Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Pritzker

Decision Date24 October 2016
Docket NumberNo. 14-35806, No. 14-35811,14-35806
Parties Alaska Oil and Gas Association ; American Petroleum Institute; State of Alaska; North Slope Borough; Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope ; Northwest Arctic Borough; Arctic Slope Regional Corporation; NANA Regional Corporation, Inc., Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. Penny Pritzker, U.S. Secretary of Commerce; National Marine Fisheries Service; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Kathryn D. Sullivan, in her official capacity as the Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and the Acting Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Samuel D. Rauch, III, in his official capacity as the Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Defendants–Appellants. Alaska Oil and Gas Association ; American Petroleum Institute; State of Alaska; North Slope Borough; Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope ; Northwest Arctic Borough; Arctic Slope Regional Corporation; Nana Regional Corporation, Inc., Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. Penny Pritzker, U.S. Secretary of Commerce; National Marine Fisheries Service; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Kathryn D. Sullivan, in her official capacity as the Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and the Acting Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Samuel D. Rauch, III, in his official capacity as the Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Defendants, and Center for Biological Diversity, Intervenor–Defendant–Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Robert Parke Stockman (argued), Meredith L. Flax, Mary E. Hollingsworth, and Katherine W. Hazard, Attorneys; John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General; Environment & Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Demian Schane, Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Commerce, Juneau, Alaska; for DefendantsAppellants.

Kristen Monsell (argued), Emily Jeffers, and Miyoko Sakashita, Oakland, California; Rebecca Noblin, Anchorage, Alaska; as and for IntervenorDefendantAppellant.

Jeffrey W. Leppo (argued) and Ryan P. Steen, Stoel Rives LLP, Seattle, Washington, for Plaintiffs-Appellees Alaska Oil and Gas Association, and American Petroleum Institute.

Bradley E. Meyen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alaska Department of Law, Anchorage, Alaska; Murray D. Feldman, Holland & Hart LLP, Boise, Idaho; Christina F. Gomez, Holland & Hart LLP, Denver, Colorado; for PlaintiffAppellee State of Alaska.

Tyson C. Kade (argued), Van Ness Feldman LLP, Washington, D.C.; Matthew A. Love, Van Ness Feldman LLP, Seattle, Washington; for PlaintiffsAppellees North Slope Borough, Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, Northwest Arctic Borough, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, and NANA Regional Corporation, Inc.

Before: Raymond C. Fisher, Richard A. Paez and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PAEZ

, Circuit Judge:

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) used climate projections to determine that the loss of sea ice over shallow waters in the Arctic would leave the Pacific bearded seal subspecies (Erignathus barbatus nauticus ) endangered by the year 2095. This case turns on one issue: When NMFS determines that a species that is not presently endangered will lose its habitat due to climate change by the end of the century, may NMFS list that species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act? The district court answered in the negative, ruling that NMFS's listing decision was arbitrary and capricious. We hold that on the basis of the administrative record, NMFS's listing decision is reasonable. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.

I.

In 2008, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a petition requesting that the Secretary of Commerce list three “sea ice seal” species as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA” or the Act), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531

–44. See 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(3) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) ) (relating to the process for consideration of a petition for rulemaking); Final Listing Rule: Threatened Status for the Beringia & Okhotsk Distinct Population Segments of the Erignathus barbatus nauticus Subspecies of the Bearded Seal, 77 Fed. Reg. 76,740 (Dec. 28, 2012) (“Listing Rule”). After a lengthy administrative process that included two rounds of peer review, several rounds of public notice and comment, and public hearings, NMFS concluded that the Okhotsk and Beringia distinct population segments (“DPS”) of the Pacific bearded seal subspecies (Erignathus barbatus nauticus ) were “likely to become ... endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout ... a significant portion of [their] range.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(20) ; Listing Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 76,740.

Plaintiffs Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA), the State of Alaska, and North Slope Borough (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed separate lawsuits challenging the listing decision under the ESA's citizen suit provision, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)

, and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706.1 Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia , that the listing decision was not based on the “best scientific and commercial data available” in violation of 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A) ; the population of bearded seals was plentiful; a lack of reliable population data made it impossible to determine an extinction threshold; NMFS's use of predictive climate projections beyond 2050 were speculative; NMFS had unreasonably “changed tack” from its previous Arctic sea-ice listing decisions; and NMFS had failed to demonstrate a causal connection between the loss of sea ice and the impact of that loss to the Okhotsk and Beringia DPS's viability. In addition, the State of Alaska alleged that NMFS failed to adequately respond to its public comments and failed to comply with the ESA's state cooperation provisions. See

id. § 1533(i) ; 50 C.F.R. § 424.18(c).

The district court denied relief with respect to the Okhotsk DPS for lack of Article III standing. Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Pritzker , No. 4:13–cv–18–RRB, 2014 WL 3726121, at *3–4 (D. Alaska July 25, 2014)

(“Pritzker ”). The district court, however, granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs on their challenge to NMFS's decision to list the Beringia DPS as a threatened species. The court concluded that NMFS's decision was arbitrary and capricious because NMFS's long-term climate projections were volatile and the agency lacked data on the bearded seal's adaptability and population trends, including “a specified time” at which the seal would reach an extinction threshold. Id. The district court also concluded that the ESA required NMFS to provide Alaska with a separate written justification for rejecting the State's comments and granted summary judgment to Alaska on that claim. Id. at *10 (citing Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Salazar , 916 F.Supp.2d 974, 1003 (D. Alaska 2013), rev'd sub nom. , Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Jewell , 815 F.3d 544 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Jewell ”)). The district court vacated the Listing Rule, explaining that NMFS's attempt to predict the bearded seal's viability beyond 50 years was “too speculative and remote to support a determination that the bearded seal is in danger of becoming extinct.” Id. at *15.

NMFS and CBD timely appealed. As we explain below, NMFS's decision to list the Beringia DPS as threatened was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise in contravention of applicable law. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.

II.

We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment to determine whether NMFS's ESA listing decision was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)

; Jewell , 815 F.3d at 554. Our review is “deferential and narrow,” requiring a “high threshold for setting aside agency action” following public notice and comment. Id . (internal quotation marks omitted). We presume an agency's action is valid, and we will affirm that action “so long as the agency ‘considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made.’ Id. (quoting Nw. Ecosys. All. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. , 475 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007)

).

III.

In October 2009, NMFS established a Biological Review Team of eight marine mammal biologists, a fishery biologist, a marine chemist, and a climate scientist to review the status of the “best scientific and commercial data available” regarding bearded seals.2 Listing Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 76,740. NMFS solicited four scientists to conduct independent peer reviews of the Review Team's report. Id. at 76,740 & 76,750. Based on the Review Team's assessment and the peer reviewers' comments, NMFS published a proposed rule listing the Beringia and Okhotsk bearded seal DPSs as threatened under the ESA. Id. ; see also Proposed Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 77,496 (Dec. 10, 2010)

.

The status and peer review reports found that the bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus ) lives throughout the Arctic and Northern Atlantic Oceans, including in the Chukchi, Beaufort, and Bering Seas; Sea of Okhotsk; Sea of Japan; and waters of Arctic Canada (Hudson and Baffin Bays), Svalbard (Norway), and Russia. Because bearded seals are widespread, have low population densities, and spend significant time under water, it is difficult to obtain a reliable estimate of their current population. Listing Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 76,742

. The bearded seal is commonly divided into two subspecies3E. b. barbatus , which primarily inhabits the Atlantic, and E. b. nauticus , which inhabits the Pacific. Noting that there were “regions of intergrading” between the Atlantic and Pacific subspecies, NMFS identified two distinct...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Oregon-California Trails Ass'n v. Walsh
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • June 17, 2020
    ...that no such 50%+ standard exists, citing another case about "likely" in the definition of "threatened." See Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Pritzker , 840 F.3d 671, 684 (9th Cir. 2016). That case says that the Service (again, actually referring to the National Marine Fisheries Service) "is not r......
  • Friends of Alaska Nat'l Wildlife Refuges v. Haaland
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • March 16, 2022
    ...the choices made," Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland , 998 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Pritzker , 840 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir. 2016) ), or the agency simply "disregard[ed] facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior poli......
  • Yurok Tribe v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • February 8, 2017
    ...the best available science, but does not require perfect information or the best science possible. Id. ; see Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Pritzker , 840 F.3d 671, 680 (9th Cir. 2016) (ESA requires action based on the best available science and does not require parties to wait for underlying re......
  • Friends of the River v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • February 21, 2018
    ...relevant factors or did not articulate "a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made." Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Pritzker, 840 F.3d 671, 675–76 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Jewell, 815 F.3d 544, 554 (9th Cir. 2016) ). The same standard applies to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Planning for the Effects of Climate Change on Natural Resources
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 47-3, March 2017
    • March 1, 2017
    ...for the management of wild and 118. Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Pritzker , Case No. 4:13-cv-00018-RRB, p. 31 (D. Alaska 2014), rev’d , 840 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 2016); Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. National Marine Fisheries Serv., No. 4:14-CV-00029-RRB, 2016 WL 1125744, at *14 (D. Alaska Mar. 17, 20......

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