Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Salazar, 916 F. Supp. 2d 974

Plaintiffs challenge the Service’s Final Rule designating polar bear critical habitat under the ESA in three related cases treated as one action.
Defendants (Secretary Salazar et al.) and Intervenors oppose and cross-move for summary judgment.
Court converts three motions into a single summary judgment action based on the administrative record.
Court finds the Final Rule valid in many respects but vacates and remands for APA/arbitrary-and-capricious and ESA-procedural deficiencies.
Key contested issues include overbreadth of designation, occupancy determinations, the sea-ice PCE, special-management considerations, economic impact analysis, exclusions/NDZ treatment, and State-native-consultation procedures.
Court grants Plaintiffs’ motions to the extent of vacating and remanding the Final Rule for correction of substantive and procedural deficiencies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Overbreadth of the designation	Alaska Oil & Gas Association argues designation too broad under §1532(5)(C).	Service did not designate entire potentially occupied area; some areas omitted.	Overbreadth finding denied; designation not sweeping beyond statutory limits as to entire area.
Occupancy designation sufficiency	Service improperly labeled areas as occupied with insufficient evidence from 2008 data.	Service used best available data; occupancy standard reasonable.	Occupancy determination upheld as reasonable under APA deference.
Sea ice PCE rationality	Sea ice PCE defined by a single feature; records show insufficient basis.	Sea ice PCE rationally connected to habitat features; deference to scientific judgment.	Sea ice PCE inclusion deemed rational and valid.
Terrestrial denning habitat features in Unit 2; Unit 3 barrier island features	Record lacks evidence of several essential PCE features in Unit 2 and Unit 3.	Agency can rely on expert judgment; not required to show every feature in every subarea.	Record lacking sufficient evidence for multiple essential features; APA violation found for Units 2 and 3.
ESA procedures and state/native coordination	Service failed to adequately cooperate with State and failed to provide adequate responses to state comments.	Service complied with statutory cooperation to the maximum extent practicable; no improper consultation.	Procedural defects found; remand for remedy; cooperation issues acknowledged.

Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Norton, 340 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2003) (agency action reviewed under APA; deference to agency expertise in complex matters)
Ariz. Cattle Growers’ Ass’n v. Salazar, 606 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2010) (deference to agency methodology in scientific determinations; substantial evidence standard)
Cal. Wilderness Coal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 631 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2011) (APA arbitrary-and-capricious review; procedural considerations emphasized)
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1987) (statutory and procedural review standards for agency actions)