Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt

The federal district court for the District of Alaska granted summary judgment to the federal government in Center for Biological Diversity’s lawsuit challenging the 2017 determination that listing of the Pacific walrus as endangered or threatened was not warranted. First, the court found that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had provided a reasoned explanation for changing its policy from a 2011 decision that listing was warranted but precluded, including change concerning the effect of projected future losses of sea-ice habitat. Second, the court rejected the claim that the FWS arbitrarily defined the foreseeable future to extend to 2060 rather than 2100. The court said the policy of using 2060 as the foreseeable future timeframe was permissible under the Endangered Species Act, that the use of 2100 in the 2011 listing decision was not determinative, and that the FWS provided reasons for using 2060. Third, the court found that the FWS did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in drawing the conclusion that the Pacific walrus could adapt to loss of habitat. Fourth, the court rejected the argument that the FWS “treated scientific uncertainty inconsistently” by “dismissing the negative impacts of sea ice loss beyond 2060 because of uncertainly, while relying on uncertainty to conclude that the walrus would be able to adapt to the loss of its sea ice habitat, that the population is approaching stability, and that subsistence harvest would remain sustainable.” Fifth, the court said the FWS had adequately considered sea-ice and land habitat and that the failure to consider coastal erosion was not arbitrary and capricious.

The Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in federal district court for the District of Alaska asserting that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s decision not to list the Pacific walrus as a threatened or endangered species violated the Endangered Species Act. CBD alleged that best available science showed that massive loss of sea ice habitat due to climate change threatened the species’s continued existence and was already having negative effects on the animals. CBD asserted five claims for relief under the Endangered Species Act and Administrative Procedure Act: failure to explain a change in position from the Service’s 2011 conclusion that the Pacific walrus warranted protection; improper “foreseeable future” analysis based on the year 2060 when best available science provided projections of sea ice loss through 2100; failure to consider best available scientific data and reaching conclusions contrary to such data; improper and inconsistent treatment of scientific uncertainty; and failure to conduct a proper listing analysis.