Description: Challenge to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s 2023 approval of the Willow Master Development Plan in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
-
Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. Bureau of Land Management
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 01/22/2024 Reply Download Reply brief filed by Center for Biological Diversity et al. 01/20/2024 Reply Download Reply brief filed by Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic et al. Briefing Completed on Expedited Appeal in Willow Project Case. Briefing was completed on January 22, 2024. The plaintiffs’ arguments on appeal include that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to consider a reasonable range of alternatives and failing to assess downstream emissions from reasonably foreseeable development. They also argue that the federal defendants violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to consult on the impacts that Willow’s greenhouse gas emissions would have on ringed and bearded seals and polar bears. 01/12/2024 Brief Download Answering brief filed by State of Alaska. 01/12/2024 Brief Download Answering brief filed by ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. 12/29/2023 Brief Download Opening brief filed by Center for Biological Diversity et al. 12/29/2023 Brief Download Opening brief filed by Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic et al. 12/29/2023 Motion Download Renewed motion for injunction pending appeal filed by Center for Biological Diversity et al. 12/29/2023 Motion Download Renewed motion for an injunction pending appeal filed by Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic et al. 12/18/2023 Order Download Motions for injunctive relief pending appeal denied. Ninth Circuit Denied Injunction on Willow Project. On December 18, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied motions for injunctive relief pending the plaintiffs’ appeal of a District of Alaska decision rejecting their challenges to federal approvals of the Willow oil and gas project. The plaintiffs had asked the Ninth Circuit to enjoin approvals of the project to prevent construction and gravel mining activities from occurring. The denial of the motions was without prejudice to renewal of the motions before the merits panel. The Ninth Circuit also set an expedited briefing schedule, with initial briefs due on December 29. Both sets of plaintiffs filed new motions for injunctive relief pending appeal on that date, along with their opening briefs. 12/05/2023 Motion Download Emergency motion filed by plaintiffs-appellants Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic et al. On December 5, 2023, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion in the Ninth Circuit seeking to enjoin the federal approvals and to prevent construction and gravel mining activities that are scheduled to begin on December 21. -
Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. Bureau of Land Management
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 12/01/2023 Order Download Motions for injunction pending appeal denied. Alaska Federal Court Denied Plaintiffs’ Request for Injunction Pending Appeal in Challenge to Willow Project. On December 1, 2023, the federal district court for the District of Alaska denied plaintiffs’ motions for injunction pending their appeal of the court’s judgment upholding federal approvals for the Willow Master Development Plan, which authorized oil production on leases in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The court found that the plaintiffs did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims or raise serious questions going to the merits of those claims. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not establish irreparable harm from planned 2023-2024 planned winter construction activities. In addition, the court found that the balance of the equities and the public interest tipped sharply against injunctive relief pending appeal. 11/29/2023 Amicus Brief Download Alaska congressional delegation and Alaska State Legislature filed motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief in support of defendants' and intervenor-defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motions for injunction pending appeal. 11/29/2023 Opposition Download State of Alaska filed combined opposition to plaintiffs' motions for injunction pending appeal. 11/29/2023 Opposition Download Intervenor-defendant Arctic Slope Regional Corporation filed combined opposition to plaintiffs' motions for injunction pending appeal. 11/29/2023 Opposition Download Intervenor-defendant Kuukpik Corporation filed joint opposition to plaintiffs' motions for injunction pending appeal. 11/29/2023 Opposition Download North Slope Borough filed response in opposition to plaintiffs' motions for injunction pending appeal. 11/28/2023 Opposition Download ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. filed opposition to plaintiffs' motions for injunction pending appeal. 11/28/2023 Opposition Download Defendants filed combined memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs' motions for injunction pending appeal. 11/16/2023 Opposition Download Intervenor-defendants filed joint opposition to plaintiffs' request for expedited consideration of motion for injunction pending appeal. 11/15/2023 Motion Download Motion for injunction pending appeal filed by plaintiffs. 11/09/2023 Decision Download Plaintiffs' claims dismissed with prejudice. Alaska Federal Court Upheld Federal Approvals for Willow Project, Rejecting Claims that Agencies Failed to Consider Climate Impacts. The federal district court for the District of Alaska dismissed environmental organizations’ claims that federal agency approvals in early 2023 of the Willow Master Development Plan—which authorized oil production on leases in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A)—violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act, and other federal statutes. The approved project consists of three drill sites and related infrastructure, including a processing facility, airstrip, operations center, gravel mine, gravel roads, and pipelines.
Under NEPA, the court found that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) considered a reasonable range of alternatives, rejecting the plaintiffs’ contentions that BLM had based its selection of alternatives on a “purpose and need” statement that relied on a misinterpretation of BLM’s authority under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (NPRPA). The plaintiffs contended that BLM should have considered an alternative that “substantially reduces Willow’s carbon footprint” and prohibits infrastructure within the sensitive Teshekpuk Lake Special Area while also allowing production of some oil. The court held that the purpose and need statement’s framing of the authorization of NPR-A oil and gas production while providing for the protection of significant surface resources was reasonable and that BLM considered the requisite reasonable range of alternatives based on the purpose and need. In addition, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ assertion that BLM’s analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from reasonably foreseeable future actions failed to consider emissions from potential future development. The court noted that BLM’s final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) incorporated prior analysis that included “low to high range of projected GHG emissions from future potential projects in the NPR-A” and therefore provided sufficient information about cumulative effects of greenhouse gas emissions from future development that could be induced by the Willow project even if the prior analysis did not include specific projections of downstream emissions from the potential “West Willow” or “Greater Willow” project. In addition, the court rejected the contention that BLM violated NEPA by excluding emissions from construction and routine operations of the West Willow project. The court characterized this exclusion as “inconsequential.”
Under the NPRPA, the court rejected the contention that BLM failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives and arbitrarily limited its authority, citing the same rationale as it cited for upholding the NEPA alternatives analysis. The court found that the assertion that BLM violated NPRPA by failing to address the impact of the Willow Project’s greenhouse gas emissions on surface resources was “unpersuasive”; the court found that the plaintiffs did not causally link the project’s emissions to specific harms. Under the NPRPA, the court also found that BLM provided sufficient explanations for its rejection of specific measures that the plaintiffs claimed BLM had arbitrarily rejected: (1) a 20-year operating term instead of a 30-year term; (2) periodic review of NEPA analysis if more oil was recovered than anticipated; and (3) mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions through land reforestation.
Under Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act § 810, the court rejected the claim that BLM failed to consider alternatives that would reduce impacts to subsistence uses.
Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the court first concluded that the plaintiffs had standing to raise all their ESA claims, including claims regarding the ESA consultation on the project’s greenhouse gas emissions. On the merits of the ESA claim, the court concluded that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) biological opinion (BiOp) was not arbitrary and capricious in its incidental take analysis of polar bears. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that BLM, FWS, and the National Marine Fisheries Service failed to consider the effects of Willow’s carbon emissions on protected species. The court upheld BLM’s determination that Willow’s greenhouse gas emissions were not an “effect of the action” under the ESA. In response to a plaintiff’s comment on the draft SEIS that suggested linking the project’s emissions and climate change-related effects to listed species and their critical habitat, BLM prepared a memorandum that stated that the project “is anticipated to result in a marginal increase in global GHG emissions that would contribute to climate change and, potentially, a marginal seasonal decrease in sea ice extent somewhere in the Arctic” but that “any generalized calculations of GHG impacts, such as sea ice loss, at this time would not be able to determine precise effects to individual animals and such consequences would not be reasonably certain to occur.” The court rejected the petitioners’ argument that BLM improperly required “precision” or “granularity” in the ability to predict effects. The court cited the regulations that prescribe criteria for determining what is an “effect of the action,” which provide that a consequence must be “reasonably certain to occur” based on “clear and substantial information.” The court found that BLM “used ‘precision’ and ‘granularity’ as characterizations of the causation issues with the scientific data” to conclude that the evidence was not “clear and substantial enough to render the impact of Willow’s GHG on listed species an ‘effect of the action.’” The court similarly found that FWS’s failure to specifically address the Willow Project’s greenhouse gas emissions in the BiOp was not arbitrary and capricious. The court noted that the BiOp had recognized the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change and climate change impacts on polar bears and their habitat. The court noted that FWS had acknowledged that “polar bears in the Action Area could become increasingly sensitive to disturbance or other impacts … indirectly associated with climate change” but had found that there was not “sufficient data to reliably predict how the effects of the proposed Action may or may not contribute to increased sensitivity.” In addition, the court cited FWS’s conclusion that climate science was “still insufficient to identify project-specific effects to listed species or designated critical habitat” and that “an estimate of a project-caused decrease in sea ice occurring somewhere in the Arctic, without more specific information … does not enable us to predict any ‘effects of the action’ to listed species or designated critical habitat.” Citing these statements, the court found that the federal agencies considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts and the conclusion that the Willow Project’s greenhouse gas emissions were not an “effect of the action” under the ESA. In addition, the court rejected a contention that FWS failed to consider the best available scientific and commercial data as required by the ESA when it failed to consider the project’s greenhouse gas emissions. The court found that the agencies had considered the scientific studies that plaintiffs contended should have been used to quantify the impacts of the project’s emissions on sea ice and polar bears and seals. But the court accepted the agencies’ conclusion that the studies did not enable them to predict “effects of the action” on listed species or their critical habitat.09/15/2023 Reply Download Reply brief filed by plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity et al. 09/15/2023 Reply Download Reply filed by Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic et al. in support of summary judgment. 09/12/2023 Order Download Alaska congressional delegation's motions to file amicus curiae brief granted. 09/07/2023 Amicus Motion Download Alaska congressional delegation filed motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief in support of defendants' and intervenor-defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment. 08/30/2023 Brief Download Intervenor-defendant Arctic Slope Regional Corporation filed summary judgment brief. 08/30/2023 Opposition Download State of Alaska filed combined opposition to plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment. 08/30/2023 Opposition Download ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. filed brief in opposition to plaintiffs' summary summary judgment motions. 08/30/2023 Opposition Download Intervenor-defendant Kuukpik Corporation filed combined brief in opposition to plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment. 08/30/2023 Opposition Download North Slope Borough filed response in opposition to plaintiffs' opening briefs for summary judgment. 08/23/2023 Opposition Download Memorandum filed by defendants in opposition to plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment or judgment under Local Rule 16.3. 08/17/2023 Order Download Motions to file amicus curiae briefs granted. The court granted all motions for leave to file amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs but stated that "absent a clear advance notice to the parties from the Court, the Court does not intend to address legal issues raised for the first time in an amicus brief that were not raised in either set of Plaintiffs’ opening briefs, such as arguments regarding asserted violations of international law contained in the United Nations Special Rapporteurs’ amicus brief." 08/09/2023 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed by Our Children's Trust for leave to file amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment. 08/08/2023 Reply Download Institute for Policy Integrity filed reply to ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.'s response to IPI's motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. 08/07/2023 Notice Download Notice of withdrawal filed by Naqsragmiut Tribal Council for motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief. 08/06/2023 Response Download UN Special Rapporteurs filed response to ConocoPhillips' opposition to amicus brief. 08/01/2023 Response Download Response filed by ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. to motions for leave to file proposed amicus curiae briefs. 07/28/2023 Amicus Brief Download Amicus curiae brief filed by Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law in support of plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment. 07/28/2023 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed by Naqsragmiut Tribal Council for leave to file an amicus curiae brief. 07/28/2023 Response Download Response filed by ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. to motion for leave to file proposed amicus curiae brief by United Nations Special Rapporteurs. 07/26/2023 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed by Patagonia, Inc. for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. 07/26/2023 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed by Sabin Center for Climate Change Law for leave to file amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiffs. 07/26/2023 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed by United Nations Rapporteurs for leave to file amicus curiae brief on binding international law and related issues in support of the plaintiffs' arguments on the merits. 07/26/2023 Motion for Summary Judgment Download Opening brief filed by plaintiffs for summary judgment. 06/20/2023 Complaint Download First amended complaint filed. 04/04/2023 Motion Download Motion filed by plaintiffs for injunction pending appeal. 04/04/2023 Order Download Motion for injunction pending appeal denied. 04/03/2023 Order Download Motions for preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining order denied. Alaska Federal Court Denied Preliminary Injunction in Two Cases Challenging Willow Project. On April 3, 2023, the court denied motions for preliminary injunctions barring construction activities planned for winter 2023. Plaintiffs appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction and filed a motion in the district court for an injunction on construction activities for 14 days while they seek relief from the Ninth Circuit. In its order denying the plaintiffs’ requests for a preliminary injunction, the district court found that the plaintiffs’ concerns regarding the long-term negative impacts of oil and gas extraction, including impact on global climate change, were not relevant to consideration of the preliminary injunction motions because the winter 2023 construction activities would not include extraction. The court found that the plaintiffs’ other allegations of harm did not establish a likelihood of irreparable harm. The court also weighed environmental harm from the winter construction activities against economic damages, benefits to most subsistence users, and state and federal legislative statements that the Willow Project was in the public interest, and found that the balance of the equities and public interest “tip sharply against preliminary injunctive relief.” The court did not reach the issue of whether the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. 03/24/2023 Opposition Download Opposition filed by State of Alaska to motions for preliminary injunctions and motion for temporary restraining order. 03/24/2023 Order Download State of Alaska's motion to intervene granted. 03/23/2023 Motion to Intervene Download Memorandum filed by State of Alaska in support of motion to intervene. 03/21/2023 Order Download Kuukpik Corporation's motion to intervene granted. 03/14/2023 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Two lawsuits were filed in the federal district court for the District of Alaska challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) approval of the Willow Master Development Plan (Willow Project) in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The Willow Project consists of three drilling sites and related support infrastructure, including a processing facility, airstrip, operations center, gravel mine, gravel roads, and pipelines. BLM issued a new record of decision authorizing the project on March 13, 2023 after preparing a supplemental EIS on remand from a 2021 district court decision that found shortcomings in BLM’s 2020 review of the project, including failure to adequately assess downstream greenhouse gas emissions from foreign oil consumption. The plaintiffs in one lawsuit are six conservation groups led by Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic. They assert claims under NEPA, the National Petroleum Reserves Production Act (NPRPA), the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act. They assert, among other things, that BLM failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives in the supplemental EIS, including alternatives that would meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts. They also assert that BLM failed to take a hard look at the Willow Project’s potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, including impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. In addition, the complaint asserts that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to address impacts to polar bears as a result of greenhouse gas emissions produced from the Willow Project. 03/14/2023 Motion to Intervene Download Unopposed motion to intervene filed by ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. -
Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. Bureau of Land Management
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/28/2023 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to voluntarily dismiss appeal filed by Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic et al. Plaintiffs Withdrew Appeals of Denial of Preliminary Injunction in Willow Project Challenges. On April 28, the plaintiffs requested voluntary dismissal of their appeals of the denial of the injunction. The plaintiffs said they had conferred with the proponent of the project and learned that winter construction activities would be completed the week of May 1 and that major construction activities would not resume until the winter freeze-up in late 2023, allowing the plaintiffs to seek a briefing schedule that would make it possible for the district court to resolve the case before commencement of further ground-disturbing activities. 04/28/2023 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to voluntarily dismiss appeal filed by Center for Biological Diversity et al. 04/19/2023 Order Download Motions for injunctive relief pending appeal denied. On April 19, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied emergency motions for an injunction pending appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction to block work on the Willow Project, an oil and gas development project in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. 04/14/2023 Amicus Brief Download Amicus curiae brief filed by Alaska congressional delegation and Alaska State Legislature in support of opposition to emergency motion. 04/14/2023 Reply Download Reply filed by Center for Biological Diversity et al. in support of emergency motion. 04/14/2023 Reply Download Reply filed in support of emergency motion by Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic et al. 04/13/2023 Opposition Download Opposition filed by State of Alaska to plaintiffs' motion for injunction pending appeal. 04/13/2023 Opposition Download Opposition filed by Arctic Slope Regional Corporation to appellants' motions for preliminary injunction. 04/13/2023 Opposition Download Opposition filed by ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. to motions for injunction pending appeal. 04/13/2023 Opposition Download Opposition filed by federal defendants to plaintiffs' motions for injunction pending appeal. 04/13/2023 Opposition Download Opposition filed by Kuukpik Corporation to appellants' motions for injunction pending appeal. 04/13/2023 Opposition Download Response filed by North Slope Borough in opposition to motions for injunction pending appeal. 04/06/2023 Motion Download Emergency motion filed by Center for Biological Diversity et al. 04/05/2023 Motion Download Emergency motion filed by Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic. -
Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Management
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/14/2023 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Two lawsuits were filed in the federal district court for the District of Alaska challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) approval of the Willow Master Development Plan (Willow Project) in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The Willow Project consists of three drilling sites and related support infrastructure, including a processing facility, airstrip, operations center, gravel mine, gravel roads, and pipelines. BLM issued a new record of decision authorizing the project on March 13, 2023 after preparing a supplemental EIS on remand from a 2021 district court decision that found shortcomings in BLM’s 2020 review of the project, including failure to adequately assess downstream greenhouse gas emissions from foreign oil consumption. The plaintiffs in the second case are five environmental organizations led by Center for Biological Diversity. They assert claims under NEPA, NPRPA, and the Endangered Species Act. Under NEPA, they assert a failure to consider an adequate range of alternatives, including a failure to assess “any alternatives that meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” The complaint also asserts that the supplemental EIS failed to assess the Willow Project’s “full climate consequences” by failing to assess downstream greenhouse gas emissions from reasonably foreseeable future oil development that the project will facilitate. Under the Endangered Species Act, the plaintiffs allege that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service failed to consider how increased greenhouse gas emissions from the project may affect survival and recovery of ice-dependent species (i.e., polar bears, Arctic ringed seals, and bearded seals).