from CFACT
Author: Dr. Bonner Cohen
The Biden-Harris administration's effort to designate more than 324,000 square miles as “critical habitat” for two species of Arctic seals was blocked by an Alaska federal court, which ruled that the designation, based largely on the future impacts of climate change, was blocked. is not feasible.
In a Sept. 26 ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason dealt a huge setback to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), revoking the agency's 12-year ban on fishing in Bitexa. Efforts to develop oil and gas in larger areas of the state are simultaneously undermining the region's fisheries and interfering with commercial shipping lanes. Once an area is designated critical habitat by the European Space Agency, strict land and water use restrictions come into play that can hinder commercial development. The critical habitat designation sought by the Biden administration includes large swaths of the Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort seas.
The Obama administration first listed bearded seals and Arctic ringed seals as threatened species by the European Space Agency in 2012, and the Biden administration granted them critical habitat in 2022. Range Habitat is in the United States, including coastal waters along the North Slope of Alaska and the adjacent outer continental shelf. Alaska filed suit in February 2023 against NMFS and the Center for Biological Diversity, which intervened in the case, arguing that the agency's vast habitat designation violated the ESA.
Biden administration officials' attempts to use the ESA to shut down fossil fuel development and other commercial activity resulted in Judge Gleeson delivering a major legal victory for Alaska by citing NMFS's own violations of the same statute. In defending such a large seal's federally protected habitat, the National Weather Service cited future threats from climate change; oil and gas exploration, development and production; maritime shipping and transportation; and commercial fishing.
But the courts quickly took up the government's claims.
First, the court held that NMFS failed to explain why each designated area as a whole was critical to the conservation (i.e., survival and recovery) of the species or why smaller areas were insufficient to protect the species. The court further noted that the National Weather Service was unable to determine the location of important sea ice features because sea ice is dynamic and changing, and accurately identifying the locations of sea ice features requires “greater scientific specificity than available data can provide.” .
Second, Judge Gleason held that NMFS acted improperly by failing to take into account the habitats of two seal species found outside the United States. While ESA's jurisdiction does not extend beyond U.S. borders and cannot designate any critical habitat there, the court concluded that the agency was obligated to consider foreign countries such as Canada or Russia) conservation work.
Third, the court found that NMWS abused its discretion by failing to consider certain areas for exclusion from critical habitat under ESA section 4(b)(2). State and local officials had sought such exclusions along Alaska's North Slope, hoping to protect fisheries and waterways from critical habitat designations. The court ruled that NMFS should explain why all 160 million-plus acres are needed for habitat and weigh the benefits of including and excluding certain areas.
“Just because NMFS cannot identify a less widespread, specific geographic location for breeding or molting does not explain why the more than 160 million acres it has identified as critical habitat are 'essential' or 'indispensable,'” Obama appointee the judge wrote.
Judge Gleeson emphasized her view that the NFWS went too far in dealing with seals, adding: “While the court acknowledged the challenges of designating critical habitat for threatened species that inhabit Arctic waters, the court did not There is no provision reading the ESA that would allow the Service to designate nearly all seal habitat in the United States as essential to seal conservation.
In the end, the court sent NMFS's habitat rules back to the agency, which Court News Service noted means “the seals will lose critical habitat until the agency develops new rules.”
The court's rebuke of the Biden administration's attempts to use the ESA to limit fossil fuel development in Alaska could set the stage for development of the hydrocarbon-rich region under the new administration.
This article originally appeared in DC Journal
Relevant
