In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing And § 4(d) Rule Litig..This Document Relates To:ctr. For Biological Diversity
Decision Date | 30 June 2011 |
Docket Number | Misc. No. 08–764 (EGS).MDL Docket No. 1993. |
Citation | 794 F.Supp.2d 65 |
Parties | In re POLAR BEAR ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT LISTING AND § 4(d) RULE LITIGATION.This Document Relates To:Ctr. for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Salazar,1 et al., No. 08-2113; State of Alaska v. Salazar, et al., No. 08-1352; Safari Club Int'l, et al. v. Salazar, et al., No. 08-1550; California Cattlemen's Ass'n, et al. v. Salazar, et al., No. 08–1689; Conservation Force, et al. v. Salazar, et al., No. 09-245. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Anna Margo Seidman, Safari Club International, John C. Martin, Crowell & Moring LLP, Benjamin Ellison, Patton Boggs, LLP, Michael B. Wigmore, Bingham McCutchen LLP, Benjamin Longstreth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Jason C. Rylander, Defenders of Wildlife, Howard M. Crystal, Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, Washington, DC, Bradley E. Meyen, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, Anchorage, AK, Craig D. Galli, Holland & Hart LLP, Salt Lake City, UT, M. Reed Hopper, Theodore Hadzi-Antich, Damien M. Schiff, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, CA, Murray D. Feldman, Holland & Hart LLP, Boise, ID, Brendan R. Cummings, Kassia R. Siegel, Joshua Tree, CA, Andrew Elsas Wetzler, Rebecca Riley, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Chicago, IL, John J. Jackson, III, Conservation Force, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiffs.Guillermo A. Montero, Kristen Byrnes Floom, Clifford Eugene Stevens, Jr., Meredith L. Flax, Robert Pendleton Williams, Hao-Chin Hubert Yang, Erik Edward Petersen, Department of Justice, John F. Cooney, Margaret N. Strand, Venable, LLP, Rachel D. Gray, Roger R. Martella, Jr., Thomas G. Echikson, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, Jeffrey M. Feldman, Kevin M. Cuddy, Feldman Orlansky & Sanders, Anchorage, AK, for Defendants.Douglas Scott Burdin, Safari Club International, Thomas Richard Lundquist, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs and Defendants.
In May 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS” or “the Service”) issued its final rule listing the polar bear as a “threatened species” under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.SeeDetermination of Threatened Status for the Polar Bear ( Ursus maritimus ) Throughout Its Range, 73 Fed.Reg. 28,212(May 15, 2008)(the “Listing Rule”).The Service concluded that the polar bear is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future because of anticipated impacts to its sea ice habitat from increasing Arctic temperatures, which have been attributed to global greenhouse gas emissions and related atmospheric changes.Numerous plaintiffs have challenged the Listing Rule under the Endangered Species Act(“ESA” or “the Act”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1544, and the Administrative Procedure Act(“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559,701–706, claiming that the Service's decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of agency discretion.Pending before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.
As the briefing in this case makes clear, the question of whether, when, and how to list the polar bear under the ESA is a uniquely challenging one.The three-year effort by FWS to resolve this question required agency decision-makers and experts not only to evaluate a body of science that is both exceedingly complex and rapidly developing, but also to apply that science in a way that enabled them to make reasonable predictions about potential impacts over the next century to a species that spans international boundaries.In this process, the Service considered over 160,000 pages of documents and approximately 670,000 comment submissions from state and federal agencies, foreign governments, Alaska Native Tribes and tribal organizations, federal commissions, local governments, commercial and trade organizations, conservation organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and private citizens.In addition to relying on its own experts, the agency also consulted a number of impartial experts in a variety of fields, including climate scientists and polar bear biologists.
In view of these exhaustive administrative proceedings, the Court is keenly aware that this is exactly the kind of decision-making process in which its role is strictly circumscribed.Indeed, it is not this Court's role to determine, based on its independent assessment of the scientific evidence, whether the agency could have reached a different conclusion with regard to the listing of the polar bear.Rather, as mandated by the Supreme Court and by this Circuit, the full extent of the Court's authority in this case is to determine whether the agency's decision-making process and its ultimate decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species satisfy certain minimal standards of rationality based upon the evidence before the agency at that time.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court is persuaded that the Listing Rule survives this highly deferential standard.After careful consideration of the numerous objections to the Listing Rule, the Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the agency's listing determination rises to the level of irrationality.In the Court's opinion, plaintiffs' challenges amount to nothing more than competing views about policy and science.Some plaintiffs in this case believe that the Service went too far in protecting the polar bear; others contend that the Service did not go far enough.According to some plaintiffs, mainstream climate science shows that the polar bear is already irretrievably headed toward extinction throughout its range.According to others, climate science is too uncertain to support any reliable predictions about the future of polar bears.However, this Court is not empowered to choose among these competing views.Although plaintiffs have proposed many alternative conclusions that the agency could have drawn with respect to the status of the polar bear, the Court cannot substitute either the plaintiffs' or its own judgment for that of the agency.Instead, this Court is bound to uphold the agency's determination that the polar bear is a threatened species as long as it is reasonable, regardless of whether there may be other reasonable, or even more reasonable, views.That is particularly true where, as here, the agency is operating at the frontiers of science.
In sum, having carefully considered plaintiffs' motions, the federal defendants' and defendant-intervenors' cross-motions, the oppositions and replies thereto, various supplemental briefs, the supplemental explanation prepared by FWS in response to this Court's November 4, 2010 remand order, arguments of counsel at a motions hearing held on February 23, 2011, the relevant law, the full administrative record, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Service's decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the ESA represents a reasoned exercise of the agency's discretion based upon the facts and the best available science as of 2008 when the agency made its listing determination.Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIESplaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and GRANTS the federal defendants' and defendant-intervenors' motions for summary judgment.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Salazar (In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing & § 4(d) Rule Litig.)
... ... SPECIES ACT LISTING AND 4(D) RULE LITIGATIONThis Document Relates To: Ctr. for Biological Diversity, et al. v ... ...
-
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Everson, Civil Action No. 15-477 (EGS), Civil Action No. 16-910 (EGS) (
... ... ("FWS" or "the Service") issued its final rule listing the northern long-eared bat ("Bat") as a "threatened" species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. See ... Re: Determination of Threatened Status for Polar Bears [hereinafter the "Polar Bear Memo."]. FWS ... For the reasons discussed in this document, in such situations we would list the entire ... ...
-
Safari Club Int'l v. Jewell
... ... for import would enhance survival of the species"referred to as an enhancement finding. Plaintiffs ... Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora The Convention on ... pursuant to its provisions, and the listing of a species as endangered or threatened does not ... (a), unless the agency has issued a special rule to govern a specific species. 17.31(c) ... The Court recognizes that these findings bear some of the characteristics of a rule: they do ... Indeed, "the mandatory language of a document alone can be sufficient to render it binding," ... See In re Polar Bear ESA Listing & 4(d) Rule Litig., 794 ... ...
-
Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior
... ... Belenky, Center for Biological Diversity, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiffs. H. Hubert ... " or "FWS") to withdraw the proposed listing of the Bi-State Sage-Grouse as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), 16 U.S.C. 1531 - 1544 ; and ... own initiative through "notice-and-comment rule-making." Id. (citing 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(5) ) ... The 2012 BSAP was described as a "living document" that would be "updated at a minimum of every ... 2011) ; In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing , 794 ... ...
-
The Cathedral Engulfed: Sea-Level Rise, Property Rights, and Time
...effects of climate change in several legal contexts. See, e.g ., In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing & § 4(d) Rule Litig. , 794 F. Supp. 2d 65 (D.D.C. 2011) (upholding agency listing of polar bears as a threatened species despite scientific uncertainty). Cf. Massachusetts v. EPA......
-
Planning for the Effects of Climate Change on Natural Resources
...would have been based on threats exacerbated by climate change); In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing & §4(d) Rule Litig., 794 F. Supp. 2d 65, 41 ELR 20318 (D.D.C. 2011), af’d , 709 F.3d 1, 43 ELR 20132 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (upholding the polar bear listing); Center for Biological Di......
-
SPECIES-SPECIFIC REGULATION OF THREATENED SPECIES UNDER SECTION 4(D) OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: LEARNING THE LESSONS OF THE PAST
...species and a threatened species is one of timing. In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and § 4(d) Rule Litigation, 794 F.Supp2d 65, n.27 (D. D.C. 2011), aff'd, 709 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2013); see In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and § 4(d) Rule Litigation, 748 F.Supp......
-
Defenders of Wildlife v. Jewell: Wyoming Wolves Receive a Warranted Reprieve-But for How Long?
...Legal Found. v. Babbitt, 943 F. Supp. 23, 26, 27 ELR 20462 (D.D.C. 1996); In re Polar Bear ESA Listing and Section 4(d) Rule Litig., 794 F. Supp. 2d 65, 112, 41 ELR 20220 (D.D.C. 2011); CBD v. Morgenweck, 351 F. Supp. 2d 1137, 1141 (D. Colo. 2004); and Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Servheen,......