Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-14-35811/USCOURTS-ca9-14-35811-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALASKA OIL AND GAS

ASSOCIATION; AMERICAN

PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; STATE

OF ALASKA; NORTH SLOPE

BOROUGH; INUPIAT COMMUNITY

OF THE ARCTIC SLOPE;

NORTHWEST ARCTIC BOROUGH;

ARCTIC SLOPE REGIONAL

CORPORATION; NANA

REGIONAL CORPORATION, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

PENNY PRITZKER, U.S. Secretary

of Commerce; NATIONAL

MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE;

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION;

KATHRYN D. SULLIVAN, in her

official capacity as the Acting

Under Secretary of Commerce

for Oceans and Atmosphere and

the Acting Administrator,

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration;

SAMUEL D. RAUCH, III, in his

official capacity as the Acting

Assistant Administrator for

No. 14-35806

D.C. No.

4:13-cv-00018-RRB

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 1 of 30
2 ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER

Fisheries, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration,

Defendants-Appellants.

ALASKA OIL AND GAS

ASSOCIATION; AMERICAN

PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; STATE

OF ALASKA; NORTH SLOPE

BOROUGH; INUPIAT COMMUNITY

OF THE ARCTIC SLOPE;

NORTHWEST ARCTIC BOROUGH;

ARCTIC SLOPE REGIONAL

CORPORATION; NANA

REGIONAL CORPORATION, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

PENNY PRITZKER, U.S. Secretary

of Commerce; NATIONAL

MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE;

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION;

KATHRYN D. SULLIVAN, in her

official capacity as the Acting

Under Secretary of Commerce

for Oceans and Atmosphere and

the Acting Administrator,

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration;

SAMUEL D. RAUCH, III, in his

official capacity as the Acting

No. 14-35811

D.C. No.

4:13-cv-00018-RRB

OPINION

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 2 of 30
ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER 3

Assistant Administrator for

Fisheries, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration,

Defendants,

and

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL

DIVERSITY,

Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 4, 2016

Anchorage, Alaska

Filed October 24, 2016

Before: Raymond C. Fisher, Richard A. Paez

and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Paez

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 3 of 30
4 ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER

SUMMARY*

Environmental Law

The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment

in favor of plaintiffs in their action challenging federal

officials’ listing decision under the Endangered Species Act,

concerning certain “sea ice seal” species; and held that the

National Marine Fisheries Service’s (“NMFS”) listing

decision was reasonable.

The NMFS concluded that the Okhotsk and Beringia

distinct population segments of the Pacific bearded seal

subspecies were likely to become endangered within the

foreseeable future. NMFS used climate projections to

determine that the loss of sea ice over shallow waters in the

Arctic would leave the Pacific bearded seal subspecies

endangered by the year 2095. Plaintiffs filed lawsuits

challenging the listing decision under the ESA’s citizen suit

provision and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The panel held that in light of the NMFS’s robust

rulemaking process, and pursuant to a highly deferential

standard of review, the NMFS’s final rule listing the Beringia

distinct population segment as threatened was not arbitrary or

capricious, and its listing was supported by substantial

evidence. Specifically, the panel held that the NMFS did not

act arbitrarily or capriciously in concluding that the effects of

global climate change on sea ice would endanger the Beringia

distinct population segment in the foreseeable future. The

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 4 of 30
ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER 5

panel further held that the administrative record demonstrated

that NMFS provided a reasonable and evidence-based

justification for its mid-century and end-of-century sea ice

projections.

The panel held that NMFS clearly fulfilled its procedural

and substantive obligations under Section 4(i) of the

Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1533(i), to provide the

State of Alaska with a written justification.

COUNSEL

Robert Parke Stockman (argued), Meredith L. Flax, Mary E.

Hollingsworth, and Katherine W. Hazard, Attorneys; John C.

Cruzen, Assistant Attorney General; Environment & Natural

Resources Division, United States Department of Justice,

Washington, D.C.; Demian Schane, Office of the General

Counsel, United States Department of Commerce, Juneau,

Alaska; for Defendants-Appellants.

Kristen Monsell (argued), Emily Jeffers, and Miyoko

Sakashita, Oakland, California; Rebecca Noblin, Anchorage,

Alaska; as and for Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant.

Jeffrey W. Leppo (argued) and Ryan P. Steen, Stoel Rives

LLP, Seattle,Washington, for Plaintiffs-Appellees Alaska Oil

and Gas Association, and American Petroleum Institute.

BradleyE. Meyen, Senior Assistant AttorneyGeneral, Alaska

Department of Law, Anchorage, Alaska; MurrayD. Feldman,

Holland & Hart LLP, Boise, Idaho; Christina F. Gomez,

Holland & Hart LLP, Denver, Colorado; for PlaintiffAppellee State of Alaska.

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 5 of 30
6 ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER

Tyson C. Kade (argued), Van Ness Feldman LLP,

Washington, D.C.; Matthew A. Love, Van Ness Feldman

LLP, Seattle, Washington; for Plaintiffs-Appellees North

Slope Borough, Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope,

Northwest Arctic Borough, Arctic Slope Regional

Corporation, and NANA Regional Corporation, Inc.

OPINION

PAEZ, Circuit Judge:

The National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) used

climate projections to determine that the loss of sea ice over

shallow waters in the Arctic would leave the Pacific bearded

seal subspecies (Erignathus barbatus nauticus) endangered

by the year 2095. This case turns on one issue: When NMFS

determines that a species that is not presently endangered will

lose its habitat due to climate change by the end of the

century, may NMFS list that species as threatened under the

Endangered Species Act? The district court answered in the

negative, ruling that NMFS’s listing decision was arbitrary

and capricious. We hold that on the basis of the

administrative record, NMFS’s listing decision is reasonable. 

Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.

I.

In 2008, the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”)

filed a petition requesting that the Secretary of Commerce list

three “sea ice seal” species as endangered or threatened under

the Endangered Species Act (“ESA” or “the Act”), 16 U.S.C.

§§ 1531–44. See 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(3) (citing 5 U.S.C.

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 6 of 30
ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER 7

§ 553(e)) (relating to the process for consideration of a

petition for rulemaking); Final Listing Rule: Threatened

Status for the Beringia & Okhotsk Distinct Population

Segments of the Erignathus barbatus nauticus Subspecies of

the Bearded Seal, 77 Fed. Reg. 76,740 (Dec. 28, 2012)

(“Listing Rule”). After a lengthy administrative process that

included two rounds of peer review, several rounds of public

notice and comment, and public hearings, NMFS concluded

that the Okhotsk and Beringia distinct population segments

(“DPS”) of the Pacific bearded seal subspecies (Erignathus

barbatus nauticus) were “likely to become . . . endangered

species within the foreseeable future throughout . . . a

significant portion of [their] range.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(20);

Listing Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 76,740.

Plaintiffs Alaska Oil and Gas Association (“AOGA”), the

State of Alaska, and North Slope Borough (collectively,

“Plaintiffs”) filed separate lawsuits challenging the listing

decision under the ESA’s citizen suit provision, 16 U.S.C.

§ 1540(g), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”),

5 U.S.C. § 706.1 Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the listing

decision was not based on the “best scientific and commercial

data available” in violation of 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A); the

population of bearded seals was plentiful; a lack of reliable

population data made it impossible to determine an extinction

threshold; NMFS’s use of predictive climate projections

beyond 2050 were speculative; NMFS had unreasonably

1 The American Petroleum Institute was added as a plaintiff in

AOGA’s amended complaint; the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope,

Northwest Arctic Borough, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, and

NANA Regional Corporation were added as plaintiffs in the North Slope

Borough’s amended complaint. The district court consolidated all the

cases and granted CBD leave to intervene as a defendant.

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 7 of 30
8 ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER

“changed tack” from its previous Arctic sea-ice listing

decisions; and NMFS had failed to demonstrate a causal

connection between the loss of sea ice and the impact of that

loss to the Okhotsk and Beringia DPS’s viability. In addition,

the State of Alaska alleged that NMFS failed to adequately

respond to its public comments and failed to comply with the

ESA’s state cooperation provisions. See id. § 1533(i);

50 C.F.R. § 424.18(c).

The district court denied relief with respect to the

Okhotsk DPS for lack of Article III standing. Alaska Oil &

Gas Ass’n v. Pritzker, No. 4:13-cv-18-RRB, 2014 WL

3726121, at *3–4 (D. Alaska July 25, 2014) (“Pritzker”). The

district court, however, granted summary judgment to

Plaintiffs on their challenge to NMFS’s decision to list the

Beringia DPS as a threatened species. The court concluded

that NMFS’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because

NMFS’s long-term climate projections were volatile and the

agency lacked data on the bearded seal’s adaptability and

population trends, including “a specified time” at which the

seal would reach an extinction threshold. Id. The district

court also concluded that the ESA required NMFS to provide

Alaska with a separate written justification for rejecting the

State’s comments and granted summary judgment to Alaska

on that claim. Id. at *10 (citing Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v.

Salazar, 916 F. Supp. 2d 974, 1003 (D. Alaska 2013), rev’d

sub nom., Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Jewell, 815 F.3d 544

(9th Cir. 2016) (“Jewell”)). The district court vacated the

Listing Rule, explaining that NMFS’s attempt to predict the

bearded seal’s viability beyond 50 years was “too speculative

and remote to support a determination that the bearded seal is

in danger of becoming extinct.” Id. at *15.

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 8 of 30
ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER 9

NMFS and CBD timely appealed. As we explain below,

NMFS’s decision to list the Beringia DPS as threatened was

not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise in contravention of

applicable law. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s

grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.

II.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary

judgment to determine whether NMFS’s ESA listing decision

was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2);

Jewell, 815 F.3d at 554. Our review is “deferential and

narrow,” requiring a “high threshold for setting aside agency

action” following public notice and comment. Id. (internal

quotation marks omitted). We presume an agency’s action is

valid, and we will affirm that action “so long as the agency

‘considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational

connection between the facts found and the choices made.’” 

Id. (quoting Nw. Ecosys. All. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.,

475 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007)).

III.

In October 2009, NMFS established a Biological Review

Team of eight marine mammal biologists, a fishery biologist,

a marine chemist, and a climate scientist to review the status

of the “best scientific and commercial data available”

regarding bearded seals.2 Listing Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at

76,740. NMFS solicited four scientists to conduct

2 The district court upheld the agency’s rule listing the Okhotsk DPS,

a ruling not contested on appeal. Pritzker, 2014 WL 3726121, at *3–4. 

Accordingly, we limit our review to the Beringia DPS listing.

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 9 of 30
10 ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER

independent peer reviews of the Review Team’s report. Id.

at 76,740 & 76,750. Based on the Review Team’s

assessment and the peer reviewers’ comments, NMFS

published a proposed rule listing the Beringia and Okhotsk

bearded seal DPSs as threatened under the ESA. Id.; see also

Proposed Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 77,496 (Dec. 10, 2010).

The status and peer review reports found that the bearded

seal (Erignathus barbatus) lives throughout the Arctic and

Northern Atlantic Oceans, including in the Chukchi,

Beaufort, and Bering Seas; Sea of Okhotsk; Sea of Japan; and

waters of Arctic Canada (Hudson and Baffin Bays), Svalbard

(Norway), and Russia. Because bearded seals are

widespread, have low population densities, and spend

significant time under water, it is difficult to obtain a reliable

estimate of their current population. Listing Rule, 77 Fed.

Reg. at 76,742. The bearded seal is commonly divided into

two subspecies

3—E. b. barbatus, which primarilyinhabits the

Atlantic, and E. b. nauticus, which inhabits the Pacific. 

Noting that there were “regions of intergrading” between the

Atlantic and Pacific subspecies, NMFS identified two distinct

Pacific population segments. Proposed Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at

77,499–501. One group lived exclusively in the Sea of

Okhotsk (the Okhotsk DPS), and the remaining seals were

found throughout the Bering and Chukchi Seas (the Beringia

3 The ESA defines a species as “any subspecies of . . . wildlife . . . ,

and any distinct population segment of any species of . . . wildlife which

interbreeds when mature.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16). The Act does not

define “distinct population segment.” NMFS’s policy, however, provides

guidance on the factors the agency must consider before determining if a

population is a distinct segment. See Nw. Ecosys. All., 475 F.3d at 1138,

1141–44 (discussing the distinct population segment policy and the level

of deference afforded to it).

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 10 of 30
ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER 11

DPS), with very little mixing between the two groups. Id. at

77,500.

The review concluded that bearded seals generally prefer

to hunt organisms found on the ocean floor. As a result, the

seals prefer to congregate where non-contiguous sea ice floes

appear over shallow water between 50 to 200 meters deep,

and the seals avoid “unbroken, heavy, drifting ice or large

areas of multi-year ice” located over deeper waters. Id. at

77,498. The seals use ice floes to give birth (whelp) and to

nurse their pups; to allow mothers close access to food

sources while nursing; to enable their pups to gain experience

with diving, swimming, and hunting away from their

predators; to provide a location for males to attempt to attract

females; and to provide a platform where male seals can rest

while molting. Listing Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 76,742–44. 

Year-round, bearded seals require access to shallow waters,

where the seals have access to “more productive” sea floors

with a higher availability of food.

Using observational and predictive data from the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (“IPCC”)

Fourth Assessment Report, NMFS used six climate models to

determine when the Beringia DPS’s sea ice habitat would

degrade to such an extent that it would render the Beringia

DPS endangered, and it made available for public review its

methodology and data. Proposed Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at

77,497. All independent peer reviewers agreed that the

Beringia DPS’s continued viability depended on the

availability of sea ice in the Bering and Barents Seas during

crucial life stages.

After considering thousands of comments to the proposed

rule, NMFS extended the review period and sought additional

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 11 of 30
12 ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER

independent peer reviews of the sections of the status review

report that generated the greatest disagreement among peer

reviewers—the timing and magnitude of climate change

effects on the availability of sea ice in the Bering Sea. 

Listing Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 76,741, 76,750–51. NMFS

additionally updated its climate predictions to include studies

published after the Proposed Listing Rule. Id. at 76,741 &

76,751. NMFS also held public hearings in Anchorage,

Barrow, and Nome to solicit comments. Id. at 76,750.

NMFS determined that lack of access to non-continuous

sea ice in shallow waters would require bearded seals to make

significant adaptations to survive. Id. at 76,744. It reasoned

that lack of access to sea ice over shallow waters likely would

encourage seals in the Beringia DPS to whelp and nurse on

shore, increasing their risk of exposure to their primary

predators—polar bears and walruses. Id. at 76,742. Because

lack of sea ice in shallow water would require seals to forage

in deeper waters that lacked the ocean floor “productivity” of

shallow waters, NMFS concluded that as seals moved to

deeper waters, they faced a greater risk of being unable to

meet their subsistence needs. Id. And although bearded seals

did not require year-round access to sea ice floes in shallow

waters, most observational studies and peer reviewers opined

that lack of access to sea ice during periods of significant life

functions(birthing, nursing, hunting/foraging, molting) would

likely have a negative effect on the Beringia DPS. Id.

Having concluded that the availability of sea ice in

shallow water was crucial to the Beringia DPS’s viability,

NMFS evaluated several climate models to determine the

magnitude and timing of climate change’s impact on the

availability of sea ice in areas inhabited by the Beringia DPS. 

Id. at 76,744. Those projections indicated that by 2095, sea

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 12 of 30
ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER 13

ice in several regions where the Beringia DPS whelps will

have disappeared entirely during the mating, nursing, and

birthing season (April through June). Id. NMFS also

concluded that any periodic “gains” in sea ice as a result of

climate change were not really gains for the Beringia DPS. 

Instead, independent peer reviewers cautioned that “gains” in

sea ice were illusory—seals would simply be able to access

areas they already used in earlier months, but not during the

times when critical life activities occurred. Id. The majority

of peer reviewers commented that increased sea ice formation

over deep waters would not offset sea ice losses in shallow

waters in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas. NMFS and

its peer reviewers also noted that although climate change had

caused sea ice patterns to shift during the year, there would be

a net decrease in the total number of days in which sea ice

would be available to the seals. Id. at 76,743–44.

NMFS published its final rule designating the bearded

seal Beringia DPS as threatened in December 2012. Id. at

76,740. After providing 60 days’ pre-filing notice under ESA

Section 11, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(A)(i), AOGA filed suit

challenging NMFS’s listing decision.

IV.

The Endangered Species Act seeks to recover endangered

and threatened species and to “reverse the trend towards

species extinction, whatever the cost.” Jewell, 815 F.3d at

550–51 (quoting Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 184

(1978)); 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b). To achieve that purpose, the

ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce, or her designee, to

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 13 of 30
14 ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER

identify and list endangered4or threatened

5

species. See

16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1) & (2); see also Nw. Ecosys. All.,

475 F.3d at 1137. When determining whether to list a

species, the reviewing agency must make its decision “solely

on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data

available.” 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A).

A.

1.

Because CBD’s petition cited global warming as the

primary threat to bearded seals, NMFS focused its status

review on the impact of warmer temperatures on the Beringia

DPS. Proposed Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 77,503. To determine

the magnitude of climate change’s effect on sea ice, NMFS

utilized the IPCC’s predictive models, and it attempted to

apply those models to observational data that the Department

of the Interior collected annually regarding sea ice in the

Bering and Chukchi Seas. Id. at 77,503–05; Listing Rule

77 Fed. Reg. at 76,743. The IPCC’s climate predictions

through 2050 were based on already-collected data about

present-day emissions.6Its climate projections for 2050 to

4 The Act defines an “endangered species” as “any [non-insect]

species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant

portion of its range.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(6).

5 A “threatened species” is “any species which is likely to become an

endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(20).

6 The Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) previously used the IPCC’s

2050 climate projections to justify its decision to list the polar bear as a

threatened species. See Safari Club Int’l v. Salazar(In re Polar Bear ESA

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 14 of 30
ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER 15

2100, however, used contemporary data to predict potential

climate trends under multiple scenarios. Proposed Rule,

75 Fed. Reg. at 77,503. Those models showed greater

volatility, and thus less reliable predictive value, in the

Arctic. Id. Because modeling for the second half of the

century involved unknown variables (technological

improvement, changes in climate policy), the IPCC used

twenty-four models with slightly differing assumptions to

obtain simulations of the upper- and lower-bounds for the

increase in global temperatures from 2050 to 2100. Id.

To account for uncertainty in the IPCC’s 2050 to 2100

predictions, NMFS used two models considered to be

particularly reliable with respect to Arctic sea ice, and it used

“medium” and “high” emissions scenarios to project monthly

sea ice concentrations between March and July for each

decade, beginning in 2025 and ending in 2095. Id. at

77,503–04. NMFS then compared the results of those

projections to its observational data regarding sea ice to

determine if the IPCC models performed reliably when

applied to the Arctic. Id. at 77,504. Six models performed

reliably in the Chukchi and east Siberian Seas, four

performed reliably in the Beaufort and east Bering Seas, and

one model performed reliably in the western Bering Sea. Id.

NMFS disclosed its methodology, as well as the limits of the

IPCC models, in the Proposed Listing Rule and in a Notice of

Availability of Special Independent Peer Review Reports.

After confirming the models’ accuracy, NMFS applied

each to the areas occupied by the Beringia DPS to determine

the range of temperatures per month from 2050 to 2100, and

Listing &Section 4(d)Rule Litig.), 709 F.3d 1, 15–16 (D.C. Cir.2013) (“In

re Polar Bear Litig.”)

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 15 of 30
16 ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER

used those temperature projections to determine the impact of

local warming on sea ice melt. Id. NMFS’s projections

demonstrated that by May and June 2050, there would be no

sea ice in the Bering Strait, the East Siberian Shelf, or the

Barents or Bering Seas. Id. By July 2050, sea ice would

recede to less than 20% of the mean or disappear entirely

from the Beaufort, Chukchi, and East Siberian seas. Id. Most

dramatically, by the time NMFS sought a second round of

public comment on its climate projections, sea ice scientists

published research indicating that the IPCC climate models

understated the speed at which temperatures were rising at the

poles. Id. at 77,503. Using observational data, those studies

predicted that temperatures at the Arctic were 30 years ahead

of schedule and that there would be “[a] nearly sea ice free

summer Arctic by mid-century.” Id. at 77,504.

Plaintiffs contend that NMFS used climate models that

cannot reliably predict the degree of global warming beyond

2050 or the effect of that warming on a subregion, such as the

Arctic. Although Plaintiffs frame their arguments as

challenging long-term climate projections, they seek to

undermine NMFS’s use of climate change projections as the

basis for ESA listings. Plaintiffs’ contention is unavailing; in

Alaska Oil and Gas Association v. Jewell, we adopted the

D.C. Circuit’s holding that the IPCC climate models

constituted the “best available science” and reasonably

supported the determination that a species reliant on sea ice

likely would become endangered in the foreseeable future. 

815 F.3d at 558–59; In re Polar Bear Litig., 709 F.3d at 4–6,

9–11.

We have stressed that we “must defer to the agency’s

interpretation of complex scientific data” so long as the

agency provides a reasonable explanation for adopting its

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 16 of 30
ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER 17

approach and discloses the limitations of that approach. Nw.

Ecosys. All., 475 F.3d at 1150; see also San Luis & DeltaMendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 581, 602 (9th Cir.

2014) (“The determination of what constitutes the best

scientific data available belongs to the agency’s special

expertise . . . . [and w]hen examining this kind of scientific

determination . . . a reviewing court must generally be at its

most deferential.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

NMFS provided ample evidence of significant sea ice loss

from 2007 to 2050, a period in which specific data supports

the IPCC climate projections. Proposed Rule, 75 Fed. Reg.

at 77,503–05. Those projections indicate that during months

in which bearded seals used that ice for “critical life events”

such as mating, birthing, and nursing, most Beringia DPS

habitats will have lost most, if not all, of their sea ice. Id. at

77,504. By September 2010, observational data confirmed

that the amount of summer sea ice in the areas populated by

the Beringia DPS was 40% below the long-term average. Id.

at 77,503. NMFS has provided a reasonable explanation,

based on the best available scientific and commercial data,

for relying on those projections in its listing decision.

NMFS’s projections for the second-half of the century are

also reasonable, scientifically sound, and supported by

evidence. There is no debate that temperatures will continue

to increase over the remainder of the century and that the

effects will be particularly acute in the Arctic. The current

scientific consensus is that Arctic sea ice will continue to

recede through 2100, and NMFS considered the best

available research to reach that conclusion. One independent

peer reviewer noted that nothing in “existing data would

change the general picture that sea ice habitats important to

bearded seals are disappearing and will continue to disappear,

especially in the Bering and Chukchi seas.” Excerpts of R. at

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 17 of 30
18 ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER

115, ECF No. 10. A second peer reviewer opined that it was

“more likely than not that the uncertainty attaching to 80-year

predictions of how changing climate will affect bearded seals

and their habitat has been, is being, and will be greatly

underestimated.” Excerpts of R. at 118, ECF No. 10. All

parties agree that there will be sea ice melt; the only

uncertainty is the magnitude of warming, the speed with

which warming will take place, and the severity of its effect.

The fact that climate projections for 2050 through 2100

may be volatile does not deprive those projections of value in

the rulemaking process. The ESA does not require NMFS to

make listing decisions only if underlying research is ironclad

and absolute. See San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth.,

747 F.3d at 602 (“[W]here the information is not readily

available, we cannot insist on perfection: [T]he best scientific

. . . data available, does not mean the best scientific data

possible.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis

added)). The ESA directs NMFS to make its determinations

“solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data

available . . . after conducting a review of the status of the

species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A). After conducting that

assessment, if NMFS finds it likely that a species will

“become an endangered species within the foreseeable future

throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” it must

list that species as threatened. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1532(20),

1533(b)(1)(B)(ii). NMFS provided a reasonable and

scientificallysupported methodologyfor addressing volatility

in its long-term climate projections, and it represented fairly

the shortcomings of those projections—that is all the ESA

requires. See Jewell, 815 F.3d at 558 (“To the extent that

Plaintiffs demand greater scientific specificity than available

data could provide, [they] echo the district court’s error in

demanding too high a standard of scientific proof.”).

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 18 of 30
ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER 19

The majority of independent peer reviewers agreed that

NMFS’s long-term climate projections were based on the

“best scientific and commercial data available,” that there

was scientific consensus regarding the “direction and effect”

of climate change, that there would be significant sea ice loss

in the Beringia DPS’s habitat, and that such a significant loss

of habitat would almost certainly have a negative effect on

the bearded seal’s survival. Moreover, under NMFS’s 2007

to 2050 climate projections, even if global warming plateaued

in the second-half of the century, devastating sea ice losses

would still result during months that are currently critical to

the bearded seal’s propagation.7 Proposed Rule, 75 Fed. Reg.

at 77,501–06.

Further, climate studies released and noticed for public

comment after the publication of the Proposed Listing Rule

indicated that the Arctic was warming at a much faster rate

than anticipated by the IPCC mid-century projections. Those

studies, which are included in the administrative record,

advised that observational data regarding current temperature

increases indicated that Arctic sea ice may disappear as early

as 2040—approximately 50 years earlier than NMFS

predicted when it suggested the Beringia DPS would lose its

sea ice habitat by 2095. See Jewell, 815 F.3d at 558–60

(“FWS also noted [in In re Polar Bear Litigation] that the

observational record of current sea ice losses indicates that

losses seem to be about 30 years ahead of the modeled values,

7

In the proposed and final rules, NMFS provided information

regarding the negative impact of mid-century sea ice melt on the bearded

seal’s survival. Proposed Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 77,503–04 & 77,506;

Listing Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 76,742–44. The district court did not

address those projections, but instead focused on the longer-term

projections, which predict a total loss of sea ice.

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 19 of 30
20 ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER

which suggests a seasonally ice-free Arctic may come a lot

sooner than expected.”). The administrative record

demonstrates that NMFS provided a reasonable and evidencebased justification for its mid-century and end-of-century sea

ice projections.

The ESA does not require NMFS to base its decision on

ironclad evidence when it determines that a species is likely

to become endangered in the foreseeable future; it simply

requires the agency to consider the best and most reliable

scientific and commercial data and to identify the limits of

that data when making a listing determination. In light of the

data available to it during the rulemaking process, NMFS

reasonably concluded that there would be continued sea ice

loss over shallow waters, resulting in habitat loss that would

almost certainlythreaten the Beringia DPS’s survival. NMFS

has provided a rational and reasonable basis for evaluating

the bearded seal’s viability over 50 and 100 years, and it has

candidly disclosed the limitations of the available data and its

analysis. The ESA does not require more, and NMFS did not

act arbitrarily or capriciously in concluding that the effects of

global climate change on sea ice would endanger the Beringia

DPS in the foreseeable future.

2.

Plaintiffs advance three principal arguments to challenge

NMFS’s listing decision. First, Plaintiffs contend that

NMFS’s use oflonger-term climate projections diverges from

its previous practice of setting the year 2050 as the outer

boundary of its “foreseeable future” analysis. NMFS has

argued, and several federal courts have agreed, that the

agency may determine the timeframe for its “foreseeable

future” analysis based upon the best data available for a

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 20 of 30
ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER 21

particular species and its habitat. In re Polar Bear Litig.,

709 F.3d at 10–11, 15–16 (allowing NMFS to determine the

timeline for “foreseeable future” threats of extinction based

on the specific species, habitat, and best available science at

the time of listing); see also W. Watersheds Project v. Ashe,

948 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1180 (D. Idaho 2013) (“The [agency’s]

assessment of the ‘foreseeable future’ is typically based on

the timeframes over which the best available scientific data

allow [the agency] to reliably assess threats and the species’

response to those threats . . . .” (internal quotation marks

omitted)); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Lubchenco, 758 F.

Supp. 2d 945, 967 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (observing that “the

length of time that constitutes the ‘foreseeable future’ for

listing purposes may vary depending on the species and the

threats it faces”).

We apply the same standard of review whether an agency

issues a new policy or changes a previous policy position. Cf.

FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 513–14

(2009). An internal guidance document that reflects an

agency’s “body of experience and informed judgment,” but

that is not promulgated through rulemaking, is typically

afforded Skidmore8deference. Fed. Express Corp. v.

Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008); Alaska Dep’t of Envtl.

Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 488 (2004); United

States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 230–32 (2001). An

agency must provide a reasoned explanation for adoption of

its new policy—including an acknowledgment that it is

changing its position and if appropriate, any new factual

findings that may inform that change—but it need not

demonstrate that the new policy is better than its prior policy. 

Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. at 515; see also Price v.

8

Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944).

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 21 of 30
22 ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER

Stevedoring Servs. of Am., Inc., 697 F.3d 820, 829–30 (9th

Cir. 2012); Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. EPA, 682 F.3d

1032, 1037–38 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

In 2009, the Department of the Interior issued an internal

memorandum notifying the FWS that its interpretation of the

“foreseeable future” must be supported by reliable data

regarding “threats to the species, how the species is affected

by those threats, and how the relevant threats operate over

time.” Office of the Solicitor of the U.S. Dep’t of the

Interior, Memorandum on the Meaning of “Foreseeable

Future” in Section 3(20) of the Endangered Species Act, No.

M-37021 (Jan. 16, 2009); see also Listing Rule, 77 Fed. Reg.

at 76,753 (citing Notice of Reinitiation of Status Review for

Ribbon Seal, 76 Fed. Reg. 77,467, 77,468 (Dec. 13, 2011)

(reevaluating the ribbon seal petition in light of new

information regarding sea ice decline)). The Solicitor noted

that a threat-specific evaluation of the best data available

would result in different “foreseeable future” time frames for

different species and for different threats. Mem. No. M37021 at 8.

NMFS acknowledged in its final Listing Rule that,

consistent with the Solicitor’s opinion and beginning with the

bearded seal petition, it changed its interpretation of

“foreseeable future” to a more dynamic, species-specific and

evidence-based definition. Proposed Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at

77,497; Listing Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 76,753. In prior

petitions, NMFS had evaluated whether climate change

would endanger a species by the year 2050, regardless of any

research advancements regarding climate or a specific

species. Listing Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 76,753 (explaining the

use of climate projections through 2050 for the ribbon seal

and polar bear). The Solicitor’s advisory letter acknowledges

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 22 of 30
ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER 23

that its interpretation represents a change in agency policy,

and it provides a thorough and reasoned explanation for its

recommendation that the Service adopt a data-driven threat

analysis for future harm. Mem. No. M-37021 at 4, 8–9. The

letter also states explicitly that the policy change seeks to

conform to federal appellate decisions requiring ESA

analyses to adhere to the statute’s “best data available”

standard. Id. at 8–9 (citing Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154,

176 (1997); Bldg. Indus. Ass’n of Superior Cal. v. Norton,

247 F.3d 1241, 1246–47 (D.C. Cir. 2001)).

NMFS’s decision to adopt a foreseeability analysis that is

responsive to new, reliable research while accounting for

species-, threat-, and habitat-specific factors is well-reasoned

and consistent with the ESA’s mandate. On the record before

us, NMFS’s changed approach was neither arbitrary nor

capricious.

3.

Next, Plaintiffs contend that NMFS failed to provide an

evidence-based explanation for the relationship between

habitat loss and the bearded seal’s survival. They argue that

NMFS has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a

nexus between the loss of sea ice and the bearded seal’s risk

of future extinction. They note that at the time NMFS issued

its final listing rule, the bearded seal had not suffered

population losses, and they argue NMFS should have adopted

a “wait and see” approach before determining whether to list

the bearded seal.

Similarly, the district court took issue with NMFS’s

disclosure that it could only provide a range for the Beringia

DPS baseline population, which would make it difficult to

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 23 of 30
24 ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER

measure the relationship between population declines and

loss of access to sea ice. Pritzker, 2014 WL 3726121, at *15. 

The district court concluded that NMFS was unable to

provide a predicted “population reduction,” “extinction

threshold,” or “probability of reaching that threshold,” and

that without that information, there was no reasonable basis

for listing the Beringia DPS as threatened. Id. & n.69. The

district court expressed doubt that NMFS was able to conduct

a reasonable risk assessment supported by evidence when the

agency could not provide population information on the

current state of the species. Id.

The district court’s effort to impose requirements for

which data is unavailable or does not exist is at odds with the

ESA. NMFS demonstrated that, based on the best data

available at the time of listing, a decrease in sea ice

availability would likely have a significant adverse effect on

the bearded seal population. In rejecting the Beringia DPS

final listing rule, the district court imposed ad hoc

requirements that exceed the ESA’s provisions. The district

court’s request for unobtainable, highly specified data would

require NMFS to wait until it had quantitative data reflecting

a species’ decline, its population tipping point, and the exact

year in which that tipping point would occur before it could

adopt conservation policies to prevent that species’ decline. 

Uncertainty regarding the speed and magnitude of that

adverse impact, however, does not invalidate data presented

in the administrative record that reasonably supports the

conclusion that loss of habitat at key life stages will likely

jeopardize the Beringia DPS’s survival over the next 85

years.

We recently reversed a district court’s decision to vacate

an ESA critical habitat rule because the court required highly

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 24 of 30
ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER 25

specific information for which data simply did not exist. In

Alaska Oil and Gas Association v. Jewell, the district court

suggested that an agency could only designate areas

containing polar bear dens as critical habitats, as opposed to

conserving a greater amount of land to allow the bears to

roam. 815 F.3d at 555. We rejected the district court’s

imposition of additional requirements because the district

court’s “narrow construction of critical habitat runs directly

counter to the Act’s conservation purposes.” Id. We noted

that the ESA was “concerned with protecting the future of the

species, not merely the preservation of existing bears.” Id.

The Service need not wait until a species’ habitat is

destroyed to determine that habitat loss may facilitate

extinction. In Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, we held that

evidence of habitat loss, without a reasoned explanation

providing a causal link between loss of habitat and a species’

survival, was inadequate to support listing a species as

threatened. 258 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2001). But NMFS

did not rely on habitat loss, alone, to justify its listing

decision. Instead, the agency drew upon existing research to

explain how habitat loss would likely endanger the bearded

seal. See In re Polar Bear Litig., 709 F.3d at 9–10

(distinguishing Defenders of Wildlife by noting that the

agency’s reasoned explanation regarding the impact of habitat

loss on a specific species provided an adequate basis for its

listing decision). NMFS has demonstrated that it “considered

the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection

between the facts found and the choices made.” Nw. Ecosys.

All., 475 F.3d at 1140 (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders

v. Norton, 340 F.3d 835, 841 (9th Cir. 2003)). That is all the

ESA requires.

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 25 of 30
26 ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER

4.

In addition to contesting the causal relationship between

loss of sea ice and the Beringia DPS’s long-term survival,

Plaintiffs contend that NMFS was required to demonstrate

that the impact of climate change on the Beringia DPS “will

be of a magnitude that places the species ‘in danger of

extinction’ by the year 2100.” Plaintiffs’ argument

misinterprets the ESA’s requirement that an agency

demonstrate that a species will “likely become an endangered

species within the foreseeable future” before listing that

species as threatened under the Act. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(20).

NMFS correctly contends that the ESA directs the agency

to determine the likelihood of a species’ endangerment based

on one or more statutory factors: (1) the present or threatened

destruction of a species’ habitat or range; (2) overutilization

of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the

inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other

natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. 

16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1). Significantly, the ESA does not

require an agency to quantify population losses, the

magnitude of risk, or a projected “extinction date” or

“extinction threshold” to determine whether a species is

“more likely than not” to become endangered in the

foreseeable future. NMFS also contends that the district court

erred when it held that NMFS must demonstrate a “predicted

population reduction,” define an “extinction threshold,” and

provide information on the “probability of reaching that

threshold within a specified time.”

NMFS is correct; neither the ESA nor our case law

requires the agency to calculate or otherwise demonstrate the

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 26 of 30
ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER 27

“magnitude” of a threat to a species’ future survival before it

may list a species as threatened. Although the phrase “likely

to become endangered” is not defined by the ESA or a

regulation, NMFS has interpreted the term “likely” to have its

common meaning (i.e., more likely than not). Indeed, most

dictionaries define “likely” to mean that an event, fact, or

outcome is probable. Likely, THE MERRIAM-WEBSTER

DICTIONARY (new ed. 2016); Likely, OXFORD ENGLISH

DICTIONARY ONLINE (3d ed. 2016); Likely, BLACK’S LAW

DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014); see also Taniguchi v. Kan Pac.

Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct. 1997, 2002–04 (2012) (discussing the

use of dictionaries to determine the ordinary or common

meaning of a word). We agree with the D.C. Circuit that

NMFS is not required to define “likely” in terms that require

specific quantitative targets. In re Polar Bear Litig., 709 F.3d

at 14–15; cf. Defs. of Wildlife, 258 F.3d at 1141–43 (declining

to adopt a quantitative definition when interpreting the phrase

“substantial portion of its range”).

We conclude that NMFS did not misinterpret or misapply

the word “likely” when it concluded that the bearded seal was

“likely to become an endangered species within the

foreseeable future.”

* * *

Although data regarding the bearded seal is limited,

NMFS conducted a thorough assessment based on the best

available scientific and commercial data, and it seriously

considered the comments it received prior to listing the

Beringia DPS as a threatened species. In arriving at that

conclusion, NMFS complied with the letter and spirit of the

ESA, and it afforded the public ample notice and opportunity

to participate in its rulemaking process. In light of the

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 27 of 30
28 ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER

robustness of NMFS’s rulemaking process, as well as our

highly deferential standard of review, we hold that NMFS’s

final rule listing the Beringia DPS as threatened was not

arbitrary or capricious, and its listing decision was supported

by substantial evidence.

B.

We turn to Alaska’s argument that NMFS failed to

comply with its obligations under the ESA to provide the

State with a written justification explaining why it “fail[ed]

to adopt regulations consistent with the [state] agency’s

comments.” 16 U.S.C. § 1533(i) (“ESA Section 4(i)” or

“Section 4(i)”); see also 50 C.F.R. § 424.18. Alaska state

agencies, including the Department of Fish and Game,

Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of

Natural Resources, and Department of Law, jointly submitted

comments recommending that NMFS decline to list any sea

ice seals as threatened and to revisit the issue in 20 to 50

years.

NMFS sent a letter to the Commissioner of the Alaska

Department of Fish and Game, the lead agency for the State,

notifying Alaska of its listing decision and identifying

sections of the final listing rule where NMFS addressed the

State’s substantive comments. Alaska argued, and the district

court agreed, that NMFS’s letter to Alaska was insufficient to

discharge its notification duties under ESA Section 4(i). 

Pritzker, 2014 WL 3726121, at *10.

The district court, however, did not have the benefit of

our opinion in Alaska Oil and Gas Association v. Jewell,

which held that Section 4(i) did not impose a separate

notification duty upon federal agencies. 815 F.3d at 562–64. 

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 28 of 30
ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER 29

Relying on T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, 135 S.

Ct. 808, 811 (2015), we held that nothing in Section 4(i)

required separate state notification—the provision only

required that the justification for rejecting a state agency’s

comments be addressed in writing. Jewell, 815 F.3d at 563. 

We further held that Section 4(i) “does not foreclose crossreferencing other publicly available documents,” and we

noted that when several state agencies submit a consolidated

comment letter, a federal agency may respond with a single

letter to the State. Id.

The State’s arguments are foreclosed in light of our

holding in Alaska Oil and Gas Association v. Jewell. 

NMFS’s final listing rule provides thorough responses to

Alaska’s substantive comments, and any issues unaddressed

in the rule are discussed in the agency’s letter to

Commissioner Campbell. Although Alaska argues that

NMFS failed to address several of its substantive comments,

the record indicates otherwise. For example, NMFS

addressed Alaska’s argument that some bearded seals did not

rely on multi-year ice in Comments 10, 24, and 32. NMFS

addressed Alaska’s argument that temperature oscillations

could result in habitat gains in Comment 8. NMFS did not

discuss in detail Alaska’s hypothesis that bearded seals could

survive in deep water because the majority of the record

evidence found that seals preferred to feed in shallower

waters, and there was no reliable data indicating that bearded

seals lived year-round in deep waters or could adapt to such

circumstances.9 Finally, NMFS adopted the position of the

9 Alaska argues that NMFS’s letter failed to address its resiliency

argument, which appears in Comment 9 of the Listing Rule. Although

NMFS failed to highlight Comment 9 in its letter, the state agencies’

substantive concerns were adequately addressed in the final Listing Rule.

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 29 of 30
30 ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER

overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists and

rejected Alaska’s argument that climate projections are

“hypotheses” that are not linked to observable data and that

cannot provide reasonable estimates of future climatechange-related phenomena.

Thus, consistent with Alaska Oil and Gas Association v.

Jewell, NMFS satisfied its Section 4(i) obligation to provide

written responses that cite to record evidence. Although

Alaska may disagree with NMFS’s resolution of conflicting

opinions and its final listing determination, the State received

the notice, opportunity, and process required by 16 U.S.C.

§§ 1533(b)(5)(A)(ii) and 1533(i). See Jewell, 815 F.3d at

563–64 (noting that a federal agency’s rejection of a state

comment does not constitute a failure to provide a substantive

response). On this record, NMFS clearly fulfilled its

procedural and substantive obligations under Section 4(i).

V.

The judgment of the district court is REVERSED.

 Case: 14-35811, 10/24/2016, ID: 10170140, DktEntry: 69-1, Page 30 of 30