Center for Bio. Diversity v. Deb Haaland, 998 F.3d 1061

Background

In 2008 the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned to list the Pacific walrus under the ESA; in 2011 the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a 45-page finding that listing was warranted but precluded, identifying sea-ice loss, subsistence hunting, and inadequate regulation as population-level threats through 2100.
A settlement required FWS to complete a final rule or a not‑warranted finding by September 2017; FWS prepared a May 2017 Species Status Assessment (SSA) that summarized new data, noted uncertainty (especially regarding long‑term behavioral adaptation), and stated it was not a decision document.
In October 2017 FWS issued a terse 3‑page decision reversing its 2011 conclusion and finding the walrus did not qualify for listing, stating projections beyond 2060 were speculative and incorporating the SSA by reference.
The Center sued under the APA and ESA, arguing FWS failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its change in position; the district court granted summary judgment to FWS and the Center appealed.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard and applied controlling precedent that an agency changing course must acknowledge the change and give a reasoned explanation, especially when abandoning prior factual findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did FWS adequately explain its change from the 2011 warranted‑but‑precluded finding to the 2017 not‑warranted finding?	FWS failed to explain why the specific factual findings in 2011 no longer apply.	The SSA and new data support the change; the 2017 Decision incorporated the SSA.	Reversed: explanation was inadequate; FWS must supply a reasoned decision explaining the change.
Is review limited to the four corners of the 3‑page 2017 Decision, or may the court consider incorporated materials/record?	Review should focus on the decision text alone.	The court may examine documents the decision incorporates by reference.	Court may consider incorporated materials, but must evaluate the reasons actually articulated in the decision (not post‑hoc briefing).
Does incorporation of the SSA cure the brevity of the 2017 Decision?	No — the SSA is an informational, non‑decision document that reflects uncertainty and does not explain why 2011 findings were abandoned.	The SSA re‑examined stressors and provides the scientific basis for reversal.	Incorporation was insufficient because the SSA did not provide the agency's reasoned explanation in the decision document.
Was FWS’s change to a shorter "foreseeable future" window (2060 v. 2100) adequately justified?	FWS did not explain why it now treats projections beyond 2060 as speculative when it relied on projections through 2100 in 2011.	New uncertainty and observed/adaptive behavior justify using a shorter window.	Rejected: FWS did not explain why it selected 2060 or why the prior longer horizon was no longer reliable.

Key Cases Cited

Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) (describing the ESA's protective purpose)
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009) (requirements for reasoned explanation when an agency changes policy)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (court may not supply an agency's missing reasons)
Organized Vill. of Kake v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 795 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2015) (applying Fox framework to agency position changes)
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Zinke, 900 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2018) (agency must articulate its reasoning in the decision document for ESA listing changes)
Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Pritzker, 840 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 2016) (agency must connect relevant factors; projections can have value in ESA listings)
Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Jewell, 815 F.3d 544 (9th Cir. 2016) (agency may reference other publicly available documents but must adequately explain its path)
Japanese Vill., LLC v. Fed. Transit Admin., 843 F.3d 445 (9th Cir. 2016) (review is narrow but "searching and careful")
Greater Yellowstone Coal., Inc. v. Servheen, 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency must "connect the dots" in its rulemaking)