ELR Citation: 55 ELR 20073
No(s). 23-3624 and 23-3627 (9th Cir. Jun 13, 2025)

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part summary judgment for BLM in challenges to approval of an oil and gas project in the northern Arctic. Environmental groups argued BLM failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives as required under NEPA, its mandate to protect surface resources under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (Reserves Act), and its obligation to reduce impacts to subsistence users under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), and violated the ESA by failing to consult with FWS and NMFS on how the project's carbon emissions might affect protected species and critical habitat. A district court granted summary judgment for BLM, concluding its alternatives analysis satisfied NEPA, the Reserves Act, and ANILCA, and that the groups had failed to show the Bureau violated ESA §7 by not addressing how the emissions could affect polar bears or ice seals. The appellate court found BLM did not abuse its discretion in basing its alternatives analysis on the "full field development standard" to avoid the risks of piecemeal development, but that it failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its final chosen alternative, which did not comply with that standard. It further found that because nothing in the standard precluded BLM from implementing protective conditions on exploration, it did not itself violate the Preserves Act, and that the standard was not contrary to §810 of ANILCA. As to the ESA claim, the court found each agency satisfied its §7 obligations by providing detailed scientific explanations for its conclusions that the effects of the emissions on listed species were not sufficiently linked to merit further evaluation. It remanded the NEPA claim without vacatur.