381 F. Supp. 3d 1127
D. Alaska2019Background
- Izembek National Wildlife Refuge (311,000 acres) was established under ANILCA and is managed by DOI/FWS; a single-lane road between King Cove and Cold Bay would cross the refuge to provide safer, year-round access to an all-weather airport.
- Prior agency reviews (1980s, 1996, and a 2013 EIS/Record of Decision) concluded a road would significantly harm wildlife and that viable non-road alternatives existed; the 2013 ROD declined the land exchange to permit a road.
- In 2018 the Secretary executed an Exchange Agreement with King Cove Corporation to exchange lands (and enable a corridor) to facilitate road construction; the Agreement did not discuss or address the 2013 ROD.
- Plaintiffs (conservation organizations) sued under the APA, alleging the Exchange Agreement violated ANILCA, NEPA, and the ESA and was arbitrary and capricious; they moved for summary judgment.
- The Court found Plaintiffs had Article III standing and ripeness to challenge the Agreement because the exchange was intended to, and likely would, lead to road construction (imminent risk of harm).
- The Court held the Secretary unlawfully reversed prior agency policy without a reasoned explanation in violation of the APA, vacated the Exchange Agreement, and denied injunctive relief as unnecessary after vacatur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Ripeness | Plaintiffs: exchange imminently facilitates road construction causing imminent injury to members' use/enjoyment | Federal/Intervenors: road construction not imminent; many later approvals required | Court: Plaintiffs have standing and case is ripe — exchange shows substantial risk of imminent harm |
| APA review of policy change | Plaintiffs: 2018 Exchange reverses 2013 ROD without acknowledging or explaining contradictory factual findings | Defendants: reversal permissible; Secretary prioritized human safety over environmental harms (new balancing) | Court: Agency reversal unlawful — Exchange Agreement discarded prior factual findings without a reasoned explanation |
| Compliance with ANILCA / statutory permissibility | Plaintiffs: exchange conflicts with ANILCA purposes and prior findings | Defendants: exchange within Secretary's discretion and responsive to safety concerns | Court: Did not reach or resolve all statutory ANILCA claims; primary APA failure dispositive |
| Remedy | Plaintiffs: seek vacatur and injunction | Defendants/Intervenors: ask for remand, equitable considerations for Native parties; allow briefing | Court: Vacatur of Exchange Agreement warranted; injunctive relief denied as vacatur provides adequate relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (agency must provide reasoned explanation when changing course)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (standard for permissible agency policy change—awareness, permissibility, belief new policy better, good reasons)
- Organized Village of Kake v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 795 F.3d 956 (agency may rebalance but cannot discard prior factual findings without reasoned explanation)
- League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, 303 F. Supp. 3d 985 (imminence and risk of future harm can establish standing when agency action clearly facilitates harmful conduct)
- Indigenous Envtl. Network v. U.S. Dep't of State, 347 F. Supp. 3d 561 (vacatur required where new ROD omitted and failed to justify prior factual findings)