The Wilderness Society and the Alaska Center for the Environment v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, an Agency of the United States

316 F.3d 913 The WILDERNESS SOCIETY and the Alaska Center for the Environment, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, an agency of the United States, Defendant-Appellee. No. 01-35266. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted August 5, 2002. Filed January 13, 2003. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Jack K. Sterne, Trustees for Alaska, Anchorage, AK, for the plaintiffs-appellants. Kathryn E. Kovacs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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 B. FLETCHER, ALARCON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. GRABER, Circuit Judge. 1 Plaintiffs, The Wilderness Society and the Alaska Center for the Environment, challenge a decision by Defendant United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) to permit a sockeye salmon enhancement project (the Project) at Tustumena Lake. Tustumena Lake is located in Alaska, within a designated wilderness area in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Plaintiffs argue that the Project violates the Wilderness Act, 16…

Plaintiffs, The Wilderness Society and the Alaska Center for the Environment, challenge a decision by Defendant United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) to permit a sockeye salmon enhancement project (the Project) at Tustumena Lake. Tustumena Lake is located in Alaska, within a designated wilderness area in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Plaintiffs argue that the Project violates the Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1131-1136 , because it contravenes that Act’s requirement to preserve the “natural condition” and “wilderness character” of the area, and because it constitutes an impermissible “commercial enterprise” within a wilderness area. Plaintiffs also allege that the Project violates the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. §§ 668dd-668ee (the Refuge Act), because it is not “compatible” with the purposes of the Refuge Act.

The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Defendant. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . We affirm.

BACKGROUND

A. Legal Framework

In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an Executive Order that designated 2 million acres on the…

dissenting:

The majority holds that, because the relevant provisions of the Wilderness Act and the Refuge Act are “materially ambiguous,” we are required to accord Chevron deference to USFS’s decision to allow the Tustumena Lake salmon enhancement project to go forward in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Because the majority’s ambiguity analysis is deeply flawed, and seeks to hold the English language to an unattainable standard of clarity — particularly in the statutory context — I respectfully dissent.

I. STATUTORY AMBIGUITY

A. Statutory Scheme

Before launching into the nuts and bolts of statutory analysis, it is useful to begin with an overview of the three main statutes at issue — the Wilderness Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (“Refuge Act”), and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (“ANILCA”) — and how they interact in the Kenai Refuge. Enacted in 1964, the Wilderness Act sets forth this statement of purpose:

16 U.S.C. § 1131 (a). Designation by Congress as a “wilderness area” triggers certain prohibitions on activities within that area, including commercial enterprises, construction of roads, use of motorized vehicles or…