Lexplug logoLexplug

Alaska Oil & Gas Association v. Pritzker

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00018-RRB (2016)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An agency's decision to list a species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act is not arbitrary or capricious when it is based on long-term climate change projections, even if uncertain, as long as the agency relies on the best scientific data available and articulates a rational connection between that data and its conclusion that the species is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.


Facts:

  • The Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the Secretary of Commerce to list the Pacific bearded seal as threatened or endangered due to threats from climate change.
  • Bearded seals are highly dependent on sea ice over shallow continental shelf waters (50-200 meters deep) for critical life functions, including giving birth, nursing pups, and resting during their annual molt.
  • The seals prefer these shallow water habitats because they provide easier access to the productive ocean floor where they hunt for food.
  • The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) utilized climate models from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to project future sea ice availability in the seals' habitat.
  • These models predicted that by 2095, sea ice in the Beringia region would disappear entirely during the seals' crucial spring and early summer reproductive season (April-June).
  • NMFS determined that this habitat loss would force seals to move to less suitable areas, increasing predation risk and reducing access to food, thereby threatening their long-term survival.
  • At the time of the listing decision, the bearded seal population was not observed to be in decline and was considered plentiful.
  • NMFS adopted a flexible, species-specific interpretation of "foreseeable future" for its analysis, extending its projections to the end of the century based on the availability of climate data, rather than using a fixed timeframe like 2050.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Alaska Oil and Gas Association, the State of Alaska, and other plaintiffs filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) final rule listing the Beringia DPS of the bearded seal as threatened.
  • The district court consolidated the cases and allowed the Center for Biological Diversity to intervene as a defendant.
  • The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that NMFS's listing decision was arbitrary and capricious.
  • The district court vacated the listing rule, concluding the agency's long-term projections were too speculative to support the listing.
  • NMFS and the Center for Biological Diversity appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the National Marine Fisheries Service act arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Endangered Species Act when it lists a species as threatened based on long-term climate change projections predicting habitat loss by the end of the century, even when the species' population is not currently in decline and the long-term projections contain some uncertainty?


Opinions:

Majority - Paez, Circuit Judge

No. The National Marine Fisheries Service’s decision to list the Beringia distinct population segment of the bearded seal as threatened was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires an agency to use the 'best scientific and commercial data available,' not the best data possible or data that is ironclad and absolute. The court must be highly deferential to an agency's interpretation of complex scientific data. Here, NMFS reasonably relied on IPCC climate models, which represent the best available science, to project significant sea ice loss by 2095. The agency provided a rational connection between this habitat loss and the future survival of the seals, explaining how the loss of sea ice during critical life stages would likely cause the species to become endangered. The ESA does not require NMFS to wait for population declines or to quantify an exact extinction threshold before listing a species, as the Act's purpose is preventative. Furthermore, NMFS was justified in adopting a flexible, data-driven definition of 'foreseeable future' tailored to the specific threat of climate change, and it provided a reasoned explanation for this change in policy.



Analysis:

This decision significantly strengthens the ability of federal agencies to use long-term climate change models as a basis for protecting species under the Endangered Species Act. It affirms that agencies can take proactive, preventative measures for species whose populations are currently stable but face scientifically credible, long-range threats. By endorsing a flexible, threat-specific interpretation of 'foreseeable future' and upholding the use of predictive models despite their inherent uncertainty, the ruling solidifies the ESA as a key legal tool for addressing the future impacts of climate change on wildlife. This precedent makes it more difficult to challenge such listings by demanding unattainable levels of scientific certainty or by arguing that agencies must wait for observable population decline.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Alaska Oil & Gas Association v. Pritzker (2016)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"