Wilderness Society v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Citation353 F.3d 1051
Decision Date30 December 2003
Docket NumberNo. 01-35266.,01-35266.
PartiesTHE WILDERNESS SOCIETY; Alaska Center for the Environment, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Rebecca L. Bernard and Jack K. Sterne, Trustees For Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

Kathryn E. Kovacs, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C., for the defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, James K. Singleton, Chief Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. CV-98-00409-JKS.

Before: Mary M. SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, Harry PREGERSON, Stephen REINHARDT, T.G. NELSON, Michael Daly HAWKINS, Barry G. SILVERMAN, Kim McLane WARDLAW, William A. Fletcher, Ronald M. GOULD, Marsha S. BERZON, and Richard R. CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

GOULD, Circuit Judge.

We consider an action brought by the Wilderness Society and the Alaska Center for the Environment ("Plaintiffs") challenging a decision by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), to grant a permit for a sockeye salmon enhancement project ("Enhancement Project") that annually introduces about six million hatchery-reared salmon fry into Tustumena Lake, the largest freshwater lake in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge ("Kenai Refuge") and the Kenai Wilderness. Plaintiffs assert that the USFWS permit for the Enhancement Project violated the Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1131-1136, by offending its mandate to preserve the "natural conditions" that are a part of the "wilderness character" of the Kenai Wilderness, id. §§ 1131, 1133, and by sanctioning an impermissible "commercial enterprise" within a designated wilderness area. Id. § 1133(c). Plaintiffs also claim that the Enhancement Project violates the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. §§ 668dd-668ee ("Refuge Act"), because the project is not consistent with the purposes of the Kenai Refuge as set forth in the Refuge Act. Id. § 668dd. The district court denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and sua sponte entered summary judgment in favor of the USFWS. After final judgment was entered a timely appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We conclude that the district court erred in finding that the Enhancement Project is not a "commercial enterprise" that Congress prohibited within the designated wilderness. We reverse and remand so that the final decision of the USFWS may be set aside, the Enhancement Project enjoined, and judgment entered for Plaintiffs.

I
A

The area now known as the Kenai Refuge has been recognized as protected wilderness by the federal government for more than sixty years.1 In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an Executive Order designating about two million acres of land on Alaska's Kenai Peninsula, including Tustumena Lake, as the Kenai National Moose Range for the purpose of "protecting the natural breeding and feeding range of the giant Kenai moose." Exec. Order No. 8979, 6 Fed. Reg. 6471 (Dec. 16, 1941).

In 1964 Congress passed the Wilderness Act, which established the National Wilderness Preservation System with the explicit statutory purpose "to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition." 16 U.S.C. § 1131(a). Congress thereby expressed support for the principle that wilderness has value to society that requires conservation and preservation. As President Lyndon B. Johnson reportedly said upon signing of the Wilderness Act in 1964, "[i]f future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park Wilderness Management Plan 1-2 (1989), available at http://www.nps.gov/grca/wilderness/documents/ sec-one.pdf.2

The Wilderness Act required the Secretary of the Interior to make recommendations to the President as to the suitability of existing national parks, refuges, and game ranges for preservation as wilderness. 16 U.S.C. § 1132(c). Upon recommendation of the President, Congress was empowered to designate existing national park, wildlife refuge, and game range lands as wilderness. Id.3

Two years after enacting the Wilderness Act, Congress passed the Refuge Act for the purpose of "consolidating the authorities relating to the various categories of areas that are administered ... for the conservation of fish and wildlife." 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(1). In furtherance of this goal, the Refuge Act established the "National Wildlife Refuge System," under the administration of USFWS. Id.

In 1980, Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act ("ANILCA"), Pub.L. No. 96-487, Title III, § 702(7), 94 Stat. 2371 (1980), to control the management of Alaska refuge lands. ANILCA expanded the Kenai National Moose Range by nearly a quarter-million acres, renamed it the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, ANILCA § 303(4); 16 U.S.C. § 668dd notes, and further set aside 1.35 million acres of the Refuge, including Tustumena Lake, as the Kenai Wilderness, a designated wilderness pursuant to Congress's authority to protect lands under § 1132(c) of the Wilderness Act. ANILCA § 702(7); 16 U.S.C. § 1132(c) & notes. ANILCA recited that the purposes of the Kenai Refuge encompass, among other aims, the "conserv[ation of] fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity." ANILCA § 303(4).

B

Tustumena Lake lies near the western edge of the Kenai Refuge and within the Kenai Wilderness. Tustumena Lake is the largest freshwater lake located within the Kenai Refuge and is the fifth largest freshwater lake in the State of Alaska. The lake's outlet is the Kasilof River, which drains into the Cook Inlet, a tidal estuary that flows into the Gulf of Alaska and the Pacific Ocean.

As a result of its remote location, the ecosystem around and within Tustumena Lake is in a natural state. This ecosystem supports several species of anadromous fish, including sockeye salmon, which spawn within the Kasilof River watershed. A commercial fishing fleet, operating outside the boundaries of the Kenai Refuge, intercepts and harvests these sockeye salmon during their annual run from the Gulf of Alaska back to the Kasilof River, Tustumena Lake, and other spawning streams.

The antecedents of the present Enhancement Project date back to 1974, when the Alaska Department of Fish and Game ("ADF & G") first conducted a sockeye salmon egg collection at Tustumena Lake as part of a research project designed to test the ability of the ecosystem to produce fish. The eggs were incubated at the Crooked Creek Hatchery, outside of the Kenai Refuge, and the resulting fry were stocked outside of the Kenai Refuge in the spring of 1975. In 1976, fry were first released into Tustumena Lake, and since have been released into Tustumena Lake in all but two subsequent years. The number of fry stocked yearly in Tustumena Lake has ranged from a low of 400,000 in 1978 to a high of 17,050,000 in 1984. Since 1987, the number of fry released annually into the lake has been slightly greater than 6 million.

Before 1980, ADF & G operated the Enhancement Project without a special use permit, and ADF & G did not seek permits for the operation of the project. In 1980, following passage of ANILCA, the USFWS's Refuge Manager for the Kenai Refuge notified ADF & G that special use permits would be required for all ongoing projects within the Refuge. In 1985, the USFWS and ADF & G entered into a Memorandum of Understanding that allowed ADF & G annually to obtain a special use permit for the Enhancement Project to study the effect of stocking on native lake fish and on the incidence of disease within the fish population.

In 1989, the USFWS and ADF & G reached a joint agreement that by 1993 a decision should be made either to discontinue the research project at Tustumena Lake or to elevate it to enhance commercial fishing operations for the benefit of the Cook Inlet fishing industry. In a 1992 report, ADF & G requested that the project become an operational enhancement project. This report cited two reasons for conversion of the project. First, ADF & G concluded that the risk of adverse impacts on the Tustumena Lake ecosystem appeared to be lowered at a stocking rate of about 6 million fry per year. Second, ADF & G noted that, beginning in fiscal year 1992, a reduced state budget would require curtailing project evaluation. In 1993, ADF & G entered into a contract with the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association ("CIAA") to staff and run the Crooked Creek Hatchery and its hatchery programs.

The CIAA is a private, non-profit corporation "comprised of associations representative of commercial fishermen in the region" as well as "other user groups interested in fisheries within the region." Alaska Stat. § 16.10.380(a) (2003). According to the USFWS's final Environmental Assessment of the Enhancement Project, the CIAA is "organized for the purpose of engaging in salmon enhancement work throughout the Cook Inlet Region." The mission statement of the CIAA, according to the Environmental Assessment, is to:

(1) protect self-perpetuating salmon stocks and the habitat upon which they depend; (2) rehabilitate self-perpetuating salmon stocks; (3) rehabilitate salmon habitat and (4) maximize the value of the Cook Inlet ... common property salmon resources by applying science and enhancement technology to supplement the value attained from protection and habitat...

To continue reading

Request your trial
131 cases
  • Earl v. Boeing Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • 27 janvier 2021
    ..." Contender Farms, L.L.P. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric. , 779 F.3d 258, 269 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Wilderness Soc'y v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. , 353 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2003) ).In § 1114(f)(1), Congress explicitly identified the subjects of its command—"the Board" and "any agency recei......
  • Coeur D'Alene Tribe of Idaho v. Hammond
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 19 août 2004
    ...analysis of the Hayden-Cartwright Act by examining the plain meaning of the statute's language.23 Wilderness Soc'y v. United States Fish & Wildlife Servs., 353 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.2003), amended by 360 F.3d 1374 (9th Cir.2004). We also analyze the structure of the statute to inform our......
  • Southwest Center for Biological Div. V. Bartel
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 15 décembre 2006
    ...omitted). When Congress had a clear intent, the court must give effect to that intent as law. Wilderness Society v. United States FWS, 353 F.3d 1051, 1059-60 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). 6. The parties did not file the voluminous AR because this lawsuit is limited to seven of species discussed......
  • Vigil v. Leavitt
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 10 mai 2004
    ...States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 227-31, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001); Wilderness Soc'y v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 353 F.3d 1051, 1059-60, 1067-69 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc), amended by 360 F.3d 1374 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc); Pronsolino v. Nastri, 291 F.3d 1123, 1131......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Advising Noah: A Legal Analysis of Assisted Migration
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 39-5, May 2009
    • 1 mai 2009
    ...U.S.C. §§1131-1136 (2007). 108. Id . §1131(a). 109. Id . §1131(c) (emphasis added). 110. Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 353 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 111. 353 F.3d at 1058. 112. 353 F.3d at 1062. 113. 353 F.3d at 1063 n.8, 1069 n.18. in and of itself, was not an ......
  • THE EMERGING LAW OF OUTDOOR RECREATION ON THE PUBLIC LANDS.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 51 No. 1, March 2021
    • 22 mars 2021
    ...Mar. 29, 2013) (requiring Forest Service to adopt regulation over snowmobiles). (347) Wilderness Soc'y v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 353 F.3d 1051, 1062, 1066, 1069 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (enforcing the Wilderness Act's prohibition commercial enterprises, 16 U.S.C. [section] 1133(c)......
  • Case summaries.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 34 No. 3, June 2004
    • 22 juin 2004
    ...lack of jurisdiction, and denied the rest of the petitions on the merits. Wilderness Society v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 353 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), amended by 360 F.3d 1374 (9th Cir. 2004) (en Wilderness Society and the Alaska Center for the Environment (collec......
  • Three Stories About Nature: Property, the Environment, and Ecosystem Services - Keith H. Hirokawa
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 62-2, January 2011
    • Invalid date
    ...on private land that effectively enclose public lands from access). 127. See, e.g., Wilderness Soc'y v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 353 F.3d 1051, 1062, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the Act allows human use of such natural areas, but not commercial use, even to the extent......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT