Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-4_14-cv-00029/USCOURTS-akd-4_14-cv-00029-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

ALASKA OIL AND GAS

ASSOCIATION; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES

SERVICE; et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:14-cv-00029-RRB

NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PENNY PRITZKER; et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:15-cv-00002-RRB

STATE OF ALASKA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES

SERVICE; et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:15-cv-00005-RRB

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 1

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 1 of 30
I. DECISION APPEALED

On December 28, 2012, the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) and National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) of the Department of Commerce issued

a final decision listing the Arctic subspecies of ringed seal (the Phoca hispida hispida

subspecies) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) (hereinafter referred

to as the “Listing Rule”).

1 These consolidated actions challenge that decision.2 The facts

underlying the consolidated actions are well known to parties, and a matter of public record.

Accordingly, the facts will not be repeated herein except to the extent necessary to understand

the decision of this court.

While, the issues presented here appear complex, this dispute ultimately boils down

to whether or not it was reasonable for NMFS to list the Arctic ringed seals as a “threatened

1 Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for the Arctic, Okhotsk

and Baltic Subspecies of the Ringed Seal and Endangered Status for the Ladoga

Subspecies of the Ringed Seal, 77 Fed. Reg. 76706–38 (December 28, 2012).

2 Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs in 4:14-cv-00029 are the Alaska Oil and Gas Association

(“AOGA”), the American Petroleum Institute (“API”); and in 4:15-cv-00002 the North Slope

Borough (“NSB”), Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (“ASRC”), Northwest Arctic Borough

(“NAB”), NANA Regional Corporation (“NANA”), and Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope

(“Inupiat Community”) (collectively “Northern Alaska Plaintiffs”).

Defendants: Defendants In 4:14-cv-00002 are the National Marine Fisheries Service

(“NMFS”) and Penny Pritzger, Secretary of Commerce; in 4:15-cv-00002 the Secretary of

Commerce and NMFS; and in 4:15-cv-00005-RRB NMFS, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”), Kathryn D. Sullivan, NOAA Administrator, Eileen

Sobeck, Assistant NOAA Administrator (for convenience, unless the context clearly indicates

otherwise, as used herein, “NMFS” refers to the federal defendants collectively) and the State

of Alaska.

Intervener: The Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. (“CBD”) has appeared as an

intervener defendant in support of the listing in the consolidated action.

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 2

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 2 of 30
species,” while the population is strong and healthy, based primarily upon speculation as to

what circumstances may or may not exist 80 to 100 years from now. For the reasons set forth

below, the Court concludes that it was not.

II. PENDING MOTIONS

At Docket 42 the Northern Alaska Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment, which

NMFS and CBD have opposed and cross-moved for summary judgment.

3 The Northern

Alaska Plaintiffs have replied and opposed the cross-motions.4

At Docket 50 the State of Alaska (hereinafter “State”) has moved for summary

judgment, which NMFS and CBD have opposed and cross-moved for summary judgment.

5

The State has replied and opposed the cross-motions.6

At Docket 54 Plaintiffs AOGA/API have moved for summary judgment, which NMFS

and CBD have opposed and cross-moved for summary judgment.

7 AOGA/API have replied

and opposed the cross-motion.

8

3 Dockets 60 (NMFS); 63 (CBD).

4 Docket 65.

5 Dockets 60 (NMFS); 63 (CBD).

6 Docket 66.

7 Dockets 60 (NMFS); 63 (CBD).

8 Docket 67.

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 3

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 3 of 30
The Court being fully advised in the matter has determined that oral argument would

not materially assist in resolving the issues presented. Accordingly, the requests for oral

argument are DENIED.

9

III. JURISDICTION and VENUE

Jurisdiction is vested in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201-02, 16 U.S.C.

§ 1540(g), and 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 702–06. Venue is proper under 29 U.S.C. § 1391(e).

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW/ISSUES PRESENTED

Because the ESA does not supply a separate standard for review, this Court reviews

claims under the standards of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”).

10 TheAPA provides

that an agency action must be upheld on judicial review unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, an

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

11 As applied to the ESA, the

Ninth Circuit recently held:

[. . . .] As a reviewing court, we must consider whether the decision was

based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been

a clear error of judgment. Although our inquiry must be thorough, the standard

of review is highly deferential; the agency's decision is entitled to a presumption

of regularity,” and we may not substitute our judgment for that of the agency.

Where the agency has relied on relevant evidence [such that] a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, its decision is

9 D.Ak. LR 7.2(a)(3)[B].

10 San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewel, 747 F.3d 581, 601 (9th Cir.

2014) (citing Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 174 (1997)); Oregon Natural Desert Ass’n v.

Bureau of Land Mgmnt., 625 F.3d 1092, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010); Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe

of Indians v. United States Dept. of Navy, 898 F.2d 1410, 1414 (9th Cir. 1990)).

11 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 4

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 4 of 30
supported by substantial evidence. Even [i]f the evidence is susceptible of more

than one rational interpretation, [the court] must uphold [the agency's] findings.

Under the ESA, the agency must base its actions on evidence

supported by the best scientific and commercial data available. The

determination of what constitutes the best scientific data available belongs to

the agency's special expertise . . . . When examining this kind of scientific

determination, as opposed to simple findings of fact, a reviewing court must

generally be at its most deferential. Absent superior data[,] occasional

imperfections do not violate the ESA best available standard.

The best available data requirement merely prohibits [an agency] from

disregarding available scientific evidence that is in some way better than the

evidence [it] relies on. Essentially, FWS cannot ignore available biological

information. Thus, insufficient . . . [or] incomplete information . . . does not

excuse [an agency's] failure to comply with the statutory requirement of a

comprehensive biological opinion using the best information available where

there was some additional superior information available. On the other hand,

where 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.

12

The Ninth Circuit has made clear that a court’s review of agency decisions under the

APA is extremely narrow. Under § 706(2)(A), a court may set aside an agency action only if

it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

When reviewing “under the arbitrary and capricious standard[,]” a court is deferential to the

agency involved.

13 A court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency:14 as long

as the agency states a rational connection between the facts found and the decision made it

12 San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Auth., 747 F.3d at 601–02 (internal citations and

quotation marks omitted) (omissions and substitutions in the original).

13 Nat’l Ass’n of Homebuilders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 658 (2007).

14 Citizens to Pres. Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971).

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 5

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 5 of 30
must be upheld.

15 This deference is particularly appropriate where the decision of the agency

at issue “requires a high level of technical expertise.”

16

This Court’s review is limited to “the administrative record already in existence, not

some new record made in the reviewing court.”

17

If the record before the agency does not support the agency action, if the

agency has not considered all relevant factors, or if the reviewing court simply

cannot evaluate the challenged agency action on the basis of the record before

it, the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency

for additional investigation or explanation. The reviewing court is not generally

empowered to conduct a de novo inquiry into the matter being reviewed and to

reach its own conclusions based on such an inquiry . . . .

The fact-finding capacity of the district court is thus typically

unnecessary to judicial review of agency decision making.

18

Where, as here, the Court is reviewing an agency’s interpretation of a statute, such as

the ESA, the appropriate framework of review under Chevron is a two-step process: (1) first

the court must look to the plain meaning of the statutory language, i.e., is it unambiguous; and

(2) if ambiguous, whether the agency’s interpretation of the statutory language is

permissible.

19 In this case it is indisputable that the statute in question fails the “plain meaning”

15 Home Builder’s Ass’n of Northern Calif. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Svc.,

616 F.3d 983, 988 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Tucson Herpetological Soc’y v. Salazar, 566

F.3d 870, 875 (9th Cir. 2009).

16 Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 375–77 (1989); see Alaska

Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Ass’n v. Morrison, 67 F.3d 723, 727 (9th Cir. 1995).

17 Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973).

18 San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority, 747 F.3d at 602 (internal citations and

quotation marks omitted).

19 Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–43

(1984).

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 6

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 6 of 30
rule, it is ambiguous. “When it enacted the ESA, Congress delegated broad administrative and

interpretive power to the Secretary [of Commerce].”

20 As the Ninth Circuit has found “[by]

leaving an ‘explicit gap’ for agency promulgated regulations, the ESA expressly delegates

authority to the [agency] to decide how such listing determinations are to be made.”

21 Thus,

this Court examines the Listing Rule before it under Chevron’s second step, i.e., whether the

agency’s interpretation is permissible.

22

Applying the foregoing standards, the ultimate issue presented in this appeal

is whether or not the decision to list the Arctic subspecies of ringed seal (the Phoca

hispida hispida subspecies) as threatened under the ESA was “arbitrary, capricious,

an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” For the reasons set

forth below, the Court concludes that in the absence of evidence of the current

population level, the lack of projected decline in that population, and the failure to

define an extinction threshold, the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that

the Arctic ringed seals are threatened with extinction in the foreseeable future. This,

coupled with the lack of any suggested efforts to protect the Arctic ringed seals,

20 Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys for Greater Oregon, 515 U.S. 687, 708

(1995); see 16 U.S.C. § 1533(c)(1), see also 50 C.F.R. § 402.01(b) (re-delegating that

authority to NMFS).

21 Trout Unlimited v. Lohn, 559 F.3d 946, 961 (9th Cir. 2009).

22 An agency determination qualifies under the second-step of the Chevron rule when

it meets two requirements: (1) “when it appears that Congress delegated authority to the

agency generally to make rules carrying the force of law,” and (2) “the agency interpretation

claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority.” United States v. Mead

Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226–27 (2001).

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 7

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 7 of 30
leads the Court to conclude that the decision to include the Arctic ringed seals as

threatened was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.

23

V. DISCUSSION

A. Listing Rule

NMFS provided the following summary:

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, issue a final determination to list the Arctic (Phoca

hispida hispida), Okhotsk (Phoca hispida ochotensis), and Baltic (Phoca

hispida botnica) subspecies of the ringed seal (Phoca hispida) as threatened

and the Ladoga (Phoca hispida ladogensis) subspecies of the ringed seal as

endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We will propose to

designate critical habitat for the Arctic ringed seal in a future rulemaking. To

assist us in this effort, we solicit information that may be relevant to the

designation of critical habitat for Arctic ringed seals. In light of public comments

and upon further review, we are withdrawing the proposed ESA section 4(d)

protective regulations for threatened subspecies of the ringed seal because we

have determined that such regulations are not necessary or advisable for the

conservation of the Arctic, Okhotsk, or Baltic subspecies of the ringed seal at

this time. Given their current population sizes, the long-term nature of the

primary threat to these subspecies (habitat alteration stemming from climate

change), and the existing protections under the Marine Mammal Protection Act,

it is unlikely that the proposed protective regulations would provide appreciable

conservation benefits.24

Plaintiffs challenge the following finding in the Listing Rule:

We have reviewed the status of the ringed seal, fully considering the

best scientific and commercial data available, including the status review report.

We have reviewed threats to these subspecies of the ringed seal, as well as

other relevant factors, and considered conservation efforts and special

designations for ringed seals by states and foreign nations. In consideration of

all of the threats and potential threats to ringed seals identified above, the

23 The Court agrees with NMFS that, despite a minor ambiguity, listing of the Arctic

ringed seals is the only issue properly before the Court.

24 77 Fed. Reg. 76706.

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 8

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 8 of 30
assessment of the risks posed by those threats, the possible cumulative

impacts, and the uncertainty associated with all of these, we draw the following

conclusions:

Arctic subspecies: (1) There are no specific estimates of population size

available for the Arctic subspecies, but most experts postulate that the

population numbers in the millions. (2) The depth and duration of snow cover

are forecasted to decrease substantially throughout the range of the Arctic

ringed seal. Within this century, snow cover is forecasted to be inadequate for

the formation and occupation of birth lairs over most of the subspecies’ range.

(3) Because ringed seals stay with the ice as it annually advances and retreats,

the southern edge of the ringed seal’s range may initially shift northward.

Whether ringed seals will continue to move north with retreating ice over the

deeper, less productive Arctic Basin waters and whether the species that they

prey on will also move north is uncertain. (4) The Arctic ringed seal’s pupping

and nursing seasons are adapted to the phenology of ice and snow. The

projected decreases in sea ice, snow cover, and thermal capacity of birthing

lairs will likely lead to decreased pup survival. Thus, within the foreseeable

future it is likely that the number of Arctic ringed seals will decline substantially,

and they will no longer persist in substantial portions of their range. We have

determined that the Arctic subspecies of the ringed seal is not in danger of

extinction throughout all of its range, but is likely to become so within the

foreseeable future. Therefore, we are listing it as threatened.

25

The ESA defines a threatened species as one that “is likely to become an endangered

species within the foreseeable future through all or a significant portion of its range.”

26

B. Applicable Statutes

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA provides:27

(a) Generally

(1) The Secretary shall by regulation promulgated in accordance with

subsection (b) of this section determine whether any species is an endangered

species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:

25 77 Fed. Reg. 76716.

26 16 U.S.C. § 1532(20); 50 C.F.R. § 424.01(m) (10-1-12).

27 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1).

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 9

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 9 of 30
(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range;

(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes;

(C) disease or predation;

(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued

existence.

It is evident that in this case that § 4(a)(1)(B), (C), and (D) are clearly inapplicable, leaving

§ 4(a)(1)(A) and (E).

Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA provides in relevant part:

28

(b) Basis for determinations

(1)

(A) The Secretary shall make determinations required by

subsection (a)(1) of this section solely on the basis of the best scientific

and commercial data available to him after conducting a review of the

status of the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any,

being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision

of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species, whether by predator

control, protection of habitat and food supply, or other conservation

practices, within any area under its jurisdiction; or on the high seas.

(B) In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall give

consideration to species which have been—

(I) designated as requiring protection from unrestricted

commerce by any foreign nation, or pursuant to any international

agreement; or

(ii) identified as in danger of extinction, or likely to become

so within the foreseeable future, by any State agency or by any

agency of a foreign nation that is responsible for the

conservation of fish or wildlife or plants.

28 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 10

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 10 of 30
The regulations promulgated by the Secretary reiterate the provisions of ESA § 4(a)(1) and

(b)(1).

29 It has been stated that “[t]he ultimate goal of the ESA is to recover listed species to

the point where they no longer need ESA protection.”

30 It is within this general framework that

this Court must resolve the issue before it.

C. Effect of Listing

NMFS is authorized to issue such regulations as it may consider necessary and

advisable for the preservation of a listed species.31 The ESA further provides that concurrently

with the listing as threatened or endangered, the Secretary “shall . . . designate any habitat

of such species which is then considered to be critical habitat.”

32 The listing of a species as

threatened triggers several protective provisions.33 The most recent edition of C.F.R. Part 223

(October 1, 2013) does not itself contain any provision generally or specifically regulating

activities affecting the Arctic ringed seal. It does, however, note that the provisions therein “are

in addition to, and not in lieu of, other regulations of parts 222 through 226 of this chapter

which prescribe additional restrictions or conditions governing threatened species.”

34 Of these,

29 See 50 CFR § 424.11(b), (c) Factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying species

(10-1-12).

30 Western Watersheds Project v. Ashe, 948 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1171 (D. Idaho 2013)

(citing 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531(b)–(c), 1532(3)).

31 ESA § 4(d) [16 U.S.C. § 1533(d)].

32 ESA § 4(a)(3)(A) [16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(3)(A)].

33 See 50 C.F.R. § 223.101(a) (10-1-12) (stating that the purpose and scope of the

regulations is to provide for conservation of threatened species by establishing rules and

procedures to govern activities involving them).

34 50 C.F.R. § 223.101(c) (10-1-2013).

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 11

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 11 of 30
only Part 222, which applies to both threatened and endangered species,35 applies to this

case.

36 In this case, the only apparent provision that may be applicable is the general

permitting procedures.37 However, the regulations also specifically provide that a permit is

required solely for threatened species to which the Secretary has applied the limitations of

ESA § 9(a)

38 by regulation.

39

Although it was initially proposed to apply ESA § 9(a) to the listing of the Arctic ringed

seal, in promulgating the Listing Rule NMFS determined that such regulations were

unnecessary.

40 NMFS concluded that, because § 9(a) prohibitions would not provide

appreciable conservation benefits and they could be adopted in the future if necessary, it was

unnecessary to adopt them at this time.

41 NMFS specifically noted:

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with us

to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or conduct are not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or a species proposed for

listing, or to adversely modify critical habitat or proposed critical habitat. If a

Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible

35 Governing “the taking, possession, transportation, sale, purchase, barter,

exploration, importation of, and other requirements to wildlife . . . determined to be threatened

or endangered pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act.” 50 C.F.R. § 222.101(a) (10-1-2013).

36 Part 224 applies to endangered species with no apparent application in this case.

Part 225 is reserved. Part 226 designates critical habitat for various species, but does not

designate any critical habitat for the Arctic ringed seal.

37 50 C.F.R. §§ 222.301, et seq.

38 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a).

39 50 C.F.R. § 222.301(b).

40 77 Fed. Reg. 76718.

41 Id.

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 12

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 12 of 30
Federal agency must enter into consultation with us. Examples of Federal

actions that may affect Arctic ringed seals include permits and authorizations

relating to coastal development and habitat alteration, oil and gas development

(including seismic exploration), toxic waste and other pollutant discharges, and

cooperative agreements for subsistence harvest.

42

NMFS summarized the factors it considered in listing the Arctic ringed seals as

threatened. With respect to sea ice and snow cover NMFS found:

Arctic ringed seal: In the East Siberian, Chukchi, Beaufort, Kara-Laptev,

and Greenland Seas, as well as in Baffin Bay and the Canadian Arctic

Archipelago, little or no decline in ice extent is expected in April and May during

the remainder of this century. In most of these areas, a moderate decline in sea

ice is predicted during June within this century; while substantial declines in sea

ice are projected in July and November after mid-century. The central Arctic

(defined as regions north of 80°N. latitude) also shows declines in sea ice cover

that are most apparent in July and November after 2050. For Hudson Bay,

under a warmer climate scenario (for the years 2041–2070) Joly et al. (2010)

projected a reduction in the sea ice season of 7–9 weeks, with substantial

reductions in sea ice cover most apparent in July and during the first months

of winter.

In the Bering Sea, April and May ice cover is projected to decline

throughout this century, with substantial interannual variability forecasted in the

eastern Bering Sea. The projection for May indicates that there will commonly

be years with little or no ice in the western Bering Sea beyond mid-century.

Very little ice has remained in the eastern Bering Sea in June since the mid1970s. Sea ice cover in the Barents Sea in April and May is also projected to

decline throughout this century, and in the months of June and July, ice is

expected to disappear rapidly in the coming decades.

Based on model projections, April snow depths over much of the range

of the Arctic ringed seal averaged 25–35 cm in the first decade of this century,

consistent with on-ice measurements by Russian scientists (Weeks, 2010). By

mid-century, a substantial decrease in areas with April snow depths of 25–35

cm is projected (much of it reduced to 20–25 cm). The deepest snow (25–30

cm) is forecasted to be found just north of Greenland, in the Canadian Arctic

Archipelago, and in an area tapering north from there into the central Arctic

Basin. Southerly regions, such as the Bering Sea and Barents Sea, are

42 Id.

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 13

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 13 of 30
forecasted to have snow depths of 5 cm or less by mid-century. By the end of

the century, April snow depths of 20–25 cm are forecasted only for a portion of

the central Arctic, most of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and a few small

isolated areas in a few other regions. Areas with 25–30 cm of snow are

projected to be limited to a few small isolated pockets in the Canadian Arctic by

2090–2099.

43

After an extensive analysis of the general effects of change in ice and snow cover on

ringed seals, NMFS concluded:

Arctic ringed seal: The depth and duration of snow cover is projected to

decrease throughout the range of Arctic ringed seals within this century.

Whether ringed seals will continue to move north with retreating ice over the

deeper, less productive Arctic Basin waters and whether forage species that

they prey on will also move north is uncertain and speculative (see additional

discussion below). Initially, it is possible that impacts will be somewhat

ameliorated if the subspecies’ range retracts northward with its sea ice habitats.

By 2100, however, April snow cover is forecasted to become inadequate for the

formation and occupation of ringed seal birth lairs over much of the subspecies’

range. Thus, even if the range of the Arctic ringed seal contracts northward, by

2100 April snow cover suitable for birth lairs is expected to be limited to a

portion of the central Arctic, most of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and a few

other small isolated areas. The projected decreases in ice and, especially, snow

cover are expected to lead to increased pup mortality from premature weaning,

hypothermia, and predation.

44

After considering the foregoing factors and ocean acidification, NMFS summarized:

Climate models consistently project overall diminishing sea ice and snow

cover at least through the current century, with regional variation in the timing

and severity of those losses. Increasing atmospheric concentrations of

greenhouse gases, including CO2

, will drive climate warming and increase

acidification of the ringed seal’s ocean and lake habitats. The impact of ocean

warming and acidification on ringed seals is expected to be primarily through

changes in community composition. The precise extent and timing of these

43 77 Fed. Reg. 76708.

44 77 Fed. Reg. 76710.

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 14

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 14 of 30
changes is uncertain, yet the overall trend is clear: Ringed seals will face an

increasing degree of habitat modification through the foreseeable future.

Diminishing ice and snow cover are the greatest challenges to

persistence of all of the ringed seal subspecies. While winter precipitation is

forecasted to increase in a warming Arctic, the duration of ice cover is projected

to be substantially reduced, and the net effect will be lower snow accumulation

on the ice. Within the century, snow cover adequate for the formation and

occupation of birth lairs is forecasted to occur in only parts of the Canadian

Arctic Archipelago, a portion of the central Arctic, and a few small isolated areas

in other regions. Without the protection of lairs, ringed seals, especially

newborns, are vulnerable to freezing and predation. We conclude that the

ongoing and projected changes in sea ice habitat pose significant threats to the

persistence of each of the five subspecies of the ringed seal and are likely to

curtail the range of the species substantially within the foreseeable future.

45

With respect to utilization for commercial, subsistence, recreational, scientific or

educational purposes, NMFS concluded: “that there is no evidence that overutilization of

ringed seals is occurring at present.”

46 NMFS considered the risk of disease as low, and “the

threat posed to ringed seals by predation is currently moderate, but predation risk is expected

to increase as snow and ice conditions change with a warming climate.”

47 With respect to

pollution and contaminants, oil and gas industry, fisheries, and shipping NMFS concluded:

“We find that the threats posed by pollutants, oil and gas activities, fisheries, and shipping do

not individually or collectively place the Arctic or Okhotsk subspecies of ringed seals at risk

of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future.”

48 The analysis of demographic risks

concluded:

45 77 Fed. Reg. 76711.

46 Id.

47 Id.

48 77 Fed. Reg. 76714.

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 15

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 15 of 30
Within the foreseeable future, the BRT judged the risks to Arctic ringed seal

persistence to be moderate (diversity and abundance) to high (productivity and

spatial structure). As noted above, the impacts to Arctic ringed seals may be

somewhat ameliorated initially if the subspecies’ range retracts northward with

sea ice habitats, but by the end of the century snow depths are projected to be

insufficient for lair formation and maintenance throughout much of the

subspecies’ range, including the potentially retracted northward one.

49

Although the Listing Rule discussed conservation efforts with respect to the Arctic ringed

seals in general, it made neither findings nor drew conclusions from conservation efforts,

internationally or domestically. It did note, however, that a co-management agreement with

Alaska Natives to monitor subsistence harvesting and cooperate research and education

programs pertaining to seals existed, and that NMFS’s national marine mammal Laboratory

is engaged in an active research program to enhance the understanding of risk factors

affecting ringed seals to improve the ability to develop effective management measures for the

species.50

The Listing Rule concluded:

Arctic subspecies: (1) There are no specific estimates of population

size available for the Arctic subspecies, but most experts postulate that the

population numbers in the millions. (2) The depth and duration of snow cover

are forecasted to decrease substantially throughout the range of the Arctic

ringed seal. Within this century, snow cover is forecasted to be inadequate for

the formation and occupation of birth lairs over most of the subspecies’ range.

(3) Because ringed seals stay with the ice as it annually advances and retreats,

the southern edge of the ringed seal’s range may initially shift northward.

Whether ringed seals will continue to move north with retreating ice over the

deeper, less productive Arctic Basin waters and whether the species that they

prey on will also move north is uncertain. (4) The Arctic ringed seal’s pupping

49 77 Fed. Reg. 76715.

50 77 Fed. Reg. 76715–16.

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 16

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 16 of 30
and nursing seasons are adapted to the phenology of ice and snow. The

projected decreases in sea ice, snow cover, and thermal capacity of birthing

lairs will likely lead to decreased pup survival. Thus, within the foreseeable

future it is likely that the number of Arctic ringed seals will decline substantially,

and they will no longer persist in substantial portions of their range. We have

determined that the Arctic subspecies of the ringed seal is not in danger of

extinction throughout all of its range, but is likely to become so within the

foreseeable future. Therefore, we are listing it as threatened.

51

D. Arguments

The Northern Alaska Plaintiffs contend that the use of a foreseeable future extending

out 100 years was arbitrary and capricious in that it used climate modeling that NMFS had

previously concluded was too uncertain and unreliable, and that NMFS failed to provide a

rational connection between the limited scientific data available and its decision.

The State also contends that the application of the foreseeable future period beyond

50 years was arbitrary and capricious. Additionally, the State argues that NMFS failed to

provide an adequate response under ESA § 4(i).

AOGA/API also joins the argument that the use of the 100-year foreseeable future was

improper. They also contend that NMFS has not, indeed cannot, project the magnitude of the

risk of extinction to Arctic ringed seals.

E. Analysis

The parties agree that the Listing Rule relied principally, if not solely, upon climate

change as the governing factor for listing the Arctic ringed seals as threatened.52

It is also

51 77 Fed. Reg. 76716.

52 See 77 Fed. Reg. 76707.

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 17

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 17 of 30
undisputed that, under the regulations, climate change is not only a factor properly considered,

but that a listing may be made on any one of the factors alone.

53 It is further undisputed that

the term “foreseeable future” is not defined by either statute or regulation; accordingly, the

agency defines it on a case-by-case basis in each listing decision.

54 With that general

background, the Court will address the issues raised: first the procedural issue, then the

substantive issues.

1. Procedural Issue

The State contends that NMFS failed to adequately respond to the State’s comments.

Section 4(i) of the EPA

55 provides in relevant part that where, as here, a State has filed

comments disagreeing with the proposed regulation, “the Secretary shall submit to the State

agency a written justification for his failure to adopt regulations consistent with the agency’s

comment or petition.”

56

53 50 C.F.R. § 424.11(c) (10-1-12).

54 See In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and Section 4(d) Rule

Litigation – MDL No. 1993, 709 F.3d 1, 15 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Safari Club

Int’l. v. Jewell, 134 S. Ct. 310 (2013).

55 16 U.S.C. § 1533(I)

56 See 50 C.F.R. § 424.18(c) (10-1-12) (containing identical language).

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 18

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 18 of 30
Initially, the State contends that the State failed to provide a separate written

justification relying on this Court’s prior decision in Salazar.

57 The Ninth Circuit having

specifically rejected that argument in Salazar,

58 this Court must also reject it in this case.

The State also argues that the NMFS responses were inadequate in four particulars:

(1) failed to consider or respond to two independent studies submitted or referred to by the

State; (2) adequately address comments regarding the current abundance and health of the

Arctic ringed seal; (3) adequately address the State’s comment pointing out the historic

resilience of the ringed seal or its ability to adapt to changed climatic conditions over a nine

or ten generational span; and (4) in using a 100-year forecast, did not adequately respond to

the departure from its historic use of a 50-year forecast.

This Court rejects the State’s argument as to (2), (3), and (4). NMFS did respond to

those comments. Reduced their essence, the State’s “objections” for the most part addressed

a disagreement with the sufficiency of the content of the responses. The Ninth Circuit made

clear in Jewel that in the context of weighing the adequacy of an agency’s response “a court

will not analyze the sufficiency of [NMFS’s] responses.”

59 As to point (1) a slightly different

scenario exists. The State refers to two independent studies: (1) a study of ringed seals in

Hudson Bay showing that the health of ringed seals is better in the 2000's than it was in the

57 Alaska Oil and Gas Ass’n v. Salazar, 916 F. Supp.2d 974, 1003 (D. Alaska 2013),

reversed and remanded sub nom., Alaska Oil and Gas Ass’n v. Jewell, ___ F.3d ___, 2016

WL 766855 (9th Cir. Feb. 29, 2016).

58 Jewell, ___ F.3d at ___, 2016 WL 766855 at *14.

59 Id.

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 19

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 19 of 30
1990's when it was colder and there was more ice; and (2) an Alaska industry group

ecosystem studies or Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement

studies cited in AFDG’s comment letters. The Court will address the two points in seriatim.

In response to the Hudson Bay studies, implicitly acknowledging that the study cited

by the State had not been specifically cited, NMFS argues that its summary of comments

indicated that it had thoroughly reviewed “all ‘peer-reviewed journal articles, technical reports,

and references to scientific literature’ provided and those not specifically mentioned in the

response to comments had been ‘considered previously or did not alter our determinations

regarding the status of the four ringed seal subspecies.’”

60 In response, the State argues that

this generic response is insufficient to show that it actually reviewed the study’s key findings

vis-a-vis the declination during the heavy ice conditions and increase during periods of less

sea ice.

61

While NMFS’s response was perhaps technically deficient, the State’s argument still

fails. Even assuming that NMFS did not consider that particular study, the State fails to

advance any argument that the failure had any material bearing on the ultimate decision,

based on projections occurring at some point after the year 2050. To require an agency to

specifically respond to each and every study referenced by the State by name simply exalts

form over substance. Particularly where, as in this case, the study in question had little, if any,

60 NMFS Opposition, Docket 60, p. 60 (citation to the record omitted).

61 State Reply, Docket 66, p. 12.

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 20

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 20 of 30
material relevance to the ultimate decision addressing projected conditions a hundred years

in the future.

62

In response to the failure to respond to the Alaska industry group studies, NMFS

argues that, because the State simply provided links to websites without identifying any

specific, relevant study the State believed NMFS should have considered. NMFS contends

that this constituted a waiver of that point.

63 In response, the State simply argues that in 2011

NMFS could have accessed the URLs provided and located the studies referenced.

64 The

URL identified by the State in its comment, http://alaska.boemre.gov/ess/index.htm,

65 is a

general index.

In its Reply the State, after acknowledging that the URL cited has been superceded,

states:66

The link to the new website, www.BOEM.gov, brings up the agency’s main

page, with a tab for “Environmental Stewardship,” which includes a link to

“Environmental Studies,” where the ADFG-referenced reports and data can be

accessed. The industry website states that the marine mammals studies have

been moved to a new webpage—www.chukchiscience.com.

42 Links to the

studies are available there under “Study the Science.”

42 See http://alaska.conocophillips.com/EN/sustainable/environment/Pages/studies.aspx.

62 The Court notes that the State does not advance any argument as to the materiality

of the omitted material, in particular how its consideration might have changed the decision.

63 NMFS Opposition, supra.

64 State Reply, supra.

65 AR 3007851.

66 State Reply, supra, pp. 12–13.

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 21

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 21 of 30
The Court agrees with NMFS that in failing to name specific, relevant studies the State

waived any objection to the failure to consider that material. Given the volume of material that

NMFS must review and consider in the rule adoption process,67 it is simply unrealistic to

expect a federal agency to search an index to ascertain where the material to which a

comment refers may be found. Had the State included in its comments the detail it presents

in its Reply, NMFS would not have had a basis upon which to ignore it.

2. Substantive Issues

Initially the Court notes that, in a case involving the Beringia DPS of bearded seals, it

previously held under the facts of that case, that the use of a 100-year projection was not

within the reasonably foreseeable future. In that case, after finding that under the facts

presented, forecasting more than 50 years into the future was simply too remote and

speculative to support a determination that the bearded seal was in danger of becoming

extinct.

68 The Court concluded:

After reviewing the voluminous record and applicable case law the Court

has determined that the action of NMFS in listing the Beringia DPS of bearded

seals was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

accordance with law.”

(Fn omitted) In particular, with respect to two factors: (1) the

lack of any articulated discernable, quantified threat of extinction within the

reasonably foreseeable future; and (2) the express finding that, because

67 The Court notes that in this case, NMFS received 5,294 comment submissions in

the form of letters via mail, fax and electronically; testimony from 41 people and written

submissions from 12 people at three public hearings; plus comments from State and Federal

Agencies, foreign government agencies, native organizations, environmental groups, industry

groups, and other interested persons. 77 Fed. Reg. 76719.

68 Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Blank, Case No. 4:13-cv-00018-RRB, Docket 78, p. 31

(hereinafter “Seal I”).

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 22

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 22 of 30
existing protections were adequate, no further protective action need be taken

at this time. Listing the Beringia DPS as [“threatened”] had no effect except to

require all federal agencies to consult with NMFS before carrying out any action

that might jeopardize the continued existence of the Beringia DPS throughout

its range. A listing under the ESA based upon speculation, that provides no

additional action intended to preserve the continued existence of the listed

species, is inherently arbitrary and capricious.69

The Court, however, also specifically noted:

This Court is not holding that the use of projections that extend out more

than 50 years is impermissible in all cases. The Court’s holding today is limited

to the facts presented in the record before it, i.e., that an unknown,

unquantifiable population reduction, which is not expected to occur until nearly

100 years in the future, is too remote and speculative to support a listing as

threatened. If it were to hold otherwise, such a holding could logically render

every species in the arctic and sub-arctic areas potentially “threatened.”

70

Appeals from that decision are presently pending before the Ninth Circuit.

71

Thus, the threshold issue before the Court in this case is whether, in light of its earlier

decision and applying the doctrine of stare decisis, it should reach a different result based

upon the facts presented. For the following reasons the Court is of the opinion that it should

not.

Throughout its listing rule NMFS uses the term “foreseeable future.” NMFS defined

foreseeability in general terms as:

The foreseeability of a species’ future status is case specific and depends upon

both the foreseeability of threats to the species and foreseeability of the

species’ response to those threats. When a species is exposed to a variety of

threats, each threat may be foreseeable over a different time frame. For

69 Id., pp. 31–32.

70 Id., p.31, note 69.

71 Ninth Circuit Nos. 14-35806, 14-35811.

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 23

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 23 of 30
example, threats stemming from well-established, observed trends in a global

physical process may be foreseeable on a much longer time horizon than a

threat stemming from a potential, though unpredictable, episodic process such

as an outbreak of disease that may never have been observed to occur in the

species.

The principal threat to ringed seals is habitat alteration stemming from

climate change. In the 2008 status review for the ribbon seal (Boveng et al.,

2008; see also 73 FR 79822, December 30, 2008), NMFS scientists used the

same climate projections used in our risk assessment for ringed seals (which

is summarized in the preamble to this final rule), and analyzed threats

associated with climate change through 2050. One reason for that approach

was the difficulty of incorporating the increased divergence and uncertainty in

climate scenarios beyond that time. Other reasons included the lack of data for

threats other than those related to climate change beyond 2050, and the fact

that uncertainty embedded in the assessment of the ribbon seal’s response to

threats increased as the analysis extended farther into the future.

Since completing the analysis for ribbon seals, with its climate impact

analysis, NMFS scientists have revised their analytical approach to the

foreseeability of threats due to climate change and responses to those threats,

adopting a more threat-specific approach based on the best scientific and

commercial data available for each respective threat. For example, because the

climate projections in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s

(IPCC’s) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4; IPCC, 2007) extend through the

end of the century (and we note the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5),

due in 2014, will extend even farther into the future), for our analysis of ringed

seals we used the same models to assess impacts from climate change

through 2100. We continue to recognize that the farther into the future the

analysis extends, the greater the inherent uncertainty, and we incorporated that

limitation into our assessment of the threats and the species’ response. For

other threats, where the best scientific and commercial data do not extend as

far into the future, such as for occurrences and projections of disease or

parasitic outbreaks, we limited our analysis to the extent of such data. This

threat-specific approach creates a more robust analysis of the best scientific

and commercial data available. It is also consistent with the memorandum

issued by the Department of Interior, Office of the Solicitor, regarding the

meaning of the term ‘‘foreseeable future’’ (Opinion M–37021; January 16,

2009).

72

72 77 Fed. Reg. 76707.

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 24

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 24 of 30
In response to an objection projecting through the end of the 21st century, NMFS

stated:

Comment 9: A peer reviewer expressed the view that climate model

predictions should not be considered beyond mid-century because they rely on

assumptions about future policy decisions that will affect GHG emissions and

are thus highly speculative. Related public comments, including from the State

of Alaska, noted that NMFS’s recent ESA listing determination for the ribbon

seal and a subsequent court decision concluded that projections of climate

scenarios beyond 2050 are too heavily dependent on socioeconomic

assumptions and are therefore too divergent for reliable use in assessing

threats to the species. Two reviewers and several commenters expressed the

opinion that trying to predict the response of seals to environmental change

beyond mid-century increases the uncertainty unreasonably. A reviewer and

several public comments also pointed out that assessing impacts to ringed

seals from climate change through the end of this century is inconsistent with:

(1) Other recent ESA determinations for Arctic species, such as ribbon seal

and polar bear, that considered species responses through mid-century; (2) the

IUCN red list process, which uses a timeframe of three generation lengths; and

(3) the mid-century timeframe considered to evaluate environmental responses

of marine mammals to climate change in a special issue (March 2008) of the

journal Ecological Applications (Walsh, 2008). A few commenters expressed

the opinion that the altered approach is significant because the listing

determinations are wholly dependent upon NMFS’s use of a 100-year

foreseeable future. Several commenters expressed the opinion that inadequate

justification was provided for NMFS’s use of a 100-year foreseeable future.

Many of these commenters suggested that the best scientific data support a

“foreseeable future” time frame of no more than 50 years, and some

commenters such as the State of Alaska suggested a shorter time horizon of

no more than 20 years. In contrast, another peer reviewer and some

commenters expressed support for use of climate model projections through the

end of the 21st century.

Response: The ESA requires us to make a decision as to whether the

species under consideration is in danger of extinction throughout all or a

significant portion of its range (endangered), or is likely to become endangered

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range

(threatened) based on the best scientific and commercial data available. While

we may consider the assessment processes of other scientists (i.e., IUCN;

Walsh, 2008), we must make a determination as to whether a species meets

the definition of threatened or endangered based upon an assessment of the

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 25

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 25 of 30
threats according to section 4 of the ESA. We have done so in this rule, using

a threat-specific approach to the ‘‘foreseeable future’’ as discussed below and

in the proposed listing rule.

In the December 30, 2008, ribbon seal listing decision (73 FR 79822)

the horizon of the foreseeable future was determined to be the year 2050. The

reasons for limiting the review to 2050 included the difficulty in incorporating the

increased divergence and uncertainty in future emissions scenarios beyond this

time, as well as the lack of data for threats other than those related to climate

change beyond 2050, and that the uncertainty inherent in assessing ribbon

seal responses to threats increased as the analysis extended farther into the

future. By contrast, in our more recent analyses for spotted, ringed, and

bearded seals, we did not identify a single specific time as the foreseeable

future. Rather, we addressed the foreseeable future based on the available data

for each respective threat. This approach better reflects real conditions in that

some threats (e.g., disease outbreaks) appear more randomly through time and

are therefore difficult to predict, whereas other threats (climate change) evince

documented trends supported by paleoclimatic data from which reasonably

accurate predictions can be made farther into the future. Thus, the time period

covered for what is reasonably foreseeable for one threat may not be the same

for another. The approach is also consistent with the memorandum issued by

the Department of Interior, Office of the Solicitor, regarding the meaning of the

term ‘‘foreseeable future’’ (Opinion M–37021; January 16, 2009). In

consideration of this modified threat-specific approach, NMFS initiated a new

status review of the ribbon seal on December 13, 2011 (76 FR 77467).

As discussed in the proposed listing rule, the analysis and synthesis of

information presented in the IPCC’s AR4 represents the scientific consensus

view on the causes and future of climate change. The IPCC’s AR4 used stateof-the-art AOGCMs under six “marker” scenarios from the Special Report on

Emissions Scenarios (SRES; IPCC, 2000) to develop climate projections under

clearly stated assumptions about socioeconomic factors that could influence

the emissions. Conditional on each scenario, the best estimate and likely

range of emissions were projected through the end of the 21st century. In our

review of the status of the ringed seal, we considered model projections of sea

ice developed using the A1B scenario, a medium ‘‘business-as-usual’’

emissions scenario, as well the A2 scenario, a high emissions scenario, to

represent a significant range of variability in future emissions.

We also note that the SRES scenarios do not assume implementation

of additional climate initiatives beyond current mitigation policies. This is

consistent with consideration of “existing” regulatory mechanisms in our

analysis under ESA listing Factor D. It is also consistent with our Policy on

Evaluating Conservation Efforts (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003), which

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 26

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 26 of 30
requires that in making listing decisions we consider only formalized

conservation efforts that are sufficiently certain to be implemented and

effective.

The model projections of global warming (defined as the expected global

change in surface air temperature) out to about 2040–2050 are primarily due

to emissions that have already occurred and those that will occur over the next

decade. Thus conditions projected to mid-century are less sensitive to

assumed future emissions scenarios. For the second half of the 21st century,

however, the choice of an emissions scenario becomes the major source of

variation among climate projections. As noted above, in our 2008 listing

decision for ribbon seal, the foreseeable future was determined to be the year

2050. The identification of mid-century as the foreseeable future took into

consideration the approach taken by FWS in conducting its status review of the

polar bear under the ESA, and the IPCC assertion that GHG levels are

expected to increase in a manner that is largely independent of assumed

emissions scenarios until about the middle of the 21st century, after which the

emissions scenarios become increasingly influential.

Subsequently, in the listing analyses for spotted, ringed, and bearded

seals, we noted that although projections of GHGs become increasingly

uncertain and subject to assumed emissions scenarios in the latter half of the

21st century, projections of air temperatures consistently indicate that warming

will continue throughout the century. Although the magnitude of the warming

depends somewhat on the assumed emissions scenario, the trend is clear and

unidirectional. To the extent that the IPCC model suite represents a consensus

view, there is relatively little uncertainty that warming will continue. Because

sea ice production and persistence is related to air temperature through wellknown physical processes, the expectation is also that loss of sea ice and

reduced snow cover will continue throughout the 21st century. Thus, the more

recent inclusion of projections out to the year 2100 reflects NMFS’s intention

to use the best and most current data and analytical approaches available.

AOGCM projections consistently show continued reductions in ice extent and

multi-year ice (ice that has survived at least one summer melt season)

throughout the 21st century (e.g., Holland et al., 2006; Zhang and Walsh,

2006; Overland and Wang, 2007), albeit with a spread among the models in the

projected reductions. In addition, as discussed by Douglas (2010), the

observed rate of Arctic sea ice loss has been reported as greater than the

collective projections of most IPCC-recognized AOGCMs (e.g., Stroeve et al.,

2007; Wang and Overland, 2009), suggesting that the projections of sea ice

declines within this century may in fact be conservative.

We concluded that in this review of the status of the ringed seal, the

climate projections in the IPCC’s AR4, as well as the scientific papers used in

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 27

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 27 of 30
this report or resulting from this report, represent the best scientific and

commercial data available to inform our assessment of the potential impacts

from climate change. In our risk assessment for ringed seals, we therefore

considered the full 21st century projections to analyze the threats stemming

from climate change. We continue to recognize that the farther into the future

the analysis extends, the greater the inherent uncertainty, and we incorporated

that consideration into our assessments of the threats and the species’

responses to the threats.73

NMFS essentially acknowledged that it lacks sufficient data on the resilience of Arctic

ringed seal to cope with climatic changes,74 or to define an extinction threshold for ringed seals

and assessing the probability of reaching that threshold within a specified time prior to the end

of the century.

75 NMFS also acknowledged that, because the existing body of information

regarding ringed seal population and trends was limited, additional studies were needed to

understand the population dynamics and habitat of the ringed seal.

76

It does not appear from the Listing Rule that any serious threat of a reduction in the

population of the Arctic ringed seal, let alone extinction, exists prior to the last decade of the

21st century. This is troubling. Indeed, the Listing Rule itself concedes that, at least through

mid-21st century, there is little threat to the population level of the Arctic ringed seal. With

respect to the second half of the century it appears that no significant threat to the Arctic

ringed seal is contemplated until sometime after 2050, but somewhere around 2090–2100.

Even as to that date, NMFS acknowledges that it lacks any reliable data as to the actual

73 77 Fed. Reg. 76722–23.

74 77 Fed. Reg. 76726 (response to Comment 23).

75 77 Fed. Reg. 76716, 76728 (response to Comment 29).

76 77 Fed. Reg. 76728 (response to Comment 30).

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 28

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 28 of 30
impact on the ringed seal population as a result of the loss of sea-ice. Under the facts in this

case, forecasting more than some 80 years into the future is simply too speculative and

remote to support a determination that the Arctic ringed seal is in danger of becoming extinct.

77

VI. CONCLUSION/ORDER

After reviewing the voluminous record, applicable case law, and its prior decision in

Seal I, the Court has determined that, as with the Beringia DPS of bearded seals, the action

of NMFS in listing the Arctic ringed seals was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,

or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

78 In particular, the Court reaches this conclusion

based on two factors: (1) the lack of any articulated discernable, quantified threat of extinction

within the reasonably foreseeable future; and (2) the express finding by NMFS that (a) the

proposed protective regulations for threatened subspecies of the ringed seal were not

necessary or advisable for the conservation of the Arctic ringed seal at this time and (b) the

existing protections under the Marine Mammal Protection Act made it unlikely that the

proposed protective regulations would provide appreciable conservation benefits. Listing the

Arctic ringed seal as “threatened” has no effect except to require all federal agencies to

consult with NMFS before carrying out any action that might jeopardize the continued

77 As in Seal I this Court is not holding that the use of projections that extend out more

than 50 years is impermissible in all cases. The Court’s holding today is limited to the facts

presented in the record before it, i.e., that an unknown, unquantifiable population reduction,

which is not expected to occur until nearly 100 years in the future, is too remote and

speculative to support a listing as threatened. If it were to hold otherwise, such a holding could

logically render every species in the arctic and sub-arctic areas potentially “threatened.”

78 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 29

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 29 of 30
existence of the Arctic ringed seal throughout its range. A listing under the ESA based upon

an un-quantified threat of extinction that may occur more than 50 years in the future that

provides no additional action intended to preserve the continued existence of the listed

species, is inherently arbitrary and capricious.

Where, as here, the agency’s action is found to be arbitrary and capricious, the

appropriate action is to remand to the agency.

79

“[V]acatur of an unlawful agency rule

normally accompanies a remand.”

80

There is nothing, of course, to prevent NMFS from revisiting this matter if

circumstances later develop to suggest that the Arctic ringed seal may become threatened in

the “reasonably foreseeable future.”

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment at Docket Numbers 42, 50,

and 54 are hereby GRANTED. The Cross-Motions of Defendants at Docket Numbers 60

and 63, are hereby DENIED. The final rule is hereby VACATED to the extent it affects the

Arctic ringed seal (the Phoca hispida hispida subspecies) and REMANDED to NMFS to

correct the aforementioned deficiencies.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter final judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 17

th day of March, 2016.

S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

79 Nat’l Ass’n of Homebuilders, 551 U.S. at 657–58.

80 Alsea Valley Alliance v. Dep’t of Commerce, 358 F.3d 1181, 1185–86 (9th Cir.

2004).

MEMORANDUM DECISION [CORRECTED]

Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Svc., 4:14-cv-00029-RRB – 30

Case 4:14-cv-00029-RRB Document 75 Filed 03/17/16 Page 30 of 30