Alaska Oil and Gas Association v. Sally Jewell
815 F.3d 544
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- ESA requires designation of critical habitat after listing; polar bear listed as threatened in 2008 due to climate change impacts
- FWS designated three units of critical habitat in Alaska (Unit 1 sea ice, Unit 2 terrestrial denning, Unit 3 barrier islands) with Units 2 and 3 contested
- District court vacated the entire designation, finding Units 2 and 3 insufficiently supported and improper under ESA §4(i) process
- FWS and intervenors appealed; plaintiffs cross-appealed challenging Unit 3 no-disturbance zone and economic considerations
- Court reverses district court, affirming designation of Units 2 and 3 as critical habitat and remanding for judgment in favor of FWS
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Units 2 and 3 are arbitrary or capricious designations | Alaska et al. argue lack of specific location of PCEs within Units 2–3 | FWS used best available data focusing on PCEs, not current use | Not arbitrary; designations supported by PCE focus |
| Whether ESA requires precise, current-use locations for PCEs within Units 2–3 | District court required specificity of where PCEs occur | ESA does not demand such precise current-use mapping | District court standard misapplied; broader PCE-based designation permissible |
| Whether FWS adequately complied with ESA §4(i) to Alaska | Final justification insufficient or inconsistent with Alaska comments | Letter to Governor and cross-referenced materials satisfy §4(i) | Written justification sufficient; cross-referencing allowed |
| Whether no-disturbance zone around barrier islands is valid | Zone unenforced and not essential to PCEs | Zone provides refuge from disturbance; consistent with PCEs | No-disturbance zone upheld as part of Unit 3 |
| Whether Section 7-Duty to consult creates independent obligation here | Section 7(a)(2) imposes state consultation during designation | Section 7 is interagency, not independent duty; discretionary when applicable | Section 7 does not create an independent duty to consult during designation |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Polar Bear ESA Listing & Section 4(d) Rule Litig., 709 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (ESA listing and habitat designation review standards (4d rule))
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Lyder, 728 F. Supp. 2d 1126 (D. Mont. 2010) (designating critical habitat beyond current reproduction evidence)
- Ariz. Cattle Growers’ Ass’n v. FWS, 273 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 2001) (arb. and cap. review of agency listing decisions)
- San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2014) (best available science and procedural considerations in ESA actions)
- T-Mobile S., LLC v. City of Roswell, 135 S. Ct. 808 (U.S. 2015) (statutory interpretation of written justification; cross-referencing documents allowed)