National Wildlife Refuge Association v. Rural Utilities Service

The federal district court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to federal defendants and intervenor-defendant utilities in a challenge to a land exchange that granted the utilities fee ownership of land within the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge to facilitate completion of a 101-mile high-voltage transmission line. The court concluded that the action was not moot even though the transmission line project had been completed and placed in service in September 2024, but on the merits the court rejected arguments that the exchange violated the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court found that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) analysis of the land exchange—“the only reviewable federal action”—complied with NEPA because FWS considered possible environmental impacts, including climate consequences, and a reasonable range of alternatives. With respect to climate impacts, the court noted that a supplemental environmental assessment had found that the land exchange and related route modifications would not change the minor, long-term increase in greenhouse gas emissions over the previously approved transmission line project and that “very minor” climate benefits were expected from carbon sequestration resulting from management for resource conservation purposes of the new property incorporated into the refuge. The court also found that the defendants complied with NEPA’s public participation requirements.

The court preliminarily enjoined the federal defendants and developers from taking action to close an agreement to exchange 19.84 acres of land within the refuge for 35.69 acres of land held by two of the developers. The injunction also barred commencement of construction on the line through the refuge until the court had an opportunity to consider the administrative record underlying the agencies’ February 2024 decisions. The court stated that “[t]here are a number of problems with the [developers] being allowed to proceed. Most fundamentally, federal defendants and [the developers] have orchestrated the events here to preclude judicial review of the final determination until after substantial damage has already been done to what until now was the Refuge. Whatever the merits of plaintiffs’ challenge to the federal defendants’ decision to proceed with the land exchange under the relevant statutes, some meaningful review by this court is necessary to determine ‘whether that decision is supported by substantial evidence.’”

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that appeal of preliminary injunctions halting a wildlife refuge land exchange and construction of a high-voltage transmission line through the refuge was moot after the injunction was stayed and the exchange and construction of the line were completed. The Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court for a determination of whether the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction was also moot. The plaintiffs’ claims included that that the defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act, including by failing to take a hard look at climate change impacts of the project.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the effectiveness of a preliminary injunction that barred federal defendants and developers of a transmission line from taking action to close an agreement to exchange land within the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge for land held by the developers to facilitate construction of the transmission line through the refuge. Conservation groups argue that the federal defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act, including by failing to consider climate change impacts.