ELR Citation: 50 ELR 20250
No(s). 3:17-cv-00013-SLG and 3:17-cv-00014-SLG (D. Alaska Nov 13, 2020) (Gleason, J.)

A district court granted in part summary judgment for DOI in a challenge to a 2016 FWS rule that prohibited certain hunting activities in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. The state of Alaska and a hunting group first challenged the Service's determination that the rule fell within a categorical exclusion, arguing that NEPA procedures applied. The court found NEPA did not apply to either the hunting restrictions in the Skilak Wildlife Recreation Area (WRA) or the brown-bear bait prohibition because they maintained the same effects on the human environment that had been in place for years, but that it did apply to firearm discharge restrictions along the Kenai and Russian Rivers because they were not previously in effect under either state or federal law. Plaintiffs next argued the rule violated the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) by trying to take over Alaska's role in managing wildlife on public lands and by misconstruing the purposes of the refuge to prioritize other uses over hunting. The court found that Congress did not intend for ANILCA to "eviscerate the primacy of federal authority over [national wildlife refuge] management," and that the rule's prohibition on brown bear baiting and restrictions on hunting in the Skilak WRA and along the rivers were valid exercises of FWS' authority to specify different uses for different areas within the refuge. Plaintiffs also argued the rule impermissibly elevated one priority use over another by prohibiting predatory hunting in the Skilak WRA and firearm discharges along the river corridors, in violation of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The court found that even though hunting had been determined to be compatible, ANILCA directed the Secretary of the Interior to set aside different portions of the refuge for different uses, and that ANILCA controlled when it was in conflict with the Improvement Act. Lastly, plaintiffs argued the rule should be set aside as arbitrary and capricious, but the court found that FWS reasonably justified its decisions to restrict or prohibit hunting in the refuge. It therefore granted summary judgment for plaintiffs with respect to their NEPA challenge regarding firearm restrictions in the river corridors, but granted summary judgment for DOI in all other respects.