ELR Citation: 56 ELR 20033
No(s). 24-7276 and 24-7377 (9th Cir. Mar 25, 2026)

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court ruling in a challenge to NMFS' issuance of critical habitat designations for two species of Arctic seal. The state of Alaska argued the designations were too broad and their benefits too slight, in violation of the ESA and its reasoned decisionmaking requirement. The district court agreed, finding NMFS failed to explain why the entirety of each designated area was necessary to the seals' survival and why a smaller area would not suffice; failed to account for foreign nation conservation efforts and the existence of foreign habitat; and abused its discretion in declining to consider excluding the coastal buffer zones for oil and gas activities as requested by the state and the North Slope Borough. The appellate court found the designations were consistent with the ESA's definition of occupied critical habitat, that NMFS was not required to account for foreign nation conservation efforts or the existence of foreign habitat, and that NMFS acted within its discretion and consistently with the ESA when it declined to consider excluding certain coastal areas; and it rejected the state's argument that the designations must be set aside because NMFS adequately explained why the exception to the ESA's "prudency" requirement was inapplicable to the seals. It reversed the district court's ruling that the designations were unlawful, affirmed its ruling as to the prudency requirement, reinstated the designations, and remanded to NMFS.