Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing en banc of claims challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s approval of the Willow Master Development Plan under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The Ninth Circuit largely rejected challenges to the Willow project, a major oil and gas project in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve, in June 2025.

–

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld federal agencies’ authorizations for the Willow Project, a major oil and gas project in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve (NPR-A). The Ninth Circuit concluded, however, that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) approval of the project was arbitrary and capricious because the agency did not explain its decision to select an alternative that did not facilitate “full field development” and that “stranded economically viable quantities of oil” despite its earlier decisions not to consider alternatives that did not allow for full field development. The Ninth Circuit rejected the other National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) argument made by environmental groups: that BLM failed to consider downstream greenhouse gas emissions from future oil development caused by the Willow project as indirect effects. The court found that by estimating emissions from potential future development in the cumulative effects section, BLM had complied with its NEPA obligations to consider indirect effects and cumulative impacts. Under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (Reserves Act), the Ninth Circuit rejected an argument that BLM had unlawfully rejected alternatives that would have reduced effects on significant surface resources in the NPR-A. The Ninth Circuit also found that BLM reasonably explained its decision not to adopt certain mitigation measures—including offsetting emissions through reforestation, limiting the project’s lifespan, and requiring periodic NEPA reviews—to address downstream greenhouse gas emissions caused by the project that petitioners said would harm surface resources. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Ninth Circuit found that Center for Biological Diversity had standing for its ESA claims but rejected them on the merits. The court found that BLM was not arbitrary or capricious when it declined to expand the scope of its consultation under Section 7 of the ESA to consider potential impacts on polar bears and other listed species due to sea ice reduction caused by project-specific greenhouse gas emissions. The court further found that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by concurring with BLM’s ESA analysis. The Ninth Circuit also found that BLM satisfied the requirements of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). The court remanded without vacatur. One judge dissented from the majority’s remedy; he would have vacated the approval of the project because BLM failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the full field development standard that could be reconciled with the procedural and substantive requirements of NEPA, the Reserves Act, and ANILCA. He also raised questions regarding whether the regulations that allowed the federal agencies to forgo formal consultation under the ESA were consistent with the ESA’s text and purpose. In particular, he questioned the regulations’ but-for causation requirement for determining the scope of consultation. He wrote that “there is no telling whether scientific development in our time, or in generations to come, will allow for direct attribution between a project’s particular greenhouse gas emissions and its climate consequences,” but that “this dilemma should not allow an agency to cast aside their formal consultation obligations when presented with evidence that their actions will, albeit indirectly, adversely impact listed species.”

–

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.

–

–

–

–

–

–

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.