throbber
Ian S. Dooley
`Jeremy Lieb
`Erik Grafe
`EARTHJUSTICE
`441 W 5th Avenue, Suite 301
`Anchorage, AK 99501
`T: 907.277.2500
`E: idooley@earthjustice.org
`E: jlieb@earthjustice.org
`E: egrafe@earthjustice.org
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sierra Club et al.
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
`
`SIERRA CLUB; FRIENDS OF THE EARTH; and
`GREENPEACE, INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
` v.
`
`BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT; UNITED
`STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
`DEB HAALAND, in her official capacity as
`Secretary of the United States Department of the
`Interior; and STEVE COHN, in his official capacity
`as Alaska State Director of the Bureau of Land
`Management,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`(5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706; 42 U.S.C. § 4332)
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 1 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This action arises from the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) approval
`
`of Emerald House’s Peregrine oil and gas exploration program in the National Petroleum
`
`Reserve-Alaska (Reserve).1 The environmental assessments (EA) prepared by BLM for
`
`the program do not meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
`
`(NEPA). Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment finding that BLM’s approval of the
`
`exploration program was unlawful, vacatur of the initial Decision Record approving the
`
`program, vacatur of the subsequent Decision Record approving an amendment to the
`
`right-of-way for the program and an additional application for a permit to drill (APD), and
`
`enjoinment of further exploration activities until BLM has complied with NEPA.
`
`2.
`
`This is a case about BLM’s decision to approve an oil and gas exploration
`
`program in furtherance of future oil development, a major source of climate pollution,
`
`without adequate discussion or analysis of the exploration program’s impacts on climate
`
`change.
`
`3. We are rapidly approaching a “point of no return” where the worst effects
`
`of climate change will wreak havoc across the Earth. See Juliana v. United States,
`
`947 F.3d 1159, 1166 (9th Cir. 2020).
`
`4.
`
`Temperatures across the globe are rising at an unprecedented rate.
`
`
`1 Emerald House is a wholly owned subsidiary of Australian-owned 88 Energy.
`Accumulative Energy Alaska, Inc., is also a wholly owned subsidiary of 88 Energy.
`These 88 Energy subsidiaries are referenced in the applications, environmental analyses,
`and decision documents for the exploration program.
`
`Sierra Club et al. v. BLM et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 2 of 36
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`5.
`
`Nowhere are these impacts more observable than in Alaska’s Arctic region.
`
`The Arctic is experiencing temperature increases four times that of the global rate. This is
`
`resulting in, among many other impacts, rapid degradation of the sea-ice and snow cover
`
`extents, the greening of tundra and unprecedented increases in the soil active layer, and a
`
`predicted three-fold increase in the incidence of wildfire in Alaska by the end of the
`
`century. These impacts are being experienced most acutely by the people and wildlife that
`
`depend on Alaska’s Arctic.
`
`6.
`
`The unprecedented increase in temperatures is caused by the production
`
`and combustion of fossil fuels. The most significant risks and impacts from climate
`
`change would be avoided if we limit the global increase in temperature to 1.5 degrees
`
`Celsius (°C) above pre-industrial levels. To limit temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-
`
`industrial levels, industrialized nations like the United States must rapidly transition away
`
`from producing and consuming fossil fuels.
`
`7.
`
`The Peregrine exploration program itself requires the annual combustion of
`
`hundreds of thousands of gallons of fossil fuels to power construction, exploration, camp,
`
`and cleanup activities, resulting in greenhouse gas emissions in the Reserve.
`
`8.
`
`The program’s ultimate objective is to explore, delineate, and appraise the
`
`oil and gas prospect for potential future development, production, and consumption. The
`
`result of that consumption would be climate pollution.
`
`9.
`
`Despite the program’s direct and indirect climate consequences, BLM
`
`approved the program without assessing the greenhouse gas emissions that would result
`
`Sierra Club et al. v. BLM et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 3 of 36
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`from oil and gas produced and consumed if exploration results in discovery, development,
`
`and production. BLM later assessed only a fraction of the direct emissions that would
`
`result from on-the-ground operations to conduct the exploration.
`
`10. BLM’s failure to analyze these reasonably foreseeable greenhouse gas
`
`emissions consequences from approving the Peregrine exploration program violates
`
`NEPA.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`11.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
`
`and may issue a declaratory judgment and further relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-
`
`02. Judicial review is available under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 701-706. Venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
`
`PLAINTIFFS
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Sierra Club is the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots
`
`environmental organization. The Sierra Club is a national nonprofit organization of
`
`approximately 800,000 members dedicated to exploring, enjoying, and protecting the
`
`wild places of the Earth; to practicing and promoting the responsible use of the Earth’s
`
`ecosystems and resources; to educating and enlisting humanity to protect and restore the
`
`quality of the natural and human environment; and to using all lawful means to carry out
`
`these objectives. The Alaska Chapter of the Sierra Club has approximately 1,600
`
`members. The Sierra Club’s concerns encompass a variety of environmental issues in
`
`Sierra Club et al. v. BLM et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 4 of 36
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Alaska and beyond, and the organization has long been active on issues related to oil and
`
`gas activities in America’s Arctic, including in the Reserve, such as polar bear
`
`conservation. Sierra Club members use the public lands in the Arctic, including the
`
`Reserve, for quiet recreation, aesthetic pursuits, and spiritual renewal.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Friends of the Earth is a tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) organization and a
`
`not-for-profit corporation with a headquarters in Washington, DC, an office in Berkeley,
`
`California, and staff located across the U.S., including in Alaska. Friends of the Earth is
`
`a membership organization consisting of nearly 294,000 members, including more than
`
`650 members who live in Alaska, and more than 4.9 million activists nationwide.
`
`Friends of the Earth is also a member of Friends of the Earth-International, which is a
`
`network of grassroots groups in 74 countries worldwide. Friends of the Earth’s mission
`
`is to protect our natural environment, including air, water, and land, and to create a more
`
`healthy and just world. Friends of the Earth utilizes public education, advocacy,
`
`legislative processes, and litigation to achieve its organizational goals. Friends of the
`
`Earth is concerned about the potential adverse impacts that fossil fuel exploration and
`
`development activities in Alaska’s Arctic, including in the Reserve, have on the climate
`
`and people, fish, birds, and other species that depend on this region. Therefore, on behalf
`
`of its members and activists, Friends of the Earth actively engages in advocacy to
`
`influence U.S. energy and environmental policies affecting Alaska’s Arctic.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff Greenpeace, Inc. (Greenpeace) is a non-profit corporation
`
`organized under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in
`
`Sierra Club et al. v. BLM et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 5 of 36
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Washington, D.C. Its mission is to promote the protection and preservation of the
`
`environment. Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organization that uses
`
`peaceful, creative action to expose global environmental problems and to force solutions
`
`that are essential for a green and peaceful future. Greenpeace has over 780,000 active
`
`supporters in the United States. For more than a decade, Greenpeace has been a lead
`
`advocacy organization working to raise awareness of global warming and the protection
`
`of wildlife, and to press for serious cuts in greenhouse gas emissions through local,
`
`national, and global action. In the United States, Greenpeace has run a campaign aimed
`
`at stopping global warming by phasing out fossil fuel use and promoting renewable
`
`energy systems. As a part of these efforts, Greenpeace has actively worked to protect the
`
`Arctic from the harmful effects of oil and gas activities.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff organizations have members and supporters who visit, or
`
`otherwise use and enjoy the Reserve. For example, one member has used and plans to
`
`continue to use areas affected by the Peregrine program for rafting and hiking. Another
`
`member relies on the areas affected by the Peregrine program for hunting and for cultural
`
`and traditional purposes. Members use these areas for recreation, wildlife viewing,
`
`photography, subsistence, professional livelihood, education, aesthetic, and traditional
`
`and cultural purposes. Plaintiffs and their members derive scientific, recreational,
`
`aesthetic, conservation, spiritual, cultural, nourishment, and other benefits and enjoyment
`
`from their use of the area and from wildlife that depend on the Reserve, including areas
`
`affected by the Peregrine program. The activities authorized by defendants will injure
`
`Sierra Club et al. v. BLM et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 6 of 36
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`these interests.
`
`16.
`
`The plaintiff organizations monitor the use of Reserve ecosystems and
`
`compliance with the laws respecting these ecosystems, educate their members and the
`
`public concerning management of the ecosystems, and advocate policies and practices
`
`that conserve the natural values of the ecosystems. Plaintiffs cannot achieve these
`
`organizational purposes fully without adequate information and public participation in the
`
`processes required by law. Plaintiffs’ interests and organizational purposes are directly
`
`and irreparably injured by defendants’ violations of the laws as described in this
`
`complaint.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiffs participate actively in the administrative processes regarding
`
`management of the Reserve and did so for the Peregrine program. Plaintiffs Sierra Club
`
`and Friends of the Earth submitted comments on December 29, 2020, detailing the many
`
`ways in which BLM’s approval of the Peregrine program was unlawful. Plaintiffs
`
`submitted letters to BLM and the United States Department of the Interior on September
`
`17, 2021, November 30, 2021, and February 4, 2022, explaining how the agency had
`
`failed to consider the climate impacts of its actions and again urging reconsideration of
`
`the Peregrine program. Plaintiffs have exhausted administrative remedies for the
`
`decisions challenged in this complaint.
`
`
`
`Sierra Club et al. v. BLM et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 7 of 36
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`18. Defendant BLM is the agency of the United States Department of the
`
`Interior entrusted with the conservation and management of resources within the Reserve
`
`and that issued the EAs and decisions challenged in this action.
`
`19. Defendant United States Department of the Interior is an agency of the
`
`United States responsible for oversight of BLM.
`
`20. Defendant Deb Haaland is sued in her official capacity as Secretary of the
`
`United States Department of the Interior (Secretary). The Secretary is the highest
`
`position within the Department of the Interior, has ultimate responsibility for overseeing
`
`the Department and its agencies and ensuring their compliance with all applicable federal
`
`laws, and has specific responsibilities related to the administration of the Reserve.
`
`21. Defendant Steve Cohn is sued in his official capacity as Alaska State
`
`Director of BLM.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`I.
`
`The climate crisis.
`
`22.
`
`The rate of climate change is rapidly increasing.
`
`23. Overwhelming evidence shows that the unprecedented increase in Earth’s
`
`temperatures is caused by fossil fuel combustion.
`
`24.
`
`If left unchecked, climate change will “wreak havoc on Earth’s climate.”
`
`Juliana, 947 F.3d at 1166.
`
`Sierra Club et al. v. BLM et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 8 of 36
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`25. Without “some action, the destabilizing climate will bury cities, spawn life-
`
`threatening natural disasters, and jeopardize critical food and water supplies.” Id. We
`
`are “approaching ‘the point of no return.’” Id.
`
`26.
`
`Several scientific studies show there is a “tipping point” or threshold at
`
`which the most dangerous effects of climate change could occur abruptly and
`
`irreversibly.
`
`27.
`
`There is international consensus that limiting the global increase in
`
`temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels would significantly reduce the risks and
`
`impacts from climate change.
`
`28.
`
`Each ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere contributes to
`
`global warming.
`
`29. As recent scientific information demonstrates, any additional increase in
`
`greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel consumption increases the likelihood of failing
`
`to limit warming to 1.5°C.
`
`30.
`
`The federal government plays an important role in addressing the climate
`
`crisis and in ensuring the U.S. does not exhaust its share of the global carbon budget.
`
`31.
`
`In 2018, it was estimated that carbon emissions released from extraction
`
`and end-use combustion of fossil fuels produced on federal lands alone accounted for
`
`approximately one quarter of total U.S. carbon emissions during the period between 2005
`
`and 2014.
`
`32. Analysis shows that the potential carbon emissions from already leased
`
`Sierra Club et al. v. BLM et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 9 of 36
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`fossil fuel resources on federal lands could exhaust the remaining U.S. carbon budget
`
`consistent with the 1.5°C target.
`
`33.
`
`Indeed, to meet the 1.5°C target, the U.S. must not only phase out
`
`production in some existing fields and mines before their reserves are fully depleted but
`
`also limit new development on undeveloped fossil fuel leases.
`
`34. While avoiding reaching the 1.5°C target could halt the most catastrophic
`
`consequences of climate change, severe impacts from the climate crisis are occurring
`
`right now.
`
`35.
`
`The harms caused by climate change “are serious and well recognized,” and
`
`“have already inflicted significant harms” to many resources around the globe.
`
`Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 521 (2007).
`
`36.
`
`There is high confidence among scientists that climate change has already
`
`caused substantial damage and irreversible loss among terrestrial, freshwater, and oceanic
`
`ecosystems.
`
`37.
`
`There is agreement that climate change has caused widespread deterioration
`
`of ecosystem structure and function.
`
`38.
`
`The increase in magnitude of extreme heat has caused mass mortality
`
`events on land and in the ocean.
`
`39. Hundreds of local losses of species are attributable to increases in
`
`magnitude in extreme heat.
`
`40. Climate change is causing shifts in seasonal timing and forcing thousands
`
`Sierra Club et al. v. BLM et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 10 of 36
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`of species to shift polewards or to higher elevations. This strategy is unlikely to be
`
`successful for some populations, leading to extirpation or extinction.
`
`41. Climate change is also having a profound effect on human health and
`
`wellbeing.
`
`42. Climate change is among the top threats to global health in the 21st century.
`
`43.
`
`Increased temperatures from climate change have been linked to an
`
`increase in adverse mental and physical health outcomes.
`
`44.
`
`Increases in disasters caused by climate change have also been
`
`demonstrated to cause higher incidences of interpersonal and domestic violence,
`
`including intimate partner violence, particularly towards women.
`
`45.
`
`Extreme weather events and higher temperatures associated with climate
`
`change contribute to increased rates of anxiety, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, and
`
`suicide.
`
`46.
`
`Indigenous communities are particularly vulnerable to harmful climate
`
`change related impacts on mental and physical health.
`
`II.
`
`The Reserve.
`
`47.
`
`The 23-million-acre Reserve is an extraordinary and ecologically important
`
`landscape of lakes, ponds, rivers, floodplains, wetlands, upland areas, and sensitive
`
`coastal resources. It is home to a diversity of species, including polar bears, brown bears,
`
`muskoxen, caribou, moose, and millions of migratory birds, among many other species.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Sierra Club et al. v. BLM et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 11 of 36
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`48.
`
`The Reserve landscape and wildlife are central to the livelihood and
`
`traditional practices of Iñupiaq people living in the region. The Reserve also provides
`
`habitat for three of Alaska’s four Arctic caribou herds, which provide vital subsistence
`
`resources for more than 40 communities in northern and western Alaska.
`
`49. Within the Reserve, the Colville River watershed provides historical
`
`overwintering and migration areas for members of the 56,000 caribou of the Teshekpuk
`
`Caribou Herd.
`
`50.
`
`The Colville River is the largest river in Arctic Alaska, supporting
`
`populations of pink and chum salmon, burbot, broad whitefish, arctic cisco, and other fish
`
`species, and providing habitat for peregrine falcons, gyrfalcons, golden eagles, and
`
`rough-legged hawks.
`
`51.
`
`The Secretary designated the 2.44-million-acre area along the Colville
`
`River and two of its larger tributaries, the Kogosukruk and Kikiakrorak rivers, as a
`
`Special Area within the Reserve. The Colville River Special Area was designated to
`
`assure maximum protection of its subsistence, fish and wildlife, recreational, and other
`
`identified values, such as the unique bluff and riparian habitats associated with the
`
`Colville River and its tributaries.
`
`III. Climate change in the Reserve.
`52.
`
`The effects of climate change are especially observable in Alaska’s Arctic.
`
`53. During the latter half of the 20th century, the Arctic region experienced
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Sierra Club et al. v. BLM et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 12 of 36
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`temperature increases two to three times the global rate of increase.
`
`54. Now, during the first two decades of the 21st century, the Arctic region is
`
`experiencing temperature increases four times that of the global rate of increase.
`
`55.
`
`The Arctic’s average winter temperature has increased by 6 degrees
`
`Fahrenheit (°F) over the past 60 years, and the Arctic is expected to warm by an
`
`additional 10°F to 12°F this century.
`
`56.
`
`This rapid warming presents myriad disruptions to Arctic ecosystems,
`
`including in the Reserve.
`
`57.
`
`In the Arctic, climate change is causing, and will continue to cause, sea-
`
`level rise, sea-ice melt, river flow changes, and permafrost thaw.
`
`58.
`
`There is nowhere in the country or the world where global warming is
`
`causing greater increases in mean air temperatures. The effects of climate change are
`
`directly observable in the Arctic.
`
`59.
`
`The extent of spring snow cover has been decreasing over the Arctic region
`
`since 2005. This, combined with shorter snow cover duration, is causing a reinforcing
`
`feedback effect, leaving more land surface uncovered, which in turn absorbs more of the
`
`sun’s energy and causes further depletion of existing snow cover.
`
`60.
`
`The sea-ice extent has dramatically decreased in the Arctic. The region
`
`experienced the lowest coverage of winter sea-ice on record in 2017, and measurements
`
`show the sea-ice extent to be approximately half of what it was in 1979.
`
`61.
`
`Like the loss in snow cover, the loss in the sea-ice extent also creates a
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Sierra Club et al. v. BLM et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 13 of 36
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`feedback effect on climate, causing an increased amount of the sun’s energy to be
`
`absorbed by the ocean, which in turn increases the rate of sea-ice melt.
`
`62.
`
`It is expected that summertime sea ice will be completely lost by 2050 or
`
`earlier.
`
`63.
`
`The increases in air temperatures are also having pronounced effects on the
`
`permafrost and the plants and specialized ecosystems in the Arctic.
`
`64.
`
`The Arctic’s permafrost layer is expected to decrease significantly by the
`
`end of the century, releasing carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere and
`
`accelerating climate feedback effects.
`
`65. Alaska’s Arctic is experiencing substantial increases in tundra greenness,
`
`contributing to increasingly limited opportunities for tundra travel by local communities.
`
`66.
`
`Permafrost on Alaska’s Arctic coast has warmed substantially, causing
`
`profound changes in the soil active layer temperatures.
`
`67. As a result of climate change, the annual area burned by wildfire in Alaska
`
`is expected to double by 2050 and to triple by the end of the century.
`
`68.
`
`The expected increase in wildfire will in turn release commensurate
`
`amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, illustrating yet one more climate
`
`feedback system.
`
`IV.
`
`BLM’s management of oil and gas activities in the Reserve.
`
`69.
`
`In 1976, Congress passed, and subsequently amended in 1980, the Naval
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Sierra Club et al. v. BLM et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 14 of 36
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petroleum Reserves Production Act (Reserves Act), which transferred jurisdiction over
`
`the Reserve from the Navy to the Secretary, in recognition of the area’s significant
`
`ecological value and the need to protect it. Pub. L. 94-258, Title I §§ 102-03, 90 Stat.
`
`303-04 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 6502-6503). The Reserves Act created a management
`
`structure for the Reserve. 42 U.S.C. § 6502.
`
`70. Because of the world-class wildlife and subsistence values of the Reserve,
`
`the Reserves Act requires the Secretary to protect and conserve these other resources and
`
`uses in the Reserve any time the Secretary authorizes oil and gas leasing, exploration, and
`
`development. Id. §§ 6504(a), 6506a(b).
`
`71.
`
`The Reserves Act requires the Secretary to impose “conditions, restrictions,
`
`and prohibitions” on any activities undertaken pursuant to the Act “as the Secretary
`
`deems necessary or appropriate to mitigate reasonably foreseeable and significantly
`
`adverse effects on the surface resources” of the Reserve. Id. § 6506a(b).
`
`72.
`
`Surface values of the Reserve may be protected by limiting, restricting, or
`
`prohibiting the use of and access to lands within the Reserve, including within Special
`
`Areas. 43 C.F.R. § 2361.1(e)(1). This includes the authority to require a suspension of
`
`operations and production if BLM determines that it is in the interest of conservation or
`
`“mitigates reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects on surface resources.”
`
`43 C.F.R. §§ 3135.2(a)(1), (3).
`
`73.
`
`The Reserves Act further requires the Secretary to provide “maximum
`
`protection” to areas containing “significant subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife, or
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Sierra Club et al. v. BLM et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 15 of 36
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`historical or scenic value.” 42 U.S.C. § 6504(a). “Special [A]reas” are “areas within the
`
`[R]eserve identified by the Secretary of the Interior as having significant subsistence,
`
`recreational, fish and wildlife, or historical or scenic value and, therefore, warranting
`
`maximum protection of such values to the extent consistent with the requirements of the
`
`Act for the exploration of the Reserve.” 43 C.F.R. § 2361.0-5(f).
`
`74. BLM manages oil and gas activities in the Reserve pursuant to a multi-
`
`stage process.
`
`75. BLM first promulgates activity plans. The Reserve activity plans are
`
`programmatic management plans that zone areas of the Reserve as open or closed to oil
`
`and gas activities.
`
`76.
`
`In the second stage, BLM determines whether, when, and where to hold
`
`lease sales in any portions of areas that the activity plans have designated as open for
`
`leasing.
`
`77.
`
`In the third stage, BLM reviews exploration plans submitted by lessees.
`
`78. BLM retains the authority to approve, modify, or deny approval of
`
`exploration plans submitted by lessees. 42 U.S.C. §§ 6506a(b), (k); 43 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 3135.2(a)(1), (3); id. § 3162.3-1(h).
`
`79.
`
`In the fourth stage, BLM reviews plans for developing and producing fossil
`
`fuels.
`
`80.
`
`In 2013, BLM issued its first-ever comprehensive management plan, called
`
`an integrated activity plan, covering the entire Reserve (2013 IAP). Consistent with its
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Sierra Club et al. v. BLM et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 16 of 36
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`programmatic nature, the environmental impact statement (EIS) BLM prepared for the
`
`2013 IAP generally described the potential impacts from all stages of oil and gas
`
`exploration and development across the 11.8 million acres open to leasing under the plan.
`
`81.
`
`The 2013 IAP explicitly deferred the more specific and detailed analysis
`
`necessary to assess impacts of on-the-ground actions such as exploration programs until
`
`such actions were proposed, stating “[f]uture actions requiring BLM approval, including
`
`a proposed exploratory drilling plan . . . would require further NEPA analysis based on
`
`specific and detailed information about where and what kind of activity is proposed.”
`
`BLM, National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, Final Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental
`
`Impact Statement, Vol. I at 9 (Nov. 2012).
`
`82.
`
`In 2020, BLM published a final EIS for the revised 2020 integrated activity
`
`plan (2020 IAP). As with the 2013 IAP, the EIS for the 2020 IAP again generally
`
`described the potential impacts from all stages of oil and gas exploration and
`
`development and explicitly deferred site-specific analysis necessary for on-the-ground
`
`actions until such actions are proposed: “Future on-the-ground actions requiring BLM
`
`approval, including potential exploration and development proposals, would require
`
`further NEPA analysis based on the site-specific proposal.” BLM, National Petroleum
`
`Reserve-Alaska, Final Integrated Activity Plan and Environmental Impact Statement,
`
`Vol. I at 1-6 (June 2020).
`
`83.
`
`In April 2022, after determining the 2020 IAP Record of Decision (ROD)
`
`was inconsistent with the administration’s climate policies, BLM published a new ROD
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Sierra Club et al. v. BLM et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 17 of 36
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`for the IAP for the Reserve. In the 2022 ROD, BLM selected the no-action alternative,
`
`reverting Reserve management to the 2013 IAP while continuing to rely on the EIS for
`
`the 2020 IAP.
`
`V. Greenhouse gas emitting activity in the Reserve.
`84. Recent years have seen a significant increase in industrial activity in the
`
`Reserve.
`
`85.
`
`In 2015, BLM approved ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.’s (ConocoPhillips)
`
`Greater Mooses Tooth 1 (GMT-1) development, which extended oil and gas
`
`infrastructure west from the existing Alpine development.
`
`86.
`
`In 2018, BLM approved ConocoPhillips’ Greater Mooses Tooth 2 (GMT-2)
`
`development, extending the road and pipeline network further west into the Reserve.
`
`87.
`
`In 2020, BLM approved ConocoPhillips’ Willow Master Development Plan
`
`(Willow), which authorized the furthest westward development in the Reserve to date.
`
`Although BLM’s approval of Willow was vacated by the U.S. District Court for the
`
`District of Alaska in August 2021, BLM, on July 8, 2022, released a draft supplemental
`
`EIS, again moving the permitting process forward for Willow.
`
`88. Oil and gas development projects and plans in the Reserve are in addition
`
`to the other seismic, snow and ice road construction, and drilling projects that have
`
`occurred, are occurring, or are expected to occur in the Reserve each year.
`
`89.
`
`There are thousands of helicopter takeoffs, landings, and flights occurring
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Sierra Club et al. v. BLM et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 18 of 36
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`in the Reserve each year, in support of oil and gas activities.
`
`90.
`
`There are other winter travel and support activities that occur in the Reserve
`
`each year, in furtherance of past, ongoing, and planned oil and gas activities.
`
`91. Oil and gas activities in the Reserve and surrounding areas have resulted in
`
`greenhouse gas emissions.
`
`92. Oil and gas activities in the Reserve and surrounding areas are releasing
`
`greenhouse gas emissions.
`
`93. Oil and gas activities in the Reserve and surrounding areas are foreseeable
`
`to result in future greenhouse gas emissions.
`
`VI. The Peregrine program.
`94.
`
`Peregrine is a five-year exploration program.
`
`95.
`
`The objective of the program is to explore, delineate, and appraise oil and
`
`gas for potential future development.
`
`96.
`
`97.
`
`The exploration program involves nearly year‐round activity.
`
`In the winter, snow road construction and drilling equipment is hauled
`
`overland via the Community Winter Access Trail, across the Colville River at Ocean
`
`Point, and then south to where the Peregrine Snow Road is to be built annually.
`
`98. Winter activities include the use of fossil fuels to power the annual
`
`construction, use, and deconstruction of more than 80 miles of snow road and drill sites.
`
`99.
`
`Fossil fuels power the annual mobilization and demobilization of personnel,
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Sierra Club et al. v. BLM et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00189-JMK
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00189-JMK Document 1 Filed 08/25/22 Page 19 of 36
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`personnel camps, and construction and drilling equipment.
`
`100. Emissions sources from the program include the use of and traffic from
`
`pickups, heavy equipment, a fuel truck, a crew bus, an 80-ton crane, a drilling rig, and the
`
`daily use of other combustion-powered vehicles, generators, and heaters.
`
`101. Winter program activities also require almost daily aircraft traffic.
`
`102. Summer activities include hundreds of helicopter flights, takeoffs, and
`
`landings.
`
`103. Program activities include the annual use of hundreds of thousands of
`
`gallons of fuel and the flaring of any produced gas.
`
`104. Program activities are occurring in the southeast region of the Reserve,
`
`within the Colville River watershed, crossing the mainstem of the river and two of its
`
`larger tributaries, the Kikiakrorak and Kogosukruk rivers.
`
`105. Activities are occurring within or very near the Colville River Special Area.
`
`106. This part of the Reserve is free from oil and gas development, situated
`
`between multiple Alaska Native communities that rely on caribou, moose, wolves,
`
`wolverine, and other resources in the Reserve. The Peregrine program area is also home
`
`to the Teshekpuk Caribou Herd, providing critical overwintering habitat and spring and
`
`fall migration grounds.
`
`107. Exploration activities are occurring within 15 miles of Umiat, near a prior
`
`Umiat test well site.
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket