Description: Challenges to approval of a development plan for major oil and gas development in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.
-
Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. Bureau of Land Management
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 08/18/2021 Order Download Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment granted in part and denied in part, BLM’s approval of the Willow Project under NEPA vacated, FWS's biological opinion vacated, and action remanded to appropriate agencies for further proceedings. Alaska Federal Court Vacated Federal Approvals of Major Oil Development Project in National Petroleum Reserve. The federal district court for the District of Alaska found deficiencies in federal defendants’ reviews and approvals of ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.’s (ConocoPhillips’) Willow Master Development Plan in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, which was anticipated to produce approximately 586 million barrels of oil over a 30-year life. The court therefore vacated the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) approval of the project and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) biological opinion. Under NEPA, the court first found that the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act’s 60-day time limit for seeking judicial review of environmental impact statements did not apply and that NEPA claims were therefore timely. The court then found that BLM’s exclusion of foreign emissions in its alternatives analysis was arbitrary and capricious because its rationale “suffers from the same flaws the Ninth Circuit identified” in a December 2020 decision involving offshore drilling in the Beaufort Sea. Although the district court acknowledged that BLM provided “a lengthier explanation” of its reasons for not quantifying foreign emissions than the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management provided in the earlier case, the court found that BLM still did not “thoroughly explain” why an estimate of foreign emissions was impossible. The district court also rejected the defendants’ and ConocoPhillips’ assertion that the failure to quantify foreign emissions was inconsequential because BLM could not have adopted the no-action alternative given ConocoPhillips’ existing leasing rights. In addition, the court found that BLM acted contrary to law by failing to consider a statutory directive to give “maximum protection” to surface values in the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. Under the Endangered Species Act, the court vacated the FWS’s biological opinion because the incidental take statement lacked “the requisite specificity of mitigation measures for the polar bear” and because the take finding for the polar bear was arbitrary and capricious. The court ruled for the federal defendants under other claims under NEPA and the Clean Water Act, including an argument that the defendants did not take a hard look at cumulative impacts of oil and gas development activities and climate change on fish and polar bears. 05/26/2021 Opposition Download Opposition brief filed by ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. 05/26/2021 Opposition Download Combined brief in opposition filed by federal defendants. Federal Government Defended Review of Willow Project in National Petroleum Reserve. On May 26, 2021, the federal government and the oil and gas company developing the Willow Master Development Plan Project in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska filed briefs opposing the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment on claims that project approvals violated the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act. With respect to climate change, the federal defendants argued that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s analysis of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project had adequately explained why the agency “lacked the data necessary for a reliable quantitative estimate of downstream emissions in foreign countries,” and therefore did not suffer from inadequacies identified by the Ninth Circuit it its December 2020 decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt. Other climate change-related arguments included that the EIS had adequately analyzed the project’s cumulative effects on fish and polar bears when combined with impacts resulting from climate change and other factors. 02/26/2021 Stipulation Download Joint stipulation filed. 02/06/2021 Order Download Plaintiffs' motions for injunction pending appeal of brief duration granted. Alaska Federal Court Enjoined Certain Work in National Petroleum Reserve for Two Weeks. On February 6, 2021, the court issued an injunction on certain construction activities through February 20 or until the Ninth Circuit rules on any motions for injunction pending appeal. The district court noted that the application of the NPRPA’s judicial review provision was one of first impression in the Ninth Circuit. The court further indicated that if the claim is not time-barred, the plaintiffs “could well be likely to succeed on the merits” of their claim that the defendants’ analysis of greenhouse gas emissions violated NEPA. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs had established a likelihood of irreparable harm. 02/01/2021 Order Download Motions for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order denied. Alaska Federal Court Denied Motions to Stop Construction Activities in National Petroleum Reserve. On February 1, 2021, the federal district court for the District of Alaska denied motions for preliminary relief barring certain construction activities related to a major oil and gas development project in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A). First the court found that the plaintiffs’ NEPA claims were likely time-barred under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (NPRPA), which requires that actions seeking judicial review under NEPA “concerning oil and gas leasing” in NPR-A be brought within 60 days after notice of the availability of an environmental impact statement is published in the Federal Register. With respect to claims under the Endangered Species Act, the court found that that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears would be irreparably injured before the court issued a ruling on the merits. 11/17/2020 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Lawsuit Challenged Development Plan for Portion of National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. Six organizations filed a federal lawsuit in Alaska challenging BLM’s approval of the Willow Master Development Plan, which the complaint described as “a massive oil and gas development project … located within the northeastern portion of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska …, in an area already under stress from rapid industrialization and climate change.” The plaintiffs asserted that BLM and other federal defendants failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. -
Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. Bureau of Land Management
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/09/2021 Order Download Unopposed motions to dismiss the appeal without prejudice granted. Work on Willow Project on Hold After Parties Reach Agreement. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed without prejudice an appeal of the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction in cases challenging the Willow project, a major oil development project in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. In February, the Ninth Circuit temporarily enjoined certain construction work for the duration of the appeal. The plaintiffs agreed to dismissal of the appeal after the oil and gas company agreed not to take certain actions until December 1, 2021. 02/13/2021 Order Download Appellants' motions for injunctive relief granted. In Challenge to Oil and Gas Development Project in National Petroleum Reserve, Ninth Circuit Enjoined Construction Activities for Duration of Appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the continuation of a temporary injunction on certain construction activities related to a major oil and gas development project in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska while the plaintiffs appeal the district court’s denial of their motions for a preliminary injunction. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) claims because the claims were time-barred under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (NPRPA). The Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiffs raised a serious question regarding whether the NPRPA’s time limit on filing claims for judicial review applied in this case. The Ninth Circuit further found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, that at least one of their NEPA claims was likely to succeed if timely, that the balance of equities favored relief, that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in the plaintiffs’ favor, and that an injunction was in the public interest. -
Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Management
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/03/2021 Complaint Download Amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed. 02/06/2021 Order Download Plaintiffs' motions for injunction pending appeal of brief duration granted. Alaska Federal Court Enjoined Certain Work in National Petroleum Reserve for Two Weeks. On February 6, 2021, the court issued an injunction on certain construction activities through February 20 or until the Ninth Circuit rules on any motions for injunction pending appeal. The district court noted that the application of the NPRPA’s judicial review provision was one of first impression in the Ninth Circuit. The court further indicated that if the claim is not time-barred, the plaintiffs “could well be likely to succeed on the merits” of their claim that the defendants’ analysis of greenhouse gas emissions violated NEPA. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs had established a likelihood of irreparable harm. 02/01/2021 Order Download Motions for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order denied. Alaska Federal Court Denied Motions to Stop Construction Activities in National Petroleum Reserve. On February 1, 2021, the federal district court for the District of Alaska denied motions for preliminary relief barring certain construction activities related to a major oil and gas development project in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A). First the court found that the plaintiffs’ NEPA claims were likely time-barred under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (NPRPA), which requires that actions seeking judicial review under NEPA “concerning oil and gas leasing” in NPR-A be brought within 60 days after notice of the availability of an environmental impact statement is published in the Federal Register. With respect to claims under the Endangered Species Act, the court found that that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears would be irreparably injured before the court issued a ruling on the merits. 12/24/2020 Motion Download Motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs. 12/21/2020 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Second Lawsuit Filed Challenging “Massive” Oil and Gas Development Project in Alaska. Three environmental groups filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Alaska challenging BLM’s approval of the Willow Master Development Plan, which the plaintiffs alleged is a “massive oil and gas development project in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska” that poses “a threat to the global climate and an already dramatically warming Arctic region.” (Six other organizations previously filed a lawsuit challenging the development plan.) The three groups also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The complaint asserted claims under NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Under NEPA, the plaintiffs alleged, among other shortcomings, that BLM failed “to fully consider and accurately describe the magnitude and significance of greenhouse gas emissions” from the project, including by excluding foreign oil consumption from the market simulation model it used to estimate net greenhouse gas emissions from the project. The plaintiffs contended that BLM failed to disclose and analyze the effects of the project’s emissions and the significance of those emissions, ignoring “available science and well-established methods for assessing the effects of the Project’s greenhouse gas emissions,” and “misleadingly” compared the project’s emissions with total U.S. emissions. Under the Endangered Species Act, the plaintiffs alleged that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s conclusion that death or serious injury to polar bears was not likely to occur was not based on best available science and failed to consider relevant factors, including the increasing proportion of polar bears that den on land due to diminishing sea ice