Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges v. Haaland, No. 20-35721 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment setting aside a land-exchange agreement between the Secretary of the Interior and King Cove, an Alaska Native village corporation. King Cove seeks to use the land it will obtain in the exchange to build a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge to allow access to the city of Cold Bay.
The panel explained that one of the purposes of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) is to address the economic and social needs of Alaskans. The panel concluded that the Secretary appropriately weighed those needs against the other statutory purposes in deciding whether to enter the land-exchange agreement. The panel disagreed with the district court's conclusion that the Secretary violated the Administrative Procedure Act by departing from his predecessor's position on the land exchange without adequate explanation. Rather, the panel concluded that the Secretary acknowledged the competing policy considerations and that the prior findings that keeping the area roadless would best protect the habitat and wildlife of the Izembek Refuge. Finally, the panel concluded that the land-exchange agreement is not subject to the special procedures that ANILCA requires for the approval of transportation systems. The panel agreed with the government that the Secretary need not follow the process because 16 U.S.C. 3192(h), the land-exchange provision that he invoked, was not an "applicable law" for purposes of Title XI of ANILCA.
Court Description: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act The panel reversed the district court’s judgment, which set aside a land-exchange agreement between the Secretary of the Interior and King Cove Corporation, an Alaska Native village corporation, and remanded. King Cove Corporation wishes to use the land it will obtain in the exchange to build a road through the Izembeck National Wildlife Refuge to allow access to the City of Cold Bay. The residents of King Cove sought to build the road to access Cold Bay’s larger, all-weather airport to facilitate medical evacuations. In 2019, Secretary David Bernhardt approved a land exchange agreement, finding that the exchange comported FRIENDS OF ALASKA NAT’L WILDLIFE REFUGES V. HAALAND 5 with the purposes of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (“ANILCA”). The panel held that the Secretary’s analysis of ANILCA’s statutory purposes was correct. Congress gave the Secretary discretion to strike an appropriate balance between environmental interests and “economic and social needs.” 16 U.S.C. § 3101(d). The panel held that Secretary Bernhardt exercised that discretion when he found that, without a road, the economic and social needs of the people of King Cove would not be adequately met. The panel further held that the district court’s reading of ANILCA was contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sturgeon v. Frost, 139 S. Ct. 1066 (2019). The panel concluded that the Secretary appropriately weighed the economic and social needs of Alaskans against the other statutory purposes in deciding whether to enter the land-exchange agreement. The panel disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that Secretary Bernhardt violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by departing from the position of his predecessor, Secretary Sally Jewell, on the land exchange without adequate explanation. Secretary Bernhardt acknowledged the competing policy considerations and the prior findings that keeping the area roadless would best protect the habitat and wildlife of the Izembek Refuge. But after examining the most recent available information about alternatives to a road, Secretary Bernhardt concluded that the value of a road to the King Cove community outweighed the harm that it would cause to environmental interests. The panel held that there was no reason to look beyond the valid justification that Secretary Bernhardt offered. Even if it was necessary to review Secretary Bernhardt’s assessment of the facts, the panel would not agree with the district court that 6 FRIENDS OF ALASKA NAT’L WILDLIFE REFUGES V. HAALAND Secretary Bernhardt arbitrarily contradicted prior agency findings. Finally, the panel considered whether the land-exchange agreement was subject to the special procedures that ANILCA required for the approval of transportation systems. Title XI of ANILCA sets forth provisions that require an agency approving a transportation system to engage in a process of public consultation and make findings on various issues. 16 U.S.C. § 3164(g). The Secretary did not follow this process. The panel held that the Secretary did not have to follow the process because section 3192(h), the land-exchange provision that he invoked, was not an “applicable law” for purposes of Title XI. The panel did not need to consider the alternative argument advanced by the State of Alaska that the land exchange was exempted from Title XI by 16 U.S.C. § 3170(b). Judge Wardlaw dissented. She would hold that the district court properly concluded that Secretary Bernhardt’s decision to accede to King Cove’s wish to build a road through Izembeck National Wildlife Refuge, despite the Department of the Interior (“DOI”)’s long history of considering the impacts of the road and prior ruling against the road based on the detrimental effects on Izembek’s ecological resources, violated both the APA and ANILCA. Secretary Bernhardt’s memorandum contradicts key findings of the 2013 Record of Decision (ROD). Moreover, although the DOI purports to have the authority to enter the 2019 land-exchange agreement under ANILCA, in fact the agreement fails to advance ANILCA’s stated purposes, and DOI failed to follow the procedural requirements set forth in Title XI of ANILCA. Judge Wardlaw would set aside the land exchange. FRIENDS OF ALASKA NAT’L WILDLIFE REFUGES V. HAALAND 7
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on November 10, 2022.
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.