, these various findings support FWS’s determination that existing pesticide use under the PUP process did not produce adverse environmental effects on the Refuges. CBD’s remaining challenges to FWS’s hard-look analysis are equally unpersuasive. CBD complains that, even if the Conservation Plan reflects sufficient consideration of the direct effects of pesticides, FWS failed to consider indirect and cumulative effects. CBD chiefly relies on our decision in Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. United States Forest Service, 137 F.3d 1372 (9th Cir. 1998), which remanded for further analysis a Forest Service decision involving timber sales. Id. at 1382. But Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain is readily distinguishable because it involved a truly bare record. There, the Forest Service included almost no quantitative data and failed to include information about the core aspects of the proposed agency action. See id. at 1379 (explaining that the agency “ha[d] failed to even mention the number or percentage of trees” affected). In this case, by contrast, FWS has reviewed and provided extensive information about the years-long process of developing the multi-thousand-page Conservation Plan and appendices, of which pesticide use is just one component. As we have described, even as to that component, the PUP process prescribes a detailed review for every pesticide use, and FWS has incorporated and reasonably relied upon earlier analyses, including the 1998 IPM plan’s EA, the 2007 BiOp, 36 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND and recent monitoring data. FWS also provided extensive details on every pesticide that had been approved for use on the Refuges. Against this substantial body of scientific evidence, FWS’s recognition that some of the studies it relied on contained gaps, and that a lack of data made certain detailed assessments difficult, does not render the agency’s NEPA analysis inadequate. See San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 581, 592 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that an agency need not support its findings “with anything approaching scientific certainty” (quoting Indus. Union Dep’t v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 656 (1980) (plurality opinion))). In addition, FWS further addressed the indirect effects of potential pesticide applications in response to public comments, pointing out, among other things, that the PUP process itself considers indirect effects. FWS also explained that because it “would follow all pesticide label restrictions and [best management practices], pesticides would not be applied directly to, or within the no-spray buffer of, surface waters.” This meant that “indirect impacts to aquatic and terrestrial species that use refuge aquatic resources for food, cover, nesting, etc. would not be likely to occur.” As to cumulative effects, and in addition to the scientific evidence we have already discussed, the Conservation Plan included an additional section reviewing the cumulative effects of various Refuge projects. CBD identifies no authority requiring FWS to consider the cumulative effect of every pesticide application approved by the PUP process when the Conservation Plan did not approve any specific pesticides for use. See, e.g., Selkirk Conservation All. v. Forsgren, 336 F.3d 944, 964 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that FWS “may employ any method that adequately considers cumulative impacts” under the Endangered Species Act CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. HAALAND 37 (ESA) and was not required to “list, detail, and discuss each and every forest practices application”); Mont. Wilderness Ass’n v. Connell, 725 F.3d 988, 1003 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming an agency’s resource management plan in relevant part “notwithstanding the absence of a cumulative impact section” where the agency’s cumulative impact analysis was reflected elsewhere in the EIS). FWS need only study those cumulative effects that are “reasonably foreseeable,” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7, and CBD has not demonstrated that FWS acted contrary to this mandate. In sum, the Conservation Plan adopts and expands a pesticide-approval process that has been successfully used on the Refuges for over 20 years. Under the PUP process, every specific pesticide application is reviewed in detail by a committee of experts, pesticides are approved only “when other IPM methods are impractical or incapable of providing adequate control, eradication, or containment,” and pesticides are applied subject to various restrictions and best practices. Various studies have confirmed the effectiveness of the PUP process in controlling the potentially harmful effects of pesticides on the Refuges. On these facts, the Conservation Plan’s discussion of the effects of pesticides reflected the required “hard look.”
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.