Opinion ID: 1310491
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Service's finding of negligible impact under the MMPA

Text: The Center argues that the Service's negligible impact finding was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to consider the combined effects of oil and gas operations on the weakened physical fitness of polar bears due to climate change. The government argues that the plaintiffs failed to raise this increased vulnerability argument during the administrative process. A participant in an administrative process must alert[ ] the agency to [their] position and contentions. Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Failure to raise such particular objections may result in forfeit[ure of] any objection to the resulting regulation. Dep't of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 765-66 (2004). [13] The plaintiffs did not forfeit the objection. The Center's letter to the Service, dated April 21, 2006, incorporated the Service's finding that inclusion of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act may be warranted, and expressly incorporated the listing petition's request for protection of the polar bear. The petition raised the issue of polar bears' declining physical fitness due to climate change precisely. Thus, the Center provided the Service adequate opportunity to consider the issue. See Portland Gen. Elec. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 501 F.3d 1009, 1023-24 (9th Cir. 2007). [14] To authorize incidental takes pursuant to § 101(a)(5) of the MMPA, the Service must determine that the takes, during the five-year term of the regulation, will have a negligible impact on the affected polar bear population. 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(5)(A)(i)(I). A negligible impact finding is arbitrary and capricious under the MMPA only if the agency[, inter alia,] . . . entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem . . . . See Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 987; Cf. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). The plaintiffs claim the Service entirely failed to consider polar bears' increased vulnerability due to climate change. The government alleges that the Service did analyze the weakened state of polar bears because it conducted a cumulative effects analysis in which it purported to consider habitat loss due to climate change, hunting, disease, oil spills, contaminants, and effects on prey species within the geographic region. An agency's blanket statement that it has considered all evidence is ineffective where the analysis makes clear that a crucial issue has been overlooked. Cf. Or. Natural Res. Council Fund v. Goodman, 505 F.3d 884, 893 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, we need not determine whether the Service actually analyzed the effects of weakened physical fitness of bears, as the relationship between such fitness and industrial activities was speculative. Under the Service's regulations, to find a negligible impact requires the analysis of those effects that are reasonably expected and reasonably likely, but not those effects that are speculative or uncertain. 50 C.F.R. § 18.27(c). The Center alleges that the bears' weakened statesuch as the reduced body fat of denning femalesmakes them more vulnerable to disturbance impacts from oil and gas activities. However, the seriousness of industrial disturbance impacts is subject to legitimate scientific dispute. Industrial noise may cause females to abandon their dens prematurely, endangering their offspring. Then again, noise-producing activity may need to be very close to the den to cause such a response. Bears may even acclimate to such noises. [15] Reduced physical fitness due to climate change likely poses a serious threat to the Beaufort Sea polar bear population, but the Service could reasonably conclude that such a threat could not be reasonably expected to manifest itself in the context of regional oil and gas activities. In so concluding, the Service made scientific predictions within the scope of its expertise, the circumstance in which we exercise our greatest deference. Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 993. The Service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously. [16] The finding was not arbitrary and capricious for failing to account for the increased vulnerability of polar bears due to climate change.