Alaska Oil and Gas Ass'n v. Jewel, No. 13-35619 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706 et seq., challenging FWS's designation of an area of Alaska’s coast and waters as critical habitat for the polar bear. The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on two grounds: the district court faulted FWS for failing to identify specifically where and how existing polar bears utilize the relatively small portion of critical habitat designated as Units 2 and 3; and the district court faulted FWS for failing to provide Alaska with adequate justification for adopting a final rule not fully consistent with the State’s submitted comments. The district court vacated the entire designation. In this case, the standard FWS followed, looking to areas that contained the constituent elements required for sustained preservation of polar bears, was in accordance with statutory purpose and hence could not have been arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The court concluded that FWS’s designation of Unit 2 as critical denning habitat was not arbitrary and capricious. Unit 2 contains areas requiring protection for both birthing and acclimation of cubs, and FWS adequately explained its treatment of the relatively few areas of known human habitation. The court also concluded that, with respect to Units 2 and 3, FWS's definition of the denning habitat was in accord with the statutory purposes and it was not arbitrary and capricious for FWS to include areas necessary for such related denning needs. The court further concluded that FWS provided adequate justification to Alaska pursuant to section 4(i) of the ESA. Finally, the court concluded that the district court court correctly upheld the no-disturbance zone as a part of Unit 3 because it provides refuge from human disturbance; FWS’s assessment of the potential economic impacts was not arbitrary and capricious; and the district court was correct in denying Alaska’s claim, although the court did not agree with the district court to the extent that it held that Section 7 of the ESA creates any independent duty to consult apart from the requirements of Section 4. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Endangered Species Act. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment vacating the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (“FWS”) designation of critical habitat in Alaska for the polar bear, a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act; affirmed the district court’s denial of cross-appeal claims; and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of FWS. FWS proposed to designate an area of Alaska’s coast and waters as critical habitat for the polar bear: Unit 1, the sea ice habitat; Unit 2, the terrestrial denning; and Unit 3, the barrier island habitat. Oil and gas associations, several Alaska Native corporations and villages, and the State of Alaska (“plaintiffs”) challenged the designation under the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court denied the majority of the claims, but granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on two grounds. FWS and intervenor environmental groups appealed, and plaintiffs cross-appealed. The panel held that the FWS’s designation of polar bear habitat was not arbitrary, capricious or otherwise in contravention of applicable law. The panel held that the district court held the FWS to a standard of specificity that the Endangered Species Act did not require. The panel held that the standard that FWS followed, looking to areas that contained constituent elements required for sustained ALASKA OIL AND GAS ASS’N V. JEWELL 9 preservation of polar bears, was in accordance with statutory purpose. The panel held that FWS’s designation of Unit 2 as critical denning habitat was not arbitrary and capricious where Unit 2 contained areas requiring protection for both birthing and acclimation of cubs, and FWS adequately explained its treatment of the relatively few areas of known human habitation. The panel also held that FWS drew rational conclusions from the best available scientific date, as required by the Endangered Species Act, in its designation of both Unit 2 and Unit 3 as critical habitat for the polar bear. The panel held that FWS provided adequate justification to Alaska pursuant to Endangered Species Act Section 4(i). Concerning plaintiffs’ cross-appeal claims, the panel held that the district court correctly upheld the “no-disturbance zone” around the barrier islands in Unit 3 because it provided refuge from human disturbance. The panel also held that FWS’s assessment of the potential economic impacts was not arbitrary and capricious. Finally, the panel held that Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act did not create an additional duty for FWS to consult with states on critical habitat designations.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.