Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00056/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00056-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alaska Wilderness League
Plaintiff
David Bernhardt
Defendant
Bureau of Land Management
Defendant
Center for Biological Diversity
Plaintiff
ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.
Intervenor Defendant
Friends of the Earth
Plaintiff
Nichelle Jones
Defendant
Ted Murphy
Defendant
Native Village of Nuiqsut
Plaintiff
Natural Resources Defense Council
Plaintiff
Sierra Club
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

NATIVE VILLAGE OF NUIQSUT, et 

al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BUREAU OF LAND 

MANAGEMENT, et al.,

Defendants,

and

CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA, INC.,

Intervenor-Defendant.

 Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG

DECISION AND ORDER

This is an action in which Plaintiffs, comprised of Native Village of Nuiqsut, 

Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, 

Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club, seek the invalidation of the 

Bureau of Land Management’s approval of the 2018-2019 winter exploration 

activity undertaken by ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. in the National Petroleum 

Reserve-Alaska.1 For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs’ requested relief is 

denied.

 

1 Pursuant to the briefing schedule for administrative agency appeals, see L. R. Civ. P. 16.3(c),

Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief is at 27; Defendants Bureau of Land Management, David Bernhardt, Ted 

Murphy, and Nichelle Jones’ (“Federal Defendants”) Brief in Opposition is at Docket 30; 

Intervenor-Defendant ConocoPhillips’ Brief in Opposition is at Docket 31; and Plaintiffs’ Reply 

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 1 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 2 of 73

BACKGROUND

The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (“NPR-A”), on Alaska’s North 

Slope, consists of 23.6 million acres and is the nation’s largest single unit of public 

land.2 Established as the Naval Petroleum Reserve in 1923, the NPR-A was 

renamed and placed under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior in 1976 by 

the National Petroleum Reserve Protection Act (“NPRPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6501 et 

seq.

3

In 1980, the NPRPA was amended to direct the Secretary of the Interior to 

“conduct an expeditious program of competitive leasing of oil and gas in the 

Reserve.”4

The NPRPA provides that exploration within designated areas “containing 

any significant subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife, or historical or scenic 

value, shall be conducted in a manner which will assure the maximum protection 

of such surface values to the extent consistent with the requirements of this Act for 

the exploration of the reserve.”5 The Teshekpuk Lake Special Area—an 

approximately 1.7 million-acre area containing “Teshekpuk Lake and its 

 

Brief is at Docket 33. Oral argument was held on September 20, 2019. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Take 

Judicial Notice of Supplemental Factual Materials is also before the Court at Docket 44.

2 N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2006).

3

Id.

4 42 U.S.C. § 6506a(a).

5 42 U.S.C. § 6504(a).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 2 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 3 of 73

watershed”—is one such designated area.6 This area “includes important nesting, 

staging, and molting habitat for a large number of waterfowl and shorebirds and 

critical Teshekpuk Caribou Herd caribou calving, migration, and insect-relief 

habitat.”7

In 1994, the discovery of a large oil field on state land near the eastern 

border of the NPR-A spurred “renewed interest in leasing in the Reserve.”8

Additional discoveries in the northeastern portion of the NPR-A led to the creation 

of the Greater Mooses Tooth (“GMT”) and the Bear Tooth exploratory units.9 

Between 2000 and 2012, operators drilled 29 exploration wells in the NPR-A.

10

 

Fifteen of these wells were drilled in the GMT unit and one was drilled in the Bear 

Tooth unit.

11

In 2012, the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) published a final

integrated activity plan (“IAP”) and supporting environmental impact statement

(“EIS”) (together the “2012 IAP/EIS”) to govern its management of “all BLM-

 

6 42 U.S.C. § 6504(a); National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Designation of Special Areas, 42 

Fed. Reg. 28,723 (June 3, 1977). An additional 10,000 acres were added to the Teshekpuk Lake 

Special Area in 1999. AR0369 (2012 Final Integrated Activity Plan/Final Environmental Impact 

Statement). 

7 AR0369.

8 AR0542.

9 AR0542. The GMT unit comprises 164,014 acres, and the Bear Tooth unit comprises 105,475 

acres. Id.

10 AR0542.

11 AR0542.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 3 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 4 of 73

managed lands in the [NPR-A].”

12

 The subsequent Record of Decision (“ROD”)

adopted Alternative B-2 of the IAP/EIS, which made 11.8 million acres—or 52%—

of the NPR-A available for oil and gas leasing.13 It kept much of the Teshekpuk 

Lake Special Area closed to leasing.

14 However, it made “lands in the easternmost part of [that area] available for oil and gas leasing” because they “include or 

are close to existing leases, including those with oil discoveries in the [GMT] Unit 

. . . [and] offer the greatest promise for oil and gas development.”15 The ROD also 

adopted a series of lease stipulations and best management practices (“BMPs”), 

which are mitigation measures “required, implemented, and enforced at the 

operational level for all authorized (not just oil and gas) activities in the planning 

area.”16

Previously, in 2004, BLM had prepared an EIS and approved 

ConocoPhillips’ proposal to expand its existing operations on state land by 

constructing satellite drill pads in the NPR-A.17 Two of these pads—GMT1 and 

 

12 AR0005. Previous planning documents had only dealt with certain regions of the NPR-A, not 

the area as a whole. See AR0006–07 (describing earlier plans).

13 AR2642.

14 AR2650–51. 

15 AR2650–51. The Record of Decision recognized that areas made available for leasing within 

the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area have “valuable waterfowl and caribou habitat,” but concluded 

that opening them to drilling “constitute[d] a proper balancing of BLM’s management 

responsibilities for [the] NPR-A.” Id.

16 AR2669.

17 AR4534.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 4 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 5 of 73

GMT2—lie within the GMT unit.18 In October 2014, BLM completed a 

supplemental EIS to analyze revisions that ConocoPhillips had made to its plan for 

the development of the GMT1 drill pad.19 The agency approved the revised plan 

for that drill pad in a February, 2015 ROD.20 BLM approved revisions to 

ConocoPhillips’ development plan for the GMT2 drill pad through a similar process, 

completing a supplemental EIS in August 2018 and issuing a ROD approving the 

revisions in October, 2018.21

In 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2018, BLM approved a series of winter exploratory 

drilling programs within the NPR-A, which included the construction of wells and 

associated access route corridors and water supply.

22

 Each of these programs 

was approved after BLM completed an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) and 

made a finding of no significant impact (“FONSI”) or a finding of no new significant 

impact (“FONNSI”) beyond those already considered in previous EISs.

23

 

18 AR4534.

19 AR2739.

20 AR4406.

21 AR4516 (SEIS); AR6542 (ROD).

22 AR8550–52.

23 AR8550–52. Pursuant to Department of Interior regulations, “[a] finding of no significant impact 

other than those already disclosed and analyzed in the environmental impact statement to which 

the environmental assessment is tiered may also be called a ‘finding of no new significant impact.’” 

43 C.F.R. § 46.140(c).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 5 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 6 of 73

In August, 2018, ConocoPhillips completed an Exploration and Appraisal 

Program describing activities it planned to conduct during the 2018-2019 winter 

season to “explore and appraise oil and gas potential on” leases it owned within 

the NPR-A.

24

 The proposed exploration would occur to the west of Nuiqsut and 

the GMT1 and GMT2 projects, in the Bear Tooth unit near the confluence of Fish 

and Judy Creeks.

25

 In support of its exploration plan, ConocoPhillips submitted to 

BLM in October 2018 an application for a right-of-way grant,26 requests to deviate 

from several of the 2012 IAP/EIS BMPs,

27 and applications for permits to drill up 

to six exploration wells in or near the Bear Tooth unit.

28

BLM released a preliminary EA analyzing ConocoPhillips’ proposed 

operations on November 9, 2018.29 After the requisite public comment period had 

closed, the agency published a final EA on December 6, 2018 (“2018 EA”), which 

proposed approving ConocoPhillips’ various applications and requests.30 The 

2018 EA tiered to the 2012 IAP/EIS and the supplemental EISs for the GMT1 and 

 

24 AR6939–59.

25 See AR8475 (map showing winter exploration project area).

26 AR6960.

27 AR7795; AR7797; AR7802.

28 AR7807–25; AR7831–7999

29 AR8596.

30 AR8467; AR8482–95 (describing proposed action alternative).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 6 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 7 of 73

GMT2 drill pads.31 BLM then issued a FONNSI,32 and released a ROD that, among 

other things, authorized ConocoPhillips to conduct exploration drilling and testing

at up to eight well sites and build associated infrastructure, including up to 57 miles 

of ice roads, 42.7 miles of snow trails, 23 ice pads, an air strip, and temporary 

housing for its employees during the 2018-2019 winter season.

33

 ConocoPhillips 

fully completed the operations authorized by the ROD on April 28, 2019.34

Several other projects occurred in the northeast of the NPR-A during the 

2018-2019 winter season as well. The largest of these was construction of the 

road and drill pad for the GMT2 development.35 ConocoPhillips also obtained 

authorization to engage in geotechnical exploration in the area, in order to locate 

“potential gravel resources” to “support[] oil and gas development in the Bear Tooth 

Unit.”36 This exploration program consisted of drilling up “up to 125 onshore 

boreholes” and “up to 40 nearshore boreholes” in search of gravel.37 The majority 

 

31 AR8477; see also 40 C.F.R. § 1508.28 (defining tiered environmental review and describing 

when it is appropriate).

32 AR8588.

33 AR8595, AR8597.

34 Docket 32 at 3, ¶ 5 (Decl. of Lorna K. Richmond).

35 AR8503 (concluding that “GMT2 construction activity is anticipated to present the most 

prominent immediate impacts for the community because the gravel is mined east of town then 

hauled with large trucks over an ice road to the GMT2 area west of town”); see AR4573–75 

(describing road and drill pad construction during first three years of GMT2 development).

36 AR8691. BLM approved the geotechnical exploration program after completing an EA, AR8684, 

and a FONNSI. AR8743.

37 AR8691.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 7 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 8 of 73

of the onshore borehole drilling occurred in the vicinity of the GMT1 and GMT2 

projects, with a smaller number of boreholes drilled in the area of ConocoPhillips’ 

2018-2019 winter exploration.38 The nearshore borehole drilling occurred several 

miles north, off Atigaru Point.39 ConocoPhillips’ winter exploration and 

geotechnical survey both supported the company’s plan to develop the Willow 

prospect, for which BLM is preparing an EIS.

40

Nuiqsut is a predominantly Alaska Native community of nearly 500 people

located on the eastern border of the NPR-A.

41

 In recent decades, several oil and 

gas development projects have been undertaken near Nuiqsut, which is “situated 

closer to current and foreseeable areas of petroleum development than any other 

community on the North Slope.”42 This development has created conflicts with the 

community’s traditional ways of life. A comment from the North Slope Borough on 

the GMT2 SEIS explained:

Nuiqsut residents, more so than residents of other North Slope 

communities, and perhaps more so than any other Alaskan residents, 

have lived with a decades-long, ever-increasing, near constant level 

of frustration and apprehension as expanding oil and gas facilities and 

 

38 AR8693 (map showing location of onshore geotechnical survey).

39 AR8694.

40 AR5021 n.b.

41 AR0417 (Nuiqsut lies “about 35 miles south of the Beaufort Sea coast on the Niġlik channel of 

the Colville River in the Colville River Delta”); AR8505 (“[T]he population of Nuiqsut . . . is 

predominantly Inupiaq.”); see also AR2540 (map).

42 AR0420.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 8 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 9 of 73

operations have impinged upon their traditional onshore and offshore 

subsistence harvest areas.43

Many of ConocoPhillips’ activities during the winter of 2018-2019 occurred

in the general vicinity of Nuiqsut. The ice road construction and drilling associated 

with the winter exploration program occurred largely 25 miles or more to the west 

of the community.44 The GMT2 development is closer to Nuiqsut; the drill pad site 

“lies approximately 16.5 miles west of Nuiqsut,” and connects to the GMT1 drill site 

by an access road extending towards the northwest.

45

 Maps showing the locations 

of development relative to Nuiqsut are included in an appendix to this decision.

46

The Native Village of Nuiqsut47 and several non-profit organizations initiated 

this action on March 1, 2019, claiming that BLM’s environmental analysis of 

ConocoPhillips’ 2018-2019 winter exploration plan was deficient in several ways, 

and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.48 Plaintiffs filed an Amended 

Complaint on March 26, 2019, which contained five claims for relief: 

 

43 AR5065. “Subsistence Activities are important components of the Nuiqsut economy and of 

local Iñupiaq culture and identity.” AR0420. The GMT2 SEIS reports that caribou make up, on 

average, 30 percent of Nuiqsut’s subsistence harvest, and the average per capita caribou harvest 

is 157 pounds. AR4725; AR4752.

44 See AR8504 (“Most of the ice roads for the proposed exploration project are located more than 

25 miles from Nuiqsut.”); AR8474 (map showing winter exploration project area).

45 AR4598; see also AR5177 (map showing proposed GMT2 development).

46 See Docket 46-1.

47 The Native Village of Nuiqsut “is [a] Federally Recognized Tribal Government” that “is 

responsible for over 400 tribal members” residing in Nuiqsut. Docket 5 at 5, ¶ 9.

48 Docket 1.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 9 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 10 of 73

(1) That BLM’s FONNSI for the winter exploration program, and its 

associated decision not to prepare an EIS, failed to account for significant impacts 

to the Teshekpuk Caribou Herd and subsistence activity and was thus in violation 

of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), and 

the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2);49

(2) That BLM’s FONNSI, and associated decision not to prepare an EIS, 

failed to consider the cumulative impacts of the winter exploration program, and 

thus violated NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2);

50

(3) That “BLM’s failure to consider the winter exploration program and 

geotechnical exploration program together in a single EIS” violated NEPA, 42 

U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), its implementing regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25, and the 

APA, 5 U.S.C. 706(2);51

(4) That BLM failed to consider appropriate alternatives to ConocoPhillips’ 

proposed winter exploration plan, in violation of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), its 

implementing regulations, 40 C.F.R. §§ 1507.2(d), 1508.9(b), and the APA, 5 

U.S.C. §§ 702, 706;52 and

 

49 Docket 5 at 22–23, ¶¶ 87–88.

50 Docket 5 at 24–25, ¶¶ 98–99.

51 Docket 5 at 25, ¶ 103.

52 Docket 5 at 26, ¶ 107.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 10 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 11 of 73

(5) That BLM failed to consider alternatives to the winter exploration plan 

that would reduce the impact to subsistence uses of the affected areas, in violation 

of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (“ANILCA”), 16 U.S.C. § 

3120(a), and the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706.53 

The Amended Complaint requested declaratory relief, an order vacating the 

ROD for the 2018-2019 winter exploration, and an injunction prohibiting “further 

exploration activities in the [Petroleum] Reserve until BLM has complied with the 

requirements of NEPA and ANILCA.”54 However, in their briefing on the merits,

Plaintiffs seek only declaratory relief and vacatur.55

The Court granted ConocoPhillips’ Motion to Intervene on April 10, 2019,56

and the company answered the Amended Complaint on April 12, 2019.57 Federal 

Defendants filed their answer on May 6, 2019.58 Plaintiffs filed their opening brief 

on the merits on May 23, 2019.59

 

53 Docket 5 at 27, ¶ 111.

54 Docket 5 at 27.

55 Docket 27 at 42–43. 

56 Docket 15.

57 Docket 17.

58 Docket 25.

59 Docket 27; see also L. R. Civ. P. 16.3(c) (establishing briefing schedule for administrative 

appeals).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 11 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 12 of 73

JURISDICTION

“It is an inexorable command of the United States Constitution that the 

federal courts confine themselves to deciding actual cases and controversies.”

60

 

This case-or-controversy requirement “underpins both . . . standing 

and . . . mootness jurisprudence.”61 Standing and mootness are related, but 

distinct legal concepts.

62

 The standing inquiry asks whether a case or controversy 

existed at the time a complaint was filed;

63 the mootness inquiry asks whether that 

case or controversy “persist[s] throughout all stages of the litigation.”64

ConocoPhillips argues that Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the 

EA for the 2018-19 winter exploration,65 and Federal Defendants and 

 

60 Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1128 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing U.S. Const. art. 

III, § 2).

61 Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000).

62 Id. at 189–93 (discussing difference between mootness and standing).

63 See e.g., Civil Rights Educ. & Enf’t Ctr. v. Hosp. Props. Trust, 867 F.3d 1093, 1102 (9th Cir. 

2017) (recognizing the “general rule that standing is determined ‘at the time the action 

commences’” (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc., 528 U.S. at 191)).

64 Gator.com Corp., 398 F.3d at 1128–29 (citing Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 n.10 

(1974)); see also Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 71–72 (2013) (“A corollary 

to th[e] case-or-controversy requirement is that ‘an actual controversy must be extant at all stages 

of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” (quoting Arizonans for Official English v. 

Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997)).

65 Docket 31 at 18–25.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 12 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 13 of 73

ConocoPhillips both argue that Plaintiffs’ claims are moot.66 The Court will address 

these two arguments separately, beginning with standing.67

I. Standing

To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff “must have (1) suffered an injury

in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and 

(3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.”

68

 At the summary 

judgment stage, plaintiffs must submit evidence, such as affidavits, showing that 

each of these elements is met through specific facts.69 Plaintiffs submitted nine 

declarations from their members in an effort to carry this burden.70 

ConocoPhillips contends that Plaintiffs have failed to establish each of these 

three elements.71 ConocoPhillips’ briefing relies heavily on the fact that the winter 

exploration program challenged by Plaintiffs had concluded by the time they filed 

 

66 Docket 30 at 14–20; Docket 31 at 16–18 (agreeing with and adopting Federal Defendants’ 

mootness argument).

67 See Friends of the Earth, Inc., 528 U.S. at 180 (addressing standing and mootness separately 

and beginning by asking whether plaintiffs “had Article III standing at the outset of the litigation”); 

Bernhardt v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We examine whether 

Bernhardt had standing at the time the lawsuit was filed, and separately consider whether her 

case has become moot.”).

68 Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of 

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)).

69 Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 563 (1992). The Court considers summary judgment 

to be analogous to the administrative agency appeal process established by Local Rule 16.3.

70 Docket 27-1–27-9.

71 Docket 31 at 18–19.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 13 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 14 of 73

their opening brief.

72

 However, ConocoPhillips’ arguments about the timing of the 

challenges to its winter exploration are more relevant to the question of mootness, 

which is discussed separately below.

73

 As explained above, the standing inquiry 

focuses on the plaintiff’s position at the time the operative complaint was filed; 

consistent with the “general rule that standing is determined ‘at the time the action 

commences.’”

74

 The Court will thus consider whether Plaintiffs established that 

each of the standing elements existed at the time the Amended Complaint was 

filed, in March, 2019, when exploration activities were ongoing.

75

A. Injury-in-Fact

The injury-in-fact element requires Plaintiffs to show that they have suffered 

an injury that is “(a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not 

 

72 See, e.g., Docket 31 at 19 (“The primary flaw with Plaintiffs’ declarations is that by the time 

Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, the 2018-19 Program was already completed.” (emphasis 

in original)).

73 See Friends of the Earth, Inc., 528 U.S. at 189–93 (discussing difference between mootness 

and standing and noting that “confusion [between the two] is understandable”).

74 Civil Rights Educ. & Enf’t Ctr. v. Hosp. Props. Trust, 867 F.3d 1093, 1102 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 

Friends of the Earth, Inc., 528 U.S. at 191); see also Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 178, 184 

(concluding that plaintiffs retained standing despite defendant’s cessation of challenged activity 

because “it is undisputed that Laidlaw’s unlawful conduct—discharging pollutants in excess of 

permit limits—was occurring at the time the complaint was filed.” (emphasis added)); Nat. Law 

Party of U.S. v. Fed. Elec. Comm’n, 111 F. Supp. 2d 33, 41 (D.D.C. 2000) (“Standing is based 

upon the facts as they exist at the time the complaint is filed . . . .”).

75 Northstar Fin. Advisors Inc. v. Schwab Investments, 779 F.3d 1036, 1044 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he 

proper focus in determining jurisdiction are ‘the facts existing at the time the complaint under 

consideration was filed’.” (quoting Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 537 F.3d 1329, 1337 

(Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original))). Here, it is the Amended Complaint that is complaint 

under consideration.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 14 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 15 of 73

conjectural or hypothetical.”

76

 If “plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief 

only,” as here, “there is a further requirement that they show a very significant 

possibility of future harm.”

77

 

The Native Village of Nuiqsut satisfied this burden through the declarations

of its tribal members. For example, Martha Itta, the Tribal Administrator for the 

Native Village of Nuiqsut,78 stated that “[ConocoPhillips’] exploration activities and 

other oil activities in the region affect every aspect of our lives[;] . . . [t]here is 24-7 

never-ending traffic during ice road season, nonstop noise pollution.”

79

 And the

EA itself recognized that the winter exploration’s “[p]roximity to the community [of 

Nuiqsut] is a key concern for residents, particularly in terms of air quality and 

noise.”

80

 It explained that while the planned winter exploration activities “would not 

easily be discernible” from other oil and gas development projects in the area, 

residents “will generally be aware of the unprecedented scale and extent of activity 

 

76 Friends of the Earth, Inc., 528 U.S. at 180 (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–

61 (1992)).

77 San Diego Cty. Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Bras v. 

Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 59 F.3d 869, 873 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1084 (1996)).

78 Docket 27-1 at 1, ¶ 1.

79 Docket 27-1 at 3–4, ¶ 8; see also Docket 27-2 at 18, ¶ 31 (Decl. of Rosemary Ahtuangaruak) 

(“[O]ur village is now completely surrounded by lights from the oil and gas infrastructure. . . . 

These artificial lights are confusing our people.”). 

80 AR8504.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 15 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 16 of 73

on the west side [of Nuiqsut] this season.”

81

 Noise and light pollution are concrete 

injuries sufficient to establish injury-in-fact.82

Further, tribal members described in their declarations a fear that 

ConocoPhillips’ winter exploration activities would interfere with subsistence uses 

of the affected area. For example, Tribal Administrator Itta stated that “[t]he area 

where [ConocoPhillips] conducts its current winter exploration activities is . . . 

where [tribal members] fish and hunt,” but that she has not been “able to utilize 

[her] family’s traditional camps [in the Teshekpuk Lake area] due to infrastructure 

and the animals no longer going to those areas.”

83

 The EA also recognizes these 

concerns, stating that the winter exploration “would . . . encompass a large area 

around Fish Creek, which is an important area for wintertime caribou hunting,” on 

which “Nuiqsut residents place extreme value.”

84

 It recognized that “[t]he proposed 

action is anticipated to deflect caribou and furbearers from the area” and that 

 

81 AR8504.

82 See, e.g., Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 645 F.3d 978, 987–88 (8th Cir. 2011) 

(holding member’s declaration that project’s “light and noise pollution threatened his aesthetic 

enjoyment of the area” sufficient to establish injury-in-fact).

83 Docket 27-1 at 2–3, 6, ¶¶ 7, 15. Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, another tribal member, stated that 

she can no longer use her family’s hunting cabin, which is “across the river from where the Alpine 

oilfield was built,” to hunt caribou due to disturbance from industrial activity and that she was 

concerned that “disturbances to nesting grounds from oil and gas activities are also affecting the 

density of birds in our traditional hunting grounds.” Docket 27-2 at 5, ¶ 9.

84 AR8497.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 16 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 17 of 73

“[s]ubsistence hunters would likely avoid the area.”

85

 Accordingly, the Court finds 

that the Native Village of Nuiqsut has established injury-in-fact.

Members of at least some of the plaintiff environmental organizations, 

through their declarations, also identified concrete and imminent harm they feared 

they would suffer as a result of ConocoPhillips’ winter exploration. The Supreme 

Court has held that “environmental plaintiffs adequately allege injury-in-fact when 

they aver that they use the affected area and are persons ‘for whom the aesthetic 

and recreational values of the area will be lessened’ by the challenged activity.”

86

 

For example, Jeffrey Scott Fair, a member of the NRDC, is a wildlife biologist 

who has researched yellow-billed loons in the area of ConocoPhillips’ 2018-2019 

winter exploration.87 He describes his concern that ice-road construction during 

the exploration season could harm loons directly by artificially lowering the water 

level of the lakes by which they nest in the spring: the loons “need to nest right at 

the water line,” but “[g]iven the likelihood that these lakes would refill later in the 

early nesting season (from their unnatural drawdowns), rising waters would flood 

and kill the loon nests.”

88

 Mr. Fair states that he plans to revisit loon sites “for 

comparison and follow-up” and that he is currently “awaiting acceptance and 

 

85 AR8497.

86 Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 183 (2000) (quoting 

Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 735 (1972)).

87 Docket 27-7 at 2, 7, ¶¶ 4, 20.

88 Docket 27-7 at 8–9, ¶ 23.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 17 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 18 of 73

funding for a red-throated loon study . . ., potentially including areas within 

approximately 20 miles of the exploration area” as early as summer, 2020.89 

Dan Ritzman, a member of both the Sierra Club and Alaska Wilderness 

League,90 stated that he had plans to float “portions of the Nigu, Etivlik and Colville 

rivers” in the summer of 2020,91 but feared that “noise impacts from exploration 

drilling, development, and production activities will drive away wildlife from . . . the 

critical areas around Teshekpuk Lake,” and thus “significantly decrease or 

completely erase [his] opportunity to enjoy wildlife viewing” on his upcoming trip.92

ConocoPhillips maintains that Plaintiffs’ declarations are deficient and do not 

show impending harm because “they surmise about effects that they believe could

occur—despite the fact that the declarations were submitted after the program 

 

89 Docket 27-7 at 9, ¶ 24. Cf. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 564 (1992) (holding that 

vague statements of intent to revisit areas of interest cannot show injury-in-fact because “[s]uch

‘some day’ intentions—without any description of concrete plans, or indeed even any specification 

of when the some day will be—do not support a finding of the ‘actual or imminent’ injury that our 

cases require” (emphasis in original)).

90 Docket 27-9 at 2, ¶ 3.

91 Docket 27-9 at 12, ¶ 33.

92 Docket 27-9 at 14, ¶ 37. The Court construes Mr. Ritzman’s declaration broadly to assert that 

disturbances to wildlife from ConocoPhillips’ 2018-2019 winter exploration program will last long 

enough to negatively impact his summer 2020 river trip. However, the remaining plaintiff 

environmental organizations—Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth—have 

failed to provide declarations from their members identifying particular injuries they expect to stem 

from the particular exploration program at issue in this case. They instead largely focus on the 

impacts of oil and gas development in the NPR-A generally, giving little attention to 

ConocoPhillips’ 2018-2019 winter exploration activities. See, e.g., Docket 27-4 (Decl. of Richard 

G. Steiner, member, Center for Biological Diversity); Docket 27-6 (Decl. of Marcelin E. Keever, 

Legal Director, Friends of the Earth). The Court finds, therefore, that the Center for Biological 

Diversity and Friends of the Earth have failed to allege a concrete and particularized injury in fact 

and dismisses these plaintiffs for lack of standing.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 18 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 19 of 73

completed—and identify no harms that actually occurred.”

93

 ConocoPhillips 

mischaracterizes Plaintiffs’ burden; as explained above, the standing inquiry 

focuses on Plaintiffs’ position at the filing of the Amended Complaint, not the filing 

of their opening brief on the merits.

94

 Viewed through this lens, the above quoted 

declarations filed with Plaintiffs’ briefing demonstrate that members of at least 

some plaintiff organizations had articulated sufficiently specific concerns about 

how the winter exploration would “affect [their] recreational, aesthetic, and 

economic interests.”

95

 

For the foregoing reasons, the Native Village of Nuiqsut, NRDC, Sierra Club, 

and Alaska Wilderness League have met their burden to show a concrete, 

imminent injury-in-fact. The Court finds that the Friends of the Earth and the 

Center for Biological Diversity have not met this burden, however, and dismisses 

them from the case.

B. Causation

ConocoPhillips maintains that “[t]he completed 2018-19 Program either 

caused harm to Plaintiffs or did not,” and contends that “Plaintiffs have presented 

 

93 Docket 31 at 21–22.

94 Civil Rights Educ. & Enf’t Ctr. v. Hosp. Props. Trust, 867 F.3d 1093, 1102 (9th Cir. 2017). Many 

of the declarations were signed after the completion of the winter exploration program, see, e.g., 

Docket 27-7 at 11 (Decl. of Mr. Fair signed May 21, 2019), but this delay is understandable since 

the use of declarations to demonstrate standing does not become necessary until the summary 

judgment stage. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 563 (1992). 

95 Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 184 (2000).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 19 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 20 of 73

no evidence from which th[e] Court can conclude that any of the Plaintiffs suffered 

injury due to the 2018-19 Program.”

96

 ConocoPhillips’ argument again focuses on 

the facts as they were at the time of Plaintiffs’ opening brief, when winter 

exploration had completed, rather than the facts at the time the Amended

Complaint was filed, when exploration activities were still ongoing.

As explained above, certain Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they had been 

injured and reasonably feared continuing and imminent future injury at the time the 

Amended Complaint was filed. They have also shown that that injury would be 

“fairly traceable” to ConocoPhillips’ winter exploration.97 For example, Mr. Fair 

explained how the construction of ice roads could impact loon habitat,98 and Tribal 

Administrator Itta explained that exploration activities cause noise and light 

pollution and impact subsistence uses of the Teshekpuk Lake area.99 And, as 

noted above, the EA itself recognized that winter exploration would cause 

subsistence users to avoid the area.100

 

96 Docket 31 at 24.

97 Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016) (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 

560–61 (1992)).

98 Docket 27-7 at 8–9, ¶ 23.

99 See Docket 27-1 at 4, ¶ 8; see also Docket 27-2 at 5, ¶ 9 (Decl. of Ms. Ahtuangaruak).

100 AR8497.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 20 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 21 of 73

C. Redressability

ConocoPhillips argues that “a declaration from th[e] Court that BLM did not 

comply with NEPA or ANILCA . . . would not redress any . . . injury” suffered by 

Plaintiffs because the “2018-19 Program, including demobilization, is complete.”

101

 

However, exploration was ongoing at the time the Amended Complaint was filed, 

and a declaratory judgment and vacatur of the EA, at that point in time, would have 

caused exploration to cease and thus redressed Plaintiffs’ injuries. Accordingly,

the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established the elements of standing as of 

March 26, 2019, the date of the Amended Complaint.

II. Mootness

“A case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant ‘any 

effectual relief whatever’ to the prevailing party.”

102

“[T]he burden of demonstrating 

mootness is a heavy one.”

103 Federal Defendants and ConocoPhillips argue that 

Plaintiffs’ claims are moot because the 2018-2019 winter exploration program they 

 

101 Docket 31 at 25.

102 Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012) (internal quotations 

omitted) (quoting Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000)). Indeed, “defendants in NEPA 

cases face a particularly heavy burden in establishing mootness,” and the Ninth Circuit has 

“repeatedly emphasized that if the completion of the action challenged under NEPA is sufficient 

to render the case nonjusticiable, entities ‘could merely ignore the requirements of NEPA, build 

its structures before a case gets to court, and then hide behind the mootness doctrine.’” Cantrell 

v. City of Long Beach, 241 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting West v. Sec’y of Dept. of Transp., 

206 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2000)).

103 Feldman v. Bomar, 518 F.3d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Gordon, 

849 F.2d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988)).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 21 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 22 of 73

challenge has already been completed.104 Federal Defendants maintain that 

“there is no effective relief the Court can order here with the Program completed 

and the wells suspended.”

105

Plaintiffs argue that their claims fit within the “capable of repetition yet 

evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine. This “exception applies when 

(1) the duration of the challenged action is too short to allow full litigation before it 

ceases or expires, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the plaintiffs will 

be subjected to the challenged action again.”

106

 .

Beginning with the first prong, “[a]n action is ‘fully litigated’ if it is reviewed 

by [a court of appeals] and the Supreme Court.”

107

 In Shell Offshore, Inc. v. 

Greenpeace, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that a preliminary injunction “limited to a 

total duration of less than seven months” could not be fully litigated before expiring, 

concluding that “[o]rders of such inherently limited duration will almost always 

evade full review.”

108 The EA at issue in this case authorized winter exploration 

that began in December, 2018 and concluded in April, 2019, a period of only five 

 

104 Docket 30 at 14–20; Docket 31 at 16–18 (agreeing with and adopting Federal Defendants’

mootness argument).

105 Docket 30 at 16.

106 See Wildwest Inst. v. Kurth, 855 F.3d 995, 1002–03 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Karuk Tribe of Cal. 

v. U.S. Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir. 2014)).

107 Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1287 (9th Cir. 2013).

108 Id.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 22 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 23 of 73

months.109 BLM’s approval of the 2018-2019 winter exploration in the NPR-A is

thus precisely the sort of short-term action that evades judicial review.

Defendants contend that this is a problem of Plaintiffs’ own making. They 

maintain that Plaintiffs could have brought their case sooner and moved for a 

preliminary injunction of the winter exploration in order to preserve the issue for 

judicial review.110 Plaintiffs did not file the initial complaint in this case until March 

1, 2019, well after ConocoPhillips’ winter exploration had begun.111 A preliminary 

injunction, if entered, may have prevented the initiation or completion of the winter

exploration. However, no judicial relief could have prevented the expiration of the

authorization provided by the EA before it could be fully litigated.112

Turning to the second prong, Plaintiffs argue that BLM is likely to authorize 

winter exploration in the area again, using the same, allegedly deficient 

environmental review.113 BLM has repeatedly authorized winter exploration

 

109 Docket 32 at 2–3, ¶¶ 3–5 (Decl. of Lorna K. Richmond).

110 See Docket 30 at 19–20 (“To the extent BLM’s decision can be said to have evaded review, it 

is only due to Plaintiffs’ own delay and not to something inherent in the governmental action 

challenged.”); Docket 31 at 17–18 (“Nothing prevented Plaintiffs from filing this lawsuit earlier, 

before the alleged deficiencies became moot for lack of an effective remedy.”); cf. Headwaters, 

Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt, 893 F.2d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Where prompt application for 

a stay pending appeal can preserve an issue for appeal, the issue is not one that will evade 

review.” (quoting Am. Horse Prot. Ass’n, Inc. v. Watt, 679 F.2d 150, 151 (9th Cir. 1982))).

111 Docket 1.

112 See Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324, 1330 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Although the harvest 

of pollock could have been enjoined, the expiration of the 1991 [Total Allowable Catch] could not. 

No injunction could have preserved this challenge to a short-term rule.”).

113 Docket 33 at 8–9.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 23 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 24 of 73

programs in the NPR-A after completing an EA and issuing a FONNSI.114 Neither 

Federal Defendants nor ConocoPhillips dispute the company’s continued interest 

in conducting winter exploration in the area. Indeed, the Court takes judicial notice 

of the fact that ConocoPhillips has since proposed winter exploration for 2019-

2020 in the same area as the 2018-2019 exploration at issue in this case,115 and 

that BLM has again completed an EA to review impacts of the proposed activity.116

Defendants argue, instead, that Plaintiffs’ claims are moot because the 

specific EA and exploration activities in question cannot, by their very nature, 

recur.117 They cite Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, where the Ninth Circuit 

held that a challenge to exploratory mining operations in Montana’s Stillwater 

Complex was mooted by the termination of activity.

118

 In that case, the mining 

operator ceased exploration when it struck water.119 As a result, the Circuit 

reasoned that “[t]here [was] no reasonable possibility . . . that [the mining operator]

will resume or repeat the exploratory operation which plaintiffs previously sought 

 

114 AR8550–52; see also Docket 31 at 8–9 (“This is the same practice BLM has followed for every 

winter exploration program in the [NPR-A] for two decades.” (emphasis in original)).

115 Docket 44-2 at 1–3. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Supplemental Factual Materials 

Pursuant to L. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(2) & L. Civ. R. 7.3(d) at Docket 44 is hereby GRANTED. 

116 Docket 44-1.

117 See Docket 30 at 19 (“[I]t is not relevant that Conoco may, in future years, apply to conduct 

additional winter exploration programs in the [NPR-A], for approval of any such program would 

constitute new action for which new NEPA analysis would be required.”).

118 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir. 1978).

119 Id. at 1378.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 24 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 25 of 73

to enjoin.”120 The Ninth Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs’ argument that future 

exploration was likely to occur in other areas within the broader Stillwater Complex, 

stating that “relief under NEPA must be tailored to remedy the particular violations 

in the case.”121

This case is distinguishable. In Bergland, the agency had determined that 

no EIS was needed for the mining activity at issue.122 But the Ninth Circuit’s 

opinion in that case gives no indication that the NEPA analysis for that mining 

exploration case was tiered to any project-level analyses, on which the agency 

may rely to authorize future exploratory projects. Further, unlike in Bergland,

Plaintiffs have here introduced evidence that ConocoPhillips plans to return to the

same general location of its 2018-2019 winter exploration to conduct further 

exploratory drilling,

123 not to “other places . . . in the” NPR-A .124

In this case, while the 2018 EA and the exploration it authorized cannot 

themselves be repeated, the Court finds it quite likely that BLM will authorize future 

winter exploration in the Teshekpuk Lake Area using an EA that tiers to the 2012 

 

120 Id. at 1379.

121 Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting Realty Income Trust v. Eckerd, 564 F.2d 447, 456 (D.C. Cir. 

1977)).

122 Id. at 1378.

123 Compare Docket 44-2 at 1–2 (listing lease tracts for proposed 2019-2020 exploratory drilling) 

with AR8482–83 (listing lease tracts for 2018-2019 exploratory drilling).

124 Bergland, 576 F.2d at 1379.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 25 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 26 of 73

IAP/EIS and the GMT1 and GMT2 SEISs to support conclusions regarding impacts 

to caribou and subsistence uses. In Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, the Ninth 

Circuit held that a challenge to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s total 

allowable catch (“TAC”) for 1991 fell into the capable of repetition yet evading 

review exception to the mootness doctrine.

125

 Although the TAC had expired, the 

Circuit concluded that “[t]he major issue—whether the Secretary has adequately 

examined the effects of pollock fishing on the Steller sea lions—is likely to recur in 

future years,” noting that the agency had relied on the same biological opinion to 

support the 1992 TAC that it had used for the 1991 TAC.126 Similarly, it appears 

likely that additional NEPA analyses for future exploration in the NPR-A will tier to 

and rely on the 2012 IAP/EIS, the GMT1 SEIS, and the GMT2 SEIS in the same 

manner as the 2018 EA.

127

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the challenged action is capable 

of repetition yet evades review and that the exception to the mootness doctrine 

applies. Accordingly, the Court turns to the merits of Plaintiffs’ arguments.

 

125 14 F.3d 1324, 1330 (9th Cir. 1992).

126 Id.

127 Cf. Idaho Dep’t of Fish & Game v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 56 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 

1995) (distinguishing Greenpeace Action and holding that challenge to TAC was mooted by 

issuance of new biological opinion); Ramsey v. Kantor, 96 F.3d 434, 446 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding 

that challenge to fishery management plan was moot because the “agency [would] be basing its 

rulings on different criteria or factors in the future”).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 26 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 27 of 73

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Administrative Procedure Act

The Court reviews Federal Defendants’ compliance with NEPA and ANILCA

under the Administrative Procedure Act.128 A reviewing court may not set aside 

an agency's decision unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 

otherwise not in accordance with law.”129 Agency action is arbitrary and capricious 

if it

relie[s] on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, 

entirely fail[s] to consider an important aspect of the problem, offer[s] 

an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before 

the agency, or is so implausible that it c[an]not be ascribed to a 

difference in view or the product of agency expertise.130 

A court’s review of whether an agency action is arbitrary and capricious should be 

“searching and careful,” but “narrow,” as a court may not substitute its judgment 

for that of the administrative agency.131 Courts will generally “uphold agency 

decisions so long as the agencies have ‘considered the relevant factors and 

 

128 See Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 882 (1990) (explaining that when a statute 

does not “provide[] a private right of action for violations of its provisions,” plaintiffs may obtain 

“judicial review [of agency action] under § 10(a) of the APA”); Alaska v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 273 

F. Supp. 3d 102, 112 (D.D.C. 2017) (“Because NEPA, . . . , ANILCA, . . . , and [several other 

statutes] do not create a private right of action for violations of those statutes, I review the Forest 

Service’s promulgation of the Roadless Rule as a final agency action under the APA . . . .”). 

129 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

130 Prot. Our Cmtys. Found. v. LaCounte, 939 F.3d 1029, 1034 (9th Cir. 2019) (alterations in 

original) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 

(1983)).

131 Marsh v. Or. Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378 (1989) (quoting Citizens to Pres. Overton 

Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971)).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 27 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 28 of 73

articulated a rational connection between the factors found and the choices 

made.’”132

II. National Environmental Policy Act

Pursuant to NEPA, an agency must prepare an EIS before taking an action 

“significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”133 An agency may 

prepare an EA in order to determine whether an action significantly affects the 

environment, such that an EIS is necessary.134 If, based on the EA, the agency

finds that the action will have no significant impact, it need not complete an EIS;135

however, “if substantial questions are raised as to whether a project . . . may cause 

significant degradation of some human environmental factor,” the “agency must 

prepare an EIS.”136 “If an agency decides not to prepare an EIS, it must supply a 

‘convincing statement of reasons’ to explain why a project’s impacts are 

insignificant.”137 

 

132 Prot. Our Cmty’s. Found., 939 F.3d at 1034 (quoting City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 

1206 (9th Cir. 1206).

133 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) (requiring a “detailed statement” analyzing “the environmental impact 

of the proposed action,” among other things).

134 See 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b).

135 See 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(e); id. at § 1508.13 (defining “finding of no significant impact”). 

136 Barnes v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 865 F.3d 1266, 1274 (9th Cir. 2017) (omission and emphasis 

in original) (quoting Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin, 538 F.3d 

1172, 1219 (9th Cir. 2008)).

137 Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 801 F.3d 1105, 1111 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting 

Blue Mountains Diversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 1998)).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 28 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 29 of 73

“Courts apply a ‘rule of reason’ standard in reviewing the adequacy of a 

NEPA document.”138 This inquiry “involves ‘a pragmatic judgment whether the 

[document’s] form, content, and preparation foster both informed decision-making 

and informed public participation.’”139 “Alternatively phrased, the task is to ensure 

that the agency has taken a ‘hard look’ at the potential environmental 

consequences of the proposed action.”140

NEPA’s implementing regulations provide that “[a]gencies are encouraged 

to tier their environmental impact statements to eliminate repetitive discussions of 

the same issues and to focus on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level 

of environmental review.”141 ConocoPhillips and Plaintiffs argue over the correct 

standard for reviewing EAs that tier to previously completed EISs. Quoting the 

Ninth Circuit, ConocoPhillips maintains that “[a] comprehensive programmatic 

impact statement generally obviates the need for a subsequent site-specific or 

 

138 Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 387 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(quoting Churchill Cty. v. Norton, 276 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2001)) (reviewing EAs that tiered 

to project-level EIS to approve timber sales).

139 Prot. Our Cmtys. Found. v. LaCounte, 939 F.3d 1029, 1035 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Churchill 

Cty., 276 F.3d at 1071) (reviewing EIS approving wind facility).

140 Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr., 387 F.3d at 993 (quoting Churchill Cty., 276 F.3d at 1072).

141 40 C.F.R. § 1502.20. Under this regulation,

Whenever a broad environmental impact statement has been prepared . . . and a 

subsequent statement or environmental assessment is then prepared on an action 

included within the entire program or policy . . . the subsequent statement or 

environmental assessment need only summarize the issues discussed in the 

broader statement and incorporate discussions from the broader statement by 

reference and shall concentrate on the issues specific to the subsequent action.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 29 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 30 of 73

project specific impact statement, unless new and significant environmental 

impacts arise that were not previously considered.”142 Plaintiffs respond that 

“[t]iering satisfies BLM’s NEPA obligations only to the extent that the tiered-to 

documents contain sufficient analysis to support conclusions regarding sitespecific impacts.”143

These positions are not inconsistent; Plaintiffs and ConocoPhillips each 

make a correct statement of the applicable standard, although they emphasize 

different aspects of that standard. A programmatic, or broad-level EIS “must 

provide ‘sufficient detail to foster informed decision-making’” but need not evaluate 

“site-specific impacts . . . until a critical decision has been made to act on site 

development.”144 The fact that an “EIS contains sufficient analysis for informed 

decision-making at the programmatic level does not reduce or minimize [an 

agency’s] critical duty to ‘fully evaluate[]’ site-specific impacts” at later stages of 

review.145 However, when a programmatic EIS does adequately consider the 

 

142 Docket 31 at 26 (alteration and emphasis in ConocoPhillips’ briefing) (quoting Salmon River 

Concerned Citizens v. Roberston, 32 F.3d 1346, 1356 (9th Cir. 1994)).

143 Docket 33 at 13 (citing Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr., 387 F.3d at 997–99).

144 W. Watersheds Project v. Abbey, 719 F.3d 1035, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting N. Alaska Envtl. 

Ctr. v. Lujan, 961 F.2d 886, 890–91 (9th Cir. 1992)).

145 Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr., 961 F.2d at 890–91); see also 

Prot. Our Cmtys. Found. v. LaCounte, 939 F.3d 1029, 1039 (9th Cir. 2019) (explaining that “a sitespecific project demands site-specific analysis” and that “[a]gencies cannot rely on a general 

discussion in a programmatic EIS or other document to satisfy its NEPA obligations for a sitespecific action”). 

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 30 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 31 of 73

impacts of subsequent site-specific projects, a subsequent NEPA document need 

not repeat that analysis “unless new and significant environmental impacts arise 

that were not previously considered.”146

Tiering promotes efficiency; it allows an agency to take the requisite “‘hard 

look’ at the potential environmental consequences of [a] proposed action”147

without treading the same ground twice. Department of Interior regulations 

describe this balance well: “An environmental assessment may be prepared, and 

a finding of no significant impact reached, for a proposed action with significant 

effects, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative, if the environmental assessment is 

tiered to a broader environmental impact statement which fully analyzed those 

significant effects.”148 This does not, however, relieve the agency of its burden to 

provide a “‘convincing statement of reasons’ to explain why” a project will not result 

in impacts beyond those previously considered.149

 

146 Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 469 F.3d 768, 783 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Salmon River 

Concerned Citizens, 32 F.3d at 1356); cf. Marsh v. Or. Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 372 (1989) 

(recognizing that NEPA’s implementing regulations require preparation of an SEIS if there “are 

significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on 

the proposed action or its impacts.” (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c))). Whether “new and 

significant environmental impacts” have arisen is itself subject to the “rule of reason” standard 

that generally governs NEPA actions. Cf. id. at 373 (explaining that “[i]n this respect the decision 

whether to prepare an [SEIS] is similar to the decision whether to prepare an EIS in the first 

instance”).

147 Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr., 387 F.3d at 993 (quoting Churchill Cty. v. Norton, 276 F.3d 

1060, 1072 (9th Cir. 2001)).

148 43 C.F.R. § 46.140(c).

149 Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 801 F.3d 1105, 1111 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting 

Blue Mountains Diversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 1998)).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 31 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 32 of 73

III. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

Congress enacted ANILCA to “cause the least adverse impact possible on 

rural residents who depend upon subsistence uses of the resources of [the public 

lands in Alaska].”150 Section 810 of ANILCA contains procedural requirements that 

are similar to NEPA’s; pursuant to its terms, an agency proposing an action

resulting in the “use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands” must evaluate that 

action’s effects on “subsistence uses and needs,” the availability of other lands for 

the same purpose, and “other alternatives” that would reduce the impacts to 

subsistence uses.151 Due to their similarities, courts have analyzed the procedural 

requirements of NEPA and ANILCA under the same standard.152

DISCUSSION

Although the parties’ briefing does not directly track the five claims set forth 

in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, the Court addresses each claim in the Amended 

Complaint in the context of the applicable argument from the briefing.

 

150 16 U.S.C. § 3112(1).

151 16 U.S.C. § 3120(a).

152 See, e.g., City of Tenakee Springs v. Clough, 915 F.2d 1308, 1310–12 (9th Cir. 1990) 

(evaluating adequacy of EIS’s consideration of alternatives under NEPA and ANILCA together); 

Alaska Wilderness Recreation & Tourism Ass’n v. Morrison, 67 F.3d 723, 731 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(same); Sierra Club v. Penfold, 664 F. Supp. 1299, 1307 (D. Alaska 1987) (“NEPA case law is 

helpful in interpreting § 810.”).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 32 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 33 of 73

I. First Claim: Impacts to Caribou and Subsistence

Plaintiffs’ first claim for relief alleges that there were “substantial questions 

about whether the [2018-2019] winter exploration program would have significant 

environmental impacts to caribou and subsistence activities.”153 They contend 

that it was arbitrary and capricious for BLM to issue a FONNSI and authorize the 

program without first completing an EIS.154 The Court will address the 2018-2019 

EA’s discussion of impacts to caribou and subsistence in turn.

A. Caribou

Plaintiffs argue that the 2018 EA “include[s] no specific discussion of the 

effects of ConocoPhillips’ winter exploration program on caribou.”155 They contend 

that the EA disregards “substantial questions . . . concerning the effects of winter 

exploration on caribou,” and that BLM was thus required to “prepare an EIS or to 

supply a convincing statement of reasons to explain why the effects would be 

insignificant.”156

The 2018 EA characterizes caribou as a “minimally impacted” species, 

meaning that caribou “would not be affected to a degree requiring further analysis 

 

153 Docket 5 at 22, ¶ 85.

154 Docket 5 at 22–23, ¶¶ 85–88.

155 Docket 27 at 21.

156 Docket 27 at 20; see also Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 801 F.3d 1105, 1111 

(9th Cir. 2015) (“If an agency decides not to prepare an EIS, it must supply a ‘convincing statement 

of reasons’ to explain why a project’s impacts are insignificant.” (quoting Blue Mountain 

Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 1988))).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 33 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 34 of 73

because either the expected impacts from the proposed action and alternative 

would be minimal, or standard protections . . . would reduce impacts.”157 

Specifically, the EA states:

Caribou, grizzly bear, wolf, wolverine and small mammals . . . may 

inhabit the area. Only minor impacts would be expected and impacts 

were covered in the 2012 NPRA IAP/EIS. The proposed action may 

disturb and displace wildlife from the immediate area of activities but 

would not reduce population levels or distribution during the winter 

season.158

Responding to Plaintiffs’ concerns about caribou impacts raised in their comments 

on the Preliminary EA, BLM states in the Final EA that:

Activities associated with the exploration including the construction 

and use of ice roads and pads could be disruptive to caribou. It would 

not be expected that caribou would vacate an extensive area adjacent 

to exploration activities during winter and would not result in changes 

to distribution of herds during the winter. . . . Although the proposed 

action may be disruptive to individual caribou and displace some 

individuals from the immediate vicinity of activities, these impacts 

would be local in extent, would not affect herd distribution or reduce 

populations.159

The 2012 IAP/EIS, to which the 2018 EA tiers, describes the Teshekpuk 

Caribou Herd in detail, discussing its population trends, seasonal distribution, and 

the significance of multiple environmental factors on calving success.160 It explains 

that a majority of the Teshekpuk Caribou Herd has historically “wintered on the 

 

157 AR8481.

158 AR8480 tbl. 1.2.

159 AR8575.

160 AR0294–301.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 34 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 35 of 73

coastal plain of the NPR-A, especially around Atqasuk and southeast of 

Teshekpuk Lake.”161

The 2012 IAP/EIS discussed the potential impacts of exploration activities 

on caribou for each of the five alternatives it considered.162 Alternative A assumed 

that “196 oil or gas exploratory or delineation wells would be drilled from winter ice 

pads over [a thirty-year period]” in the project area.163 Discussing the impacts of 

exploration under this alternative, the EIS states that “[e]xploratory drilling 

operations and ice roads would traverse Teshekpuk Caribou Herd caribou 

wintering areas” and that “[a]ny caribou in the immediate vicinity of the activity 

would be disturbed, possibly having a negative effect on their energy balance, 

hormonal status, and calving success, due to prolonged stress.”164 However, the 

EIS explained that “[b]ecause these animals are mobile and the operation would 

be temporary, it is not expected that there would be any long-lasting effects on 

caribou.”165 This analysis included a caveat: “However, this assumption has not 

been scientifically tested and conditions for winter survival vary year to year. It is 

 

161 AR0301.

162 See AR722–32 (Alternative A); AR941–45 (Alternative B-1); AR1064–67 (Alternative B-2); 

AR1180–84 (Alternative C); AR1292–96 (Alternative D).

163 AR0722.

164 AR0725.

165 AR0725.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 35 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 36 of 73

possible that this disturbance could have an additive effect on natural winter 

mortality.”166

Alternative B-2—the preferred and ultimately selected alternative—altered 

the project area to provide additional protections for the Teshekpuk Caribou Herd; 

it “would add approximately 1.9 million acres to the Teshekpuk Lake Special 

Area . . . to protect caribou calving and insect-relief areas.”167 All told, Alternative 

B-2 “would make approximately 11 million acres of the NPR-A unavailable for oil 

and gas leasing . . . includ[ing] important calving and insect-relief areas for the 

Teshekpuk Caribou Herd.”168 However, Alternative B-2 would “make[] lands . . . in 

northeastern NPR-A near Fish Creek available”;169 i.e. the area of ConocoPhillips’ 

2018-2019 winter exploration activities.

Within this project area, Alternative B-2 assumed that “152 oil or gas 

exploratory or delineation wells, 78 percent of those assumed under Alternative A, 

would be drilled from winter ice pads [over a 30-year] period.”

170

 Discussing the 

impacts of exploratory drilling under Alternative B-2, the 2012 IAP/EIS explained 

that “[e]xploratory drilling would be conducted during the winter, when some 

 

166 AR0723.

167 AR0036.

168 AR0037.

169 AR0037.

170 AR1064.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 36 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 37 of 73

mammal species are less active or less often present, although wintering 

Teshekpuk Caribou Herd caribou could be present in large numbers.”

171

 The EIS 

ultimately concluded that, under Alternative B-2, “[i]mpacts to terrestrial animals 

would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A, but somewhat less in 

spatial extent, frequency and magnitude.”172

Based on this record, Plaintiffs make several arguments about the 

sufficiency of the 2018 EA’s conclusion with respect to the impact on caribou. 

Primarily, Plaintiffs contend that several statements of uncertainty in the 2012 

IAP/EIS raise “substantial questions as to whether the winter exploration may 

significantly affect caribou in th[e] project area.”173 They emphasize the 2012 

IAP/EIS’s recognition that its assumptions regarding the impact of winter 

exploration have not been scientifically tested and that “it is possible that this 

disturbance could have an additive effect on natural winter mortality.”174 Plaintiffs 

also highlight the following statement, which appears in the EIS’s discussion of the 

 

171 AR1065.

172 AR1064–65.

173 Docket 27 at 25; see also Barnes v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 865 F.3d 1266, 1274 (9th Cir. 2017) 

(“An agency must prepare an EIS ‘if substantial questions are raised as to whether a 

project . . . may cause significant degradation of some human environmental factor.” (internal 

quotation marks omitted) (emphasis and omission in original) (quoting Ctr. for Biological Diversity 

v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1219 (9th Cir. 2008))).

174 AR0723; see also Docket 33 at 16.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 37 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 38 of 73

impacts of the development of oil production, as opposed to exploration, under 

several alternatives:

Oil and gas development within the NPR-A could introduce for the first 

time such infrastructure and activities into the winter range of a North 

Slope caribou herd (Teshekpuk Caribou Herd). Previously, no North 

Slope caribou herd has been exposed to oil [and] gas activities yearround. The Teshekpuk Caribou Herd has experienced seismic 

exploration and activities near villages for many years, and some herd 

members on the periphery of the range have been exposed to oil field 

facilities in some years, but there is no evidence as yet of adverse 

effects other than increased hunting mortality for those animals close 

to villages. It is not known what population effects might occur if the 

majority of the herd were to have year-round contact with oil and gas 

facilities and activities. Despite the current lack of evidence regarding 

adverse impacts from seismic exploration and village contact, 

negative effects on caribou energy budgets during winter could result 

from this new situation. Such an effect could be manifested through 

increased winter mortality itself, or a reduction in calf productivity.175

Although these portions of the record acknowledge uncertainty about the 

extent of the impact that winter exploration could have on Teshekpuk Caribou Herd 

caribou, they do not demonstrate that the 2018 EA’s discussion of caribou was 

inadequate or that BLM’s decision to issue a FONNSI was arbitrary and capricious. 

The portions of the 2012 IAP/EIS on which Plaintiffs rely state that, as of that date, 

there was “no evidence . . . of adverse effects” to caribou from the herd’s previous 

exposure to exploration activities.176 And the EIS echoes this point in its discussion 

of the cumulative impacts of Alternative B-2, stating: “[P]opulations of Teshekpuk 

 

175 AR1067; see also Docket 27 at 20–24.

176 AR1067.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 38 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 39 of 73

Caribou Herd and Central Arctic Herd caribou have increased between the mid1970s and 2008. Thus, disturbance of caribou due to oilfield development may 

adversely affect caribou populations, but these effects are not readily apparent 

based on population trends.”177 The evidence available to BLM when it completed 

the 2012 IAP/EIS therefore indicated that oil and gas exploration and development 

activities had not had significantly impacted NPR-A caribou, and it was reasonable 

to assume that future exploration activities would similarly have minimal impacts. 

Despite this, the EIS recognized the possibility that future studies could 

demonstrate otherwise.178 Uncertainty in the face of incomplete information is 

acceptable in an EIS, provided that the agency “candidly disclose[s] the risks and 

any scientific uncertainty” of the action under review.179 

Moreover, the 2014 GMT1 and 2018 GMT2 SEISs, to which the 2018 EA

also tiers, support the 2012 IAP/EIS’s assumption that the 2018-2019 winter 

exploration activities would have a minimal impact on Teshekpuk Caribou Herd 

caribou. In its discussion of the impacts to terrestrial mammal survival or 

productivity, the GMT1 SEIS notes that “[c]aribou displaced from habitats with 

more nutritious forage, and caribou that expend energy responding to disturbances 

 

177 AR1518 

178 See AR0723; AR1067.

179 Seattle Audubon Soc’y v. Lyons, 871 F. Supp. 1291, 1318 (W.D. Wash. 1994), aff’d sub nom. 

Seattle Audubon Soc’y v. Moseley, 80 F.3d 1401 (9th Cir. 1996).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 39 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 40 of 73

may not be able to compensate for these energetic losses, which would potentially 

reduce the individual’s survival and reproduction.”180 However, it then concludes

that “recent studies of calf growth and survival for caribou displaced by or exposed 

to oil and gas infrastructure disturbance during calving . . . did not conclude 

significant survival or growth impacts.”181 Similarly, the GMT2 SEIS notes that the 

Teshekpuk Caribou Herd and the Central Arctic Herd “have undergone recent 

changes in size, demography, and distribution,” but that “these changes are not 

thought to be related to oil field development.”182

Based on this record, the 2018 EA adequately explains the basis for its 

conclusion that ConocoPhillips’ winter exploration program would have minimal 

impacts on Teshekpuk Caribou Herd caribou that “would not affect herd distribution 

or reduce populations.”183 The 2012 IAP/EIS adequately evaluated the effects of 

exploratory drilling in the area southeast of Teshekpuk Lake and concluded that 

 

180 AR3122.

181 AR3122 (citing U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, Point Thompson Proj. Final EIS (2012)).

182 AR4884 (citing L. S. Parett, Caribou Biologist to Peter Bente, RV Management Coordinator, 

Memorandum: Summary of Teshekpuk Caribou Herd Photocensus Conducted July 6, 2015 

(2015) and E. A. Lenart, Units 26B and 26C caribou. In: P. Harper and L. A. McCarthy, Editors. 

Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2012-30 June 2014. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Species Management Report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2015-4, 

Juneau, AK. Ch18:18-1 through 18-38. (2015)). 

183 AR8575; see also AR8480 tbl. 1.2. (concluding that terrestrial mammals would be minimally 

impacted); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 

29, 43 (1983) (requiring agency to “examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory 

explanation for its action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice 

made.’” (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962))).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 40 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 41 of 73

impacts to caribou would be minimal based on the information then available, and 

this analysis was supported by the subsequent 2014 GMT1 and 2018 GMT2 

SEISs. There is no indication in the record that new evidence of a significant 

impact on caribou has arisen that casts doubt on the continuing validity of Federal 

Defendants’ conclusions.184 

Plaintiffs also contend that the 2012 IAP/EIS’s “general discussions cannot 

substitute for a specific analysis of this particular winter exploration program’s 

impacts in this particular place.”

185

 Although the 2012 IAP/EIS did not discuss the 

specific placement of the six exploratory wells authorized by the 2018 EA, it did 

anticipate significant exploration within the area to the southeast of Teshekpuk 

Lake, including the Fish Creek area.186 Moreover, it recognized that the Teshekpuk 

 

184 Plaintiffs maintain that they “submitted multiple studies, one of which was published several 

years after the [2012 IAP/EIS], demonstrating the potential for significant effects to caribou from 

winter activities.” Docket 33 at 17. Their comments to the Preliminary EA cite a 2017 study of 

Norwegian reindeer, which concludes that “conditions affecting maternal body mass during winter 

explain close to all the variation in [calf viability],” not “a mismatch between plant phenology and 

calving date” caused by “[w]arming of the arctic.” AR8447; see also AR8007 (Plaintiffs’ comments 

on Preliminary EA). This study, while potentially relevant to the effect of winter energy 

expenditures made by Arctic herbivores to avoid disturbances related to oil and gas exploration 

and development, does not undermine the assumptions regarding population-level effects to the 

Teshekpuk Caribou Herd contained in the documents to which the 2018 EA tiers. Indeed, as 

discussed above, the 2012 IAP/EIS considered this possibility; it recognized that “caribou in the 

immediate vicinity of [exploration activities] would be disturbed, possibly having a negative effect 

on their energy balance . . . and calving success,” but concluded that these effects would be 

minimal due to the mobility of caribou and the temporary nature of the exploration activities. 

AR0725.

185 Docket 31 at 16.

186 AR0036–37 (discussing areas available for exploration and development under Alternative B2); AR1065 (describing extent of exploration authorized under Alternative B-2). 

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 41 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 42 of 73

Caribou Herd would be present in this area during exploration activities and 

discussed potential impacts to the herd.

187

 The 2012 IAP/EIS therefore adequately 

considered the effect of exploratory drilling on caribou in the area to the southeast 

of Teshekpuk Lake, such that additional site-specific analysis was not 

necessary.188 

By tiering to NEPA documents that fully analyze the impacts on caribou of 

exploration activity to the southeast of Teshekpuk Lake, the 2018 EA supplied a 

convincing reason for why additional analysis was not necessary. Accordingly, the 

Court finds that the 2018 EA’s discussion of impacts to caribou was permissible 

under NEPA and its implementing regulations and that it was neither arbitrary nor 

capricious to issue a FONNSI with respect to caribou.

189

B. Subsistence Activities

Plaintiffs next argue that Federal Defendants violated NEPA by “fail[ing] to 

either prepare an EIS or supply a convincing statement of reasons explaining why 

 

187 AR1065.

188 43 C.F.R. § 46.140(c).

189 43 C.F.R. § 46.140(c) (“An environmental assessment may be prepared, and a finding of no 

significant impact reached, for a proposed action with significant effects, whether direct, indirect, 

or cumulative, if the environmental assessment is tiered to a broader environmental impact 

statement which fully analyzed those significant effects.”); see also Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest 

Serv., 469 F.3d 768, 783 (9th Cir. 2006) (“A comprehensive programmatic impact statement 

generally obviates the need for a site-specific or project-specific impact statement, unless new 

and significant environmental impacts arise that were not previously considered.” (quoting Salmon 

River Concerned Citizens v. Robertson, 32 F.3d 1346, 1356 (9th Cir. 1994))).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 42 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 43 of 73

the effects to subsistence from winter exploration will be insignificant.”

190

The 2018 EA identifies subsistence activities as “potentially affected” by 

ConocoPhillips’ winter exploration, explaining that:

Large game (subsistence resources) would likely be deflected from 

areas of exploration activity. Caribou hunting is lowest during winter, 

therefore the deflection of furbearers and potential overlap with 

trapping areas would be the most likely impact. . . . The area is on 

the edge of the high use area for furbearer hunting and trapping. 

However, ice roads may facilitate hunter access to areas otherwise 

only accessible via snowmachine. Impacts to subsistence use from 

this project in and of itself would be expected to be minor to moderate 

and short term (reduced traditional access and reduced availability of 

resources, primarily affecting families for whom furbearer harvesting 

is important). . . . Harvest levels have remained stable to date, and 

no reduction in the overall abundance of subsistence resources would 

be anticipated.191

A separate section of the EA discussing the direct and indirect impacts of the winter 

exploration program on subsistence activities expands on this analysis.192 It 

explains that the “project area is traditionally used for winter furbearer hunting and 

trapping and limited caribou hunting.”

193

 The EA tiers to the 2012 IAP/EIS, the 

GMT1 SEIS, and the GMT2 SEIS for a discussion of the potential impacts to these 

resources, and provides only a “brief[] summar[y] and analy[sis]” itself.194

 

190 Docket 27 at 26.

191 AR8479 tbl. 1.2.

192 AR8496–98.

193 AR8496.

194 AR8496–97.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 43 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 44 of 73

The 2018 EA’s subsistence impact section begins with a discussion of 

furbearers: 

The most likely direct impact would be experienced by furbearer 

hunters and trappers because the area is used by all Nuiqsut 

furbearer hunters and trappers and was, until recent development, 

one of the few remaining areas near town where people could hunt 

and trap without nearby infrastructure and industrial activity.195

The EA explains that “[a]lthough wolf and wolverine harvests do not contribute to 

the subsistence diet and it is primarily young men who participate in the activity, it 

is a critical component of the seasonal round of subsistence activities for Nuiqsut,” 

and that “[f]or these reasons, impacts to furbearer harvesting could have an 

outsized sociocultural impact for those families in Nuiqsut that depend on it.”

196

Turning to caribou, the 2018 EA explains that “[t]he proposed activity would 

also encompass a large area around Fish Creek, which is an important area for 

wintertime caribou hunting because it is one of the rare areas on the [Arctic Coastal 

Plain] where caribou can be found throughout the year.”

197

 For this reason, 

“Nuiqsut residents place extreme value on the Fish Creek area because it has 

been understood as an area that provides food security.”

198

 But the EA notes that 

“[c]aribou harvest levels in the area have been low in recent years, and it is 

 

195 AR8497.

196 AR8497.

197 AR8497.

198 AR8497.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 44 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 45 of 73

possible that more hunters will access the area to attempt harvests via the 

exploration ice roads.”

199

For both caribou and furbearers, the 2018 EA explains that “[s]ubsistence 

hunters would likely avoid the area either because they believe that resources will 

not be there or because they prefer not to hunt and trap around exploration 

activities.”

200

 It recognizes that “[b]eing required to travel further to conduct 

[subsistence] activities [in winter] increases the risk, time, and costs involved.”

201

 

The EA notes, though, that “[s]ome hunters who are not disturbed by industrial 

activities or who are less able to travel and hunt elsewhere . . . may take 

advantage of the ice roads to travel.”

202

 

Plaintiffs maintain that the analysis in the 2018 EA raises “substantial 

questions as to whether the winter exploration program may significantly affect 

subsistence activities in this project area.”

203

 They contend that the issuance of a 

FONNSI was improper because none of the tiered-to EISs “specifically analyze[] 

the effects of winter exploration in this project area,” such that preparation of a 

 

199 AR8497.

200 AR8497.

201 AR8497.

202 AR8497.

203 Docket 27 at 29.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 45 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 46 of 73

separate EIS was necessary.204 Defendants maintain that the record supports the 

EA’s conclusion and that the decision to issue a FONNSI for the 2018-2019 winter 

exploration program was neither arbitrary nor capricious.205

The 2018 GMT2 SEIS and the 2012 IAP/EIS each contain a detailed 

description of Nuiqsut subsistence activities.206 These analyses generally support 

the 2018 EA’s description of subsistence uses in the project area. For instance, 

the GMT2 SEIS explained that “[d]uring the winter months, furbearer hunters 

pursue wolves (amaġuq) and wolverines (qavvik), [and] target caribou . . . as 

needed and available,” but that “[o]verall, Nuiqsut harvesters target the highest 

numbers of resources during the summer/fall months of August and September.”

207

 

The GMT2 SEIS noted that a long-term project monitoring Nuiqsut caribou 

harvesting “has documented a general increase in the percentage of harvests in 

the area west of Nuiqsut,” an area that includes the location of the 2018-2019 

winter exploration.208 Discussing the specific area at issue in this case, the GMT2 

 

204 Docket 27 at 29.

205 Docket 30 at 24–26; Docket 31 at 34–35.

206 See AR4695–4758 (GMT2 SEIS); AR0417–25 (2012 IAP/EIS).

207 AR4720; see also, e.g., AR4746–48 (describing graphically and through narrative seasonal 

subsistence usage of GMT2 project study area, which abuts 2018-2019 winter exploration project 

area); AR0424 (2012 IAP/EIS stating that “Fish and Judy creeks area” is one of “several primary 

harvest areas for caribou,” and that “West of Nuiqsut are some of the most important remaining 

subsistence use areas for terrestrial mammals, including caribou, wolf, and wolverine”).

208 AR4953. The GMT2 SEIS concludes that this increase in subsistence harvest to the west of 

Nuiqsut is a result of intensified summer and fall hunting “due to the growing use of four-wheelers 

that can access overland areas during summer and fall.” AR4953; see also AR4975 (“During Year 

9 of the [Nuiqsut Caribou Subsistence Monitoring Project], an increase in winter use of the project 

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 46 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 47 of 73

SEIS stated that “[s]ome members of the [Teshekpuk Caribou Herd] remain on the 

coastal plain through winter, which contributes to Nuiqsut hunters’ understanding 

that caribou can usually be found west of the [GMT2] Project area in the vicinity of 

Fish Creek.”

209

Turning to impacts, the NEPA documents to which the 2018 EA tiers 

discussed at length game deflection by, and hunter avoidance of, industrial activity. 

The 2012 IAP/EIS stated that direct impacts “from an exploratory drilling operation” 

would include “displacement of resources away from the drill site,” and that 

“subsistence hunters report that [exploration] activity displaces game, especially 

caribou, wolves, and wolverine.”

210

 And the GMT2 SEIS reported that 

“[s]ubsistence harvesters often avoid areas of industrial construction due to 

discomfort about hunting near human or industrial activity.”

211

 The GMT2 SEIS 

explained that “[s]ome hunters are able to afford and are willing to respond to 

impacts [of development] by traveling farther or taking more trips,” but recognized 

that “[o]ther harvesters may not be able to afford or may not be willing to take more 

 

study area was evident, likely as a result of year-round access to roads (including ice roads) west 

of the community.”); AR4735–38 (maps showing moderate to high subsistence uses of the 2018-

2019 winter exploration project area).

209 AR4973.

210 AR0826–27.

211 AR4971; see also id. (citing a 2000 study that “notes that 80 percent of [Nuiqsut’s] 1993 harvest 

came from areas more than 16 miles from any development”); AR4959 (noting that “[h]unter 

avoidance could also result from actual or perceived reduced availability of subsistence resources 

in the GMT2 area”).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 47 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 48 of 73

or more distant hunting trips”

212

 It also noted that “[s]ome hunters are less likely to 

bring younger family members along if they anticipate longer and/or riskier trips.”

213

 

And the 2012 IAP/EIS explained that having to travel further to hunt and trap 

“affects subsistence users in the following ways: loss of subsistence food; loss of 

time; loss of money; increased stress and anxiety; increased risk of equipment 

failure; and increased risk of loss of life or serious bodily injury.”

214

 That said, the 

GMT2 SEIS’s ANICLA evaluation explained that “ice roads, where and when 

access is permitted and feasible, facilitate access to remote areas that some 

subsistence hunters appreciate and can be considered a countervailing effect.”

215

The GMT2 SEIS reported that Nuiqsut’s per capita caribou harvest has 

remained generally stable as development has intensified around the village, and 

that “[m]ost hunters have continued to harvest caribou in desired amounts” while 

avoiding industry.216 It recognized, though, that “as industry has moved closer to 

Nuiqsut, it has become more difficult for residents to avoid industry” and that 

“[a]voidance may be less of an option as fewer areas without development are 

 

212 AR4957.

213 AR4957.

214 AR0826; see also AR5083–84 (GMT2 SEIS explaining that “hunters . . . travel[ing] farther west 

to access hunting grounds . . . could result in increased investments in time, money, fuel, and 

equipment and potentially affect hunting success”).

215 AR5496.

216 AR4960. The GMT2 SEIS noted that “[f]uture research will reveal how harvest levels change 

when infrastructure is established closer to town or in core hunting areas and it becomes more 

difficult for hunters to avoid development.” Id.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 48 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 49 of 73

present.”

217

 

The GMT2 SEIS also considered the sociocultural impacts of reduced 

access to traditional hunting grounds and decreased subsistence opportunities: 

“When subsistence users’ opportunities to engage in traditional activities are 

limited, transmittal of knowledge about those activities is reduced. If residents 

decrease use of the [GMT2] project area, the opportunity to transmit traditional 

knowledge about the area would diminish and could eventually be lost to younger 

generations.”

218

 It recognized that:

If harvests or the number of active participants in harvesting declines, 

younger generations would have fewer opportunities to learn the skills 

necessary to hunt, harvest, and process subsistence resources. 

Fewer opportunities to participate in the sharing and consumption of 

traditional Inupiaq food would affect the social cohesion of the 

community. Any changes to residents’ ability to participate in 

subsistence activities, to harvest resources in traditional places at the 

appropriate times, and to eat traditional Inupiaq foods could have 

long-term or permanent effects on culture by diminishing social ties 

within the community that are strengthened through harvesting, 

processing, and sharing.219

The GMT2 SEIS recognized “[t]he high level of concern that Nuiqsut residents 

place on future generations’ ability to maintain traditional subsistence.”220 

 

217 AR5082.

218 AR4957.

219 AR4957; see also AR4950 (“For the subsistence lifestyle to be healthy, there must be continued 

harvests (material value) at continued levels of traditional land use, identification with traditional 

land use areas, community and harvester participation, processing, consumption, and sharing 

(cultural values).”).

220 AR4957.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 49 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 50 of 73

Finally, Plaintiffs’ arguments notwithstanding, the 2012 IAP/EIS and 2018 

GMT2 SEIS anticipated that these impacts would occur in the area of 

ConocoPhillips’ 2018-2019 winter exploration. As noted above, in the portion of 

this decision addressing the impacts to caribou, the 2012 IAP/EIS’s preferred 

alternative authorized significant exploration within the area to the southeast of 

Teshekpuk Lake, including the Fish Creek area.221 And while the project area 

studied in the GMT2 SEIS does not include the area of ConocoPhillips’ winter 

exploration, it is directly adjacent to it.222 The GMT2 “SEIS also analyze[d] indirect 

impacts to the larger Nuiqsut subsistence us area,” including Judy and Fish creeks, 

such as “hunter avoidance of infrastructure, the potential for localized deflection of 

caribou, wolves, and wolverines, disturbance from aircraft and ground traffic, and 

community participation.”223 The GMT2 SEIS’s cumulative impacts section 

identified the expected development of the Willow project, and explained that 

exploratory drilling would likely occur over the winter of 2018-2019.224 It 

 

221 AR0036–37 (discussing areas available for exploration and development under Alternative B2); AR1064–65 (describing extent of exploration authorized under Alternative B-2); see also 

AR1101–02 (discussing subsistence impacts under Alternative B-2).

222 See 5177 (map showing lease tracts involved in 2018-2019 winter exploration as west of GMT2 

SEIS project study area); AR4735–38 (maps showing caribou, wolf, and wolverine subsistence 

use areas in relation to GMT2 SEIS project study area).

223 AR4949.

224 AR5079–80 (“Willow/Tingmiaq, 2 exploratory wells drilled 2016, 3 exploratory wells drilled in 

winter 2017-18, and possible appraisal wells in 2019. . . . 27 miles from Nuiqsut.”); see also 

AR5496 (GMT2 SEIS ANILCA evaluation stating “[a]nnual winter oil and gas exploration activities 

are expected to continue in areas west of Nuiqsut in the coming decades.”).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 50 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 51 of 73

recognized that full development of the Willow area, “in combination with 

development of GMT2, [is] likely to increase problems between subsistence users 

and oil and gas activities,” and “will most likely pose difficulties for those hunters 

who prefer to avoid oil and gas infrastructure altogether.”225

On this record, the Court is satisfied that the 2018 EA took the requisite hard 

look at the proposed action’s impacts to subsistence activities. The 2012 IAP/EIS 

and 2018 GMT2 SEIS each contain discussion of subsistence use by Nuiqsut 

residents of the 2018-2019 winter exploration area. The record shows that winter 

use of the area, although highly valued, is low relative to summer use, and that 

Nuiqsut harvests, especially of caribou, have remained steady despite increased 

development around the village. And the record supports the EA’s conclusion that 

while many hunters may avoid the area of ConocoPhillips’ winter exploration, some 

may use the project’s ice roads to gain increased access to overwintering caribou.

It was thus reasonable for the EA to determine that subsistence impacts 

associated with one season’s winter exploration would be moderate and shortterm.226

 Moreover, the GMT2 SEIS and 2012 IAP/EIS considered at length the 

impacts associated with hunter avoidance and reduced access to traditional 

hunting areas, which the EA identified as potential consequences of the 2018-2019 

 

225 AR5082.

226 See Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 387 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 

2004) (“Courts apply a ‘rule of reason’ standard in reviewing the adequacy of a NEPA document.’” 

(quoting Churchill Cty. v. Norton, 276 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2001))).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 51 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 52 of 73

winter exploration program. By tiering to these documents, which fully analyzed 

the issue, the 2018 EA provided a convincing reason for why further analysis of 

impacts to subsistence uses was not necessary. The Court therefore finds that 

the issuance of a FONNSI with respect to subsistence uses was neither arbitrary 

nor capricious.227

II. Second Claim: Cumulative Impacts

Plaintiffs’ second claim for relief alleges that the 2018 EA “provides no 

convincing justification for concluding that cumulative impacts to caribou and 

subsistence activities” from the winter exploration and concurrent projects in the 

area “will be insignificant.”228 They contend, therefore, that the issuance of a 

FONNSI was arbitrary and capricious and a violation of NEPA.229

“‘NEPA requires an agency to consider’ cumulative effects, which ‘result[] 

from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and 

 

227 See 43 C.F.R. § 46.140(c); see also Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 469 F.3d 768, 783 (9th 

Cir. 2006).

228 Docket 5 at 24, ¶ 97.

229 Docket 5 at 23–25, ¶¶ 89–99. A separate claim in the Amended Complaint, Claim Three,

alleges that the “failure to consider the winter exploration program and geotechnical exploration 

program together in the same EIS” violates NEPA’s implementing regulations. Docket 5 at 25, 

¶¶ 100–103. However, Plaintiffs do not raise, or even mention, this claim in their briefing. The 

Court therefore considers this claim waived. Cf. Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1213 

(9th Cir. 2017) (“We ‘will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and 

distinctly raised and argued in appellant’s opening brief.’” (quoting Officers for Justice v. Civil 

Serv. Comm’n of City & Cty. of San Francisco, 979 F.2d 721, 726 (9th Cir. 1992))); Alaska Ctr. 

for Env’t v. U.S. Forest Serv., 189 F.3d 851, 858 n.4 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Arguments not raised in 

opening brief are waived”). The Court does, to a certain extent, address the geotechnical 

exploration program in its analysis of the 2018 EA’s consideration of cumulative impacts. See 

infra at 55–56.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 52 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 53 of 73

reasonably foreseeable actions . . . .’”230 “An EA’s analysis of cumulative impacts 

‘must give a sufficiently detailed catalogue of past, present, and future projects, 

and provide adequate analysis about how these projects, and differences between 

the projects, are thought to have impacted the environment.’”231 “General 

statements about ‘possible effects’ and ‘some risk’ do not constitute a ‘hard look’ 

absent a justification regarding why more definitive information could not be 

provided.”232 To prevail on a claim that an EA should have analyzed the cumulative 

impacts of a certain project, a plaintiff “must show only the potential for cumulative 

impact.”233

The 2018 EA contains a section discussing cumulative impacts, which 

identifies all of the projects slated to occur in the winter exploration project area, 

including geotechnical exploration and GMT2 development.234 It notes that 

“exploration and construction in the area have occurred at the same time in 

previous years,” but that “[t]he cumulative scenario for winter 2018-2019 is likely 

more intense and extensive than previous winter seasons, or will likely be 

 

230 Ctr. for Envtl. Law and Policy v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 655 F.3d 1000, 1007 (9th Cir. 

2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 421 F.3d 797, 

814 (9th Cir. 2005)); see also 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7.

231 Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone of Nev. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 608 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 

2010) (quoting Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1028 (9th Cir. 2005)).

232 Id. (quoting Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. U.S. Forest Serv., 137 F.3d 1372, 1380 (9th Cir. 

1998)).

233 Id. at 605.

234 AR8502–07.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 53 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 54 of 73

perceived as such by residents.”235 Similar to the EA’s discussion of caribou and 

subsistence impacts, the cumulative impacts section “tiers to the most recent 

cumulative impact analysis in” the 2012 IAP/EIS, the 2014 GMT1 SEIS, and the 

2018 GMT2 SEIS.236 

The 2018 EA provides a more detailed discussion of cumulative impacts to 

the two issue areas that its scoping process had identified as potentially impacted 

by the proposed action: “subsistence, sociocultural systems, and environmental 

justice” and “fish and water resources.”237 Its introduction concludes that “[n]either 

the Proposed Action nor the No-Action Alternative would add substantially to the 

incremental past, present, and future impacts described below.”238 Regarding 

subsistence, the EA concludes that likely cumulative impacts “include hunter 

disturbance and avoidance and reduced local availability of resources.”239 The EA 

does not specifically address the cumulative impacts to caribou.

Plaintiffs contend that “[i]mpacts to caribou and subsistence activities from

ConocoPhillips’ [geotechnical] exploration and GMT2 construction projects will 

undeniably cumulate with the impacts from winter exploration,” and that the EA 

 

235 AR8503.

236 AR8502.

237 AR8503–05.

238 AR8503.

239 AR8503.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 54 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 55 of 73

does not contain a meaningful discussion of these cumulative impacts.240 

Defendants maintain that the EA and the NEPA documents to which it tiers 

adequately considered the cumulative impacts of ConocoPhillips’ 2018-2019 

winter exploration, and that the issuance of a FONNSI was appropriate.241

Plaintiffs first argue that the 2018 EA “failed to provide any meaningful 

analysis of the cumulative impacts from the [geotechnical] exploration program and 

winter exploration on caribou.”242 Although the EA does not contain a discrete

section analyzing the cumulative impacts on caribou, the 2012 IAP/EIS and the 

2018 GMT2 SEIS, to which it tiers, discuss the issue in detail.243 Neither document 

identifies geotechnical exploration specifically; however, the geotechnical 

exploration EA prepared by BLM in February 2019 shows that the anticipated 

impacts of that activity are similar in kind to those of exploratory drilling.244 For this 

 

240 Docket 27 at 31; Docket 33 at 21 (“Despite ample evidence that the conjunction of these three 

projects would affect caribou and subsistence activities, BLM’s EA fails to analyze those impacts 

in adequate detail.” (citations omitted)).

241 Docket 30 at 27–29; Docket 31 at 29–33.

242 Docket 27 at 31.

243 AR1515–31 (IAP/EIS); AR5042–45.

244 See AR8721 (“The proposed action is anticipated to deflect caribou and furbearers from the 

area.”); AR8700 (“The proposed action may disturb and displace wildlife from the immediate area 

of activities but would not reduce population levels or distribution during the winter season.”). 

Plaintiffs identify the potential impacts of geotechnical exploration program as “drilling, increased 

vehicular traffic, [and] increased human presence.” Docket 27 at 31. The geotechnical 

exploration plan called for drilling to occur largely in the vicinity of the GMT1 development, but 

also in several places within the 2018-2019 winter exploration project area. See AR8693 (map 

showing area of geotechnical exploration). Under the plan, survey areas were to be accessed by 

existing permanent infrastructure and previously permitted ice roads, as well as “tundra travel.” 

AR8706. It appears that the geotechnical exploration project would not meaningfully expand the 

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 55 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 56 of 73

reason, the Court is satisfied that discussion of the anticipated cumulative impacts 

of exploratory drilling adequately captured the impacts of geotechnical exploration 

as well. Moreover, the geotechnical exploration is a component of the broader 

Willow development process, which both the GMT2 SEIS anticipated and 

discussed in detail.

245

The 2012 IAP/EIS recognized that “[f]uture leases in the NPR-A could 

expose a large number of the Teshekpuk Caribou Herd caribou to exploration and 

development activities on their summer and winter grounds, and during 

migration.”246 It explained that “[l]oss of habitat and disturbance (including noise) 

are the two primary factors associated with seismic activities and exploration 

drilling that could affect mammals on the North Slope.”247 The 2012 IAP/EIS 

reported that “it has been assumed that these effects [of prior exploration on 

Teshekpuk Caribou Herd caribou] did not persist after exploration was completed, 

and there was no consequential effect on the abundance or productivity of the 

caribou.”248 It recognized, however, that “[i]t is not known what population effects 

might occur if the majority of the [Teshekpuk Caribou] herd were to have year-

 

footprint of activities in the vicinity of Nuiqsut but would increase their intensity.

245 AR5019, AR5021 (cumulative effects section of GMT2 SEIS identifying Willow development 

and associated gravel mine as a “present/future” project).

246 AR1522.

247 AR1515.

248 AR1516.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 56 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 57 of 73

round contact with oil and gas facilities and activities.”249 It concluded that 

“[d]espite the current lack of evidence regarding adverse effects from seismic 

exploration and village contact, negative effects on caribou energy budgets during 

winter could result from this new situation.”250

The 2018 GMT2 SEIS identified ConocoPhillips’ 2018-2019 winter 

exploration as a foreseeable future action.251 Addressing caribou generally, the 

SEIS explained that “disturbance of caribou due to oil field development may 

adversely affect caribou populations, but these impacts are not readily apparent 

based on population trends.”252 The SEIS also addressed the cumulation of 

development and exploration specifically, stating that “[t]he loss of habitats 

resulting from the development of GMT2 and reasonably foreseeable future 

exploration and development activities would affect primarily the [Teshekpuk 

Caribou Herd] whose range is west of the Colville river.”253 The GMT2 SEIS 

concluded:

Overall, industry and agency actions on the North Slope are expected 

to have minor impacts to caribou herd productivity. Determining the

overall cumulative impacts on herd abundance is difficult to predict. 

 

249 AR1524.

250 AR1524.

251 AR5019.

252 AR5042.

253 AR5044. The GMT2 SEIS also gave detailed consideration to the cumulative impacts of the 

broader Willow development, of which the 2018-2019 winter exploration program was a part. 

AR5043–44.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 57 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 58 of 73

Displacement of caribou from the periphery of core calving area would 

be expected but this impact may have only a minor effect on the 

[Teshekpuk Caribou Herd] population.254

As with their arguments relating to the sufficiency of the 2018 EA’s 

discussion of direct and indirect impacts to caribou, Plaintiffs contend that these 

statements raise questions that “demonstrate the need for detailed information at” 

the site-specific planning phase.255 They argue that the “admittedly speculative 

accounts” in the tiered-to EISs “cannot make up for fatal deficiencies in the winter 

exploration EA.”256 However, as previously noted, NEPA allows for uncertainty, so 

long as the agency provides “a justification regarding why more definitive 

information could not be provided.”257 

The GMT2 SEIS and the 2012 IAP/EIS adequately explained the difficulty in 

predicting the effect that extended contact with oil and gas activities will have on 

the Teshekpuk Caribou Herd because no North Slope herd has previously been in 

that situation; there is no data because it is a novel situation. In the face of this 

uncertainty, along with the uncertainty caused by variable winter conditions year 

 

254 AR5044.

255 Docket 27 at 33; see also Docket 33 at 21–22.

256 Docket 27 at 34.

257 Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone of Nev. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 608 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 

2010) (quoting Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. U.S. Forest Serv., 137 F.3d 1372, 1380 (9th Cir. 

1998)); see also Seattle Audubon Soc’y v. Lyons, 871 F. Supp. 1291, 1318 (W.D. Wash. 1994), 

aff’d sub nom. Seattle Audubon Soc’y v. Moseley, 80 F.3d 1401 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that it 

is permissible for EIS to “candidly disclose the risks and any scientific uncertainty” pertaining to 

action under review).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 58 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 59 of 73

to year,258 the planning documents to which the 2018 EA tiers described the 

foreseeable future projects occurring in the area to the west of Nuiqsut and made 

reasonable assumptions about their cumulative impact to caribou based on the 

data available. This is not the sort of “vague discussion” of cumulative impacts 

that the Ninth Circuit has held to be improper in other cases.259 The Court therefore 

finds that the issuance of a FONNSI with respect to the winter exploration’s 

cumulative impacts to caribou was neither arbitrary nor capricious. 

Plaintiffs do not articulate how the 2018 EA’s discussion of cumulative 

impacts to subsistence activities is deficient, other than to state that “impacts to 

caribou and impacts to subsistence activities are necessarily intertwined.”260 As 

discussed above, the GMT2 SEIS and 2012 IAP/EIS, to which the EA tiers, 

adequately discussed the cumulative impacts to caribou caused by concurrent 

development and exploratory drilling to the west of Nuiqsut. Moreover, the EA’s 

conclusion that cumulative impacts from ConocoPhillips’ winter exploration would 

“include hunter disturbance and avoidance and the reduced local availability of 

resources”261 is well supported by the record.

 

258 AR1516.

259 See, e.g., Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone of Nev., 608 F.3d at 604 (describing EA that “devotes 

a scant three sentences to the cumulative impacts to Water Resources” and makes unsupported 

statements that any cumulative impacts will be mitigated, holding that “[t]his type of conclusory 

‘analysis’” violates NEPA).

260 Docket 33 at 20 n.2.

261 AR8503.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 59 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 60 of 73

The GMT2 SEIS contained a detailed discussion of the expected cumulative 

impacts to subsistence caused by “oil and gas exploration and development 

activities.”262 This section of the SEIS identified ConocoPhillips’ 2018-2019 winter 

exploration as a foreseeable future project.263 It noted that “[r]ecently leased 

acreage within and near the NPR-A indicates the likely future progression of oil 

exploration and development on the western and southern sides of Nuiqsut.”264 

The GMT2 SEIS stated that “[t]hese activities, in combination with development of 

GMT2, are likely to increase problems between subsistence users and oil and gas 

activities,” adversely impacting “hunters who prefer to avoid oil and gas 

infrastructure altogether” and contributing to a loss of caribou habitat.265 The 

section concluded that “the GMT2 Project in addition to other current and 

reasonably foreseeable activities could increase the severity of existing impacts 

on Nuiqsut subsistence uses” and that “[t]hese impacts include continued hunter 

avoidance of industrial areas, continued disturbance of hunters and wildlife from 

increased air and road traffic, reduced access to or loss of subsistence use areas, 

and reduced availability of subsistence resources in development areas.”266

 

262 AR5078–84.

263 AR5080.

264 AR5080.

265 AR5082.

266 AR5083.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 60 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 61 of 73

This record demonstrates that the 2018 EA took the requisite hard look at 

cumulative impacts to caribou and subsistence activities in the project area. And 

by tiering to previous EISs that fully analyze these issues, the 2018 EA provides a 

convincing justification for why further discussion of cumulative impacts is 

unnecessary. The issuance of a FONNSI with respect to the cumulative impacts

to caribou and subsistence activities was therefore neither arbitrary nor 

capricious.267 

III. Fourth Claim: Consideration of Alternatives Under NEPA

The Amended Complaint’s fourth claim for relief argues that Federal 

Defendants “failed to consider appropriate alternatives” in the 2018 EA.

268

 

Plaintiffs contend that this violated NEPA, which requires an agency to “study, 

develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of 

action.”269

“Although an agency must still ‘give full and meaningful consideration to all 

reasonable alternatives’ in an [EA], the agency’s obligation to discuss alternatives 

is less than in an EIS.”270 “[W]ith an EA, an agency only is required to include a 

 

267 See 43 C.F.R. § 46.140(c); see also Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 469 F.3d 768, 783 (9th 

Cir. 2006).

268 Docket 5 at 26, ¶ 106.

269 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E); Docket 27 at 39–42.

270 W. Watersheds Project v. Abbey, 719 F.3d 1035, 1050 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Westlands 

Water Dist. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 376 F.3d 853, 868 (9th Cir. 2004)).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 61 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 62 of 73

brief discussion of reasonable alternatives.”271 An agency need not “consider 

every possible alternative to a proposed action, nor must it consider alternatives 

that are unlikely to be implemented or those inconsistent with its basic policy 

objectives.”272 “NEPA does not require a separate analysis of alternatives which 

are not significantly distinguishable from alternatives actually considered, or which 

have substantially similar consequences.”273 

The 2018 EA only considers two alternatives in detail: the preferred 

alternative and a no-action alternative.274 This by itself does not render the EA 

deficient; “[t]he statutory and regulatory requirements that an agency must 

consider ‘appropriate’ and ‘reasonable’ alternatives does not dictate the minimum 

number of alternatives that an agency must consider,”275 and consideration in an 

EA of only the preferred alternative and a no-action alternative can be sufficient 

 

271 N. Idaho Cmty. Action Network v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 545 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008).

272 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 800, 813 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting 

Seattle Audubon Soc’y v. Moseley, 80 F.3d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir. 1996)).

273 Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone of Nev. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 608 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 

2010) (quoting Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 914 F.2d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990)); 

see also Bering Strait Citizens for Responsible Res. Dev. v. U.S. Army Corp of Eng’rs, 524 F.3d 

938, 955 (9th Cir. 2008) (“An agency need not . . . discuss alternatives similar to alternatives 

actually considered, or alternative which are infeasible, ineffective, or inconsistent with the basic 

policy objectives for the management of the area.” (quoting N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Kempthorne, 

457 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2006))).

274 See AR8484–94 (discussing preferred alternative); AR8495 (discussing no-action alternative).

275 Native Ecosys. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 1233, 1246 (9th Cir. 2005).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 62 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 63 of 73

under NEPA.276 However, “[t]he existence of a viable but unexamined alternative 

renders an [EA] inadequate.”277

In their comments on the Preliminary EA, Plaintiffs stated that “[t]wo 

reasonable alternatives BLM has failed to consider are: (1) allowing fewer wells; 

and (2) requiring [ConocoPhillips] to comply with all BMPs” from the 2012 

IAP/EIS.278 Plaintiffs contend that Federal Defendants’ failure to consider each of 

these alternatives in detail renders the EA inadequate.279 Whether an alternative 

is reasonable and appropriate depends on the stated purpose for the proposed 

action.280 “So long as ‘all reasonable alternatives’ have been considered and an 

appropriate explanation is provided as to why an alternative was eliminated, the 

regulatory requirement is satisfied.”281 

 

276 Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone of Nev., 608 F.3d at 602 n.11 (“To the extent that [Plaintiff] is 

complaining that having only two final alternatives—no action and a preferred alternative—

violates [NEPA’s] regulatory scheme, a plain reading of the regulations dooms that argument.” 

(alteration in original) (quoting Native Ecosys. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 1233, 1246 

(9th Cir. 2005))).

277 W. Watersheds Project v. Abbey, 719 F.3d 1035, 1050 (9th Cir. 2013) (second alteration in 

original) (quoting Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 376 F.3d 853, 868 (9th Cir. 

2004)).

278 AR8010.

279 Docket 27 at 39–42.

280 Native Ecosys. Council, 428 F.3d at 1246 (“In judging whether the Forest Service considered 

appropriate and reasonable alternatives, we focus first on the stated purpose for the Jimtown 

Project.”).

281 Id.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 63 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 64 of 73

The 2018 EA identifies the need for the proposed action as follows: “The 

project is needed to provide detailed information regarding potential reserves of oil 

and gas within the NPR-A.”282 It explains that the “purpose for the proposed action 

is for BLM to provide reasonable access to and use of public lands within the NPRA in a manner that would allow the applicant to explore and appraise oil and gas 

potential on NPR-A leases operated by [ConocoPhillips].”283 

The 2018 EA explained that it had considered but eliminated from detailed 

analysis an alternative that would reduce the number of wells approved for 

drilling.284 It states that “[t]he proposed action itself . . . significantly limits 

alternatives for the location and timing of exploration,” and that “[l]ocations of 

leases with oil and gas prospects limit the options for feasible drill site locations 

and access routes.”285 Specifically, the EA explains that ConocoPhillips had an 

obligation to “continue drilling to delineate the resource and an associated future 

participating area” on its leases, and noted that a fewer-wells alternative “would be 

contrary to the terms of [ConocoPhillips’] leases, which allow[] the company to 

have a drilling program on its leases after going through the review process for 

 

282 AR8473.

283 AR8473.

284 AR8495.

285 AR8495.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 64 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 65 of 73

particular wells.”286 The 2018 EA concludes that an alternative with fewer wells 

“would not meet the purpose and need” of the proposed action.287

The Court finds that the EA gives an “appropriate explanation” for 

eliminating an alternative that would authorize fewer wells.288 The record generally 

supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that authorizing fewer exploratory wells would likely 

reduce the impacts of ConocoPhillips’ winter exploration, resulting in fewer miles 

of ice roads and a generally smaller footprint.289 And Plaintiffs are correct that BLM

has the authority to place limitations on the extent of lease-holder’s exploratory 

drilling during a given season.290 However, the fact that BLM had the authority to 

limit the number of wells does not mean that doing so would serve the purpose 

and need of the project. The stated purpose of the proposed action in the 2018 

EA was to “allow the applicant to explore and appraise oil and gas potential on [its] 

NPR-A leases.”291 That section of the EA further explains that the winter 

 

286 AR8495 (citing 43 C.F.R. § 3137).

287 AR8495. 

288 Native Ecosys. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 1233, 1246 (9th Cir. 2005).

289 See, e.g., AR8475 (map showing footprint of winter exploration); AR8497 (discussing impact 

of ice roads and drilling); AR8498 (stating that under no-action alternative “[s]ociocultural stress 

over the pace and extent of exploration and development may be reduced, and subsistence users 

and resources would experience less disturbance from activities in the area”).

290 Docket 27 at 38; see also, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 6506a(b) (allowing BLM to include “conditions, 

restrictions, and prohibitions” on activities in NPR-A it deems necessary to “mitigate . . . 

significantly adverse effects on . . . surface resources); 43 C.F.R. § 3131.3 (same); 43 C.F.R. § 

3152.5 (allowing BLM to modify exploration permit “after consultation with the permittee”).

291 AR8473.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 65 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 66 of 73

exploration program was “composed of several elements . . . designed to meet the 

applicant’s needs and objectives,” including “[d]rilling up to six exploratory wells to 

acquire sufficient subsurface information to satisfy the applicant’s economic and 

exploration performance criteria.”292 With ConocoPhillips having apparently 

concluded that up to six additional exploration wells were necessary to obtain 

sufficient information about the area’s development potential, it was reasonable for 

the 2018 EA to eliminate an alternative authorizing fewer wells as inconsistent with 

the proposed action’s purpose and need.293

Plaintiffs also maintain that the 2018 EA is deficient because it does not 

consider an alternative that would have required ConocoPhillips to comply with all 

of the 2012 IAP/EIS’s BMPs.294 ConocoPhillips requested deviations from three 

of the 2012 IAP/EIS’s BMPs: BMP B-2g, which prohibits “[c]ompaction of snow

cover or snow removal from fish-bearing waterbodies,” except in approved 

locations, in order to maintain fish populations and habitat;295 BMP B-2d, which 

 

292 AR8473–74.

293 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 800, 813 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining 

that an agency need not “consider alternatives that are . . . inconsistent with its basic policy 

objectives” (quoting Seattle Audubon Soc’y v. Moseley, 80 F.3d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir. 1996))); see 

also Native Ecosys. Council v. Weldon, 697 F.3d 1043, 1051 (9th Cir. 2012) (“A court generally 

must be ‘at its most deferential’ when reviewing scientific judgments and technical analyses within 

the agency’s expertise under NEPA.” (quoting N. Plains Res. Council, Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 

668 F.3d 1067, 1075 (9th Cir. 2011))).

294 Docket 27 at 39–42.

295 AR8487.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 66 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 67 of 73

limits the amount of “unfrozen water and ice” that may be removed from lakes, in 

order to maintain fish populations and habitat;296 and BMP A-5, which prohibits 

refueling “within 500 feet of [an] active floodplain” and generally requires “[f]uel 

storage stations . . . [to] be located at least 500 feet from any water body,” in order 

to “[m]inimize the impacts of contaminants . . . on fish, wildlife, and the 

environment.”297 The EA grants each of these deviation requests after determining 

that they would not compromise the objectives of the BMPs.298 It explains that 

each deviation contains mitigation measures to promote the purpose of the BMP 

in question, or that recent data shows that the deviation will not result in adverse 

impacts.299 

 

296 AR8489.

297 AR8491.

298 AR8487 (“[ConocoPhillips] would support the intent of BMP B-2g.”); AR8489 (“[T]he objective 

of . . . BMP [B-2d] can still be maintained while allowing for the deviation.”); AR8492 

(“[ConocoPhillips] would support the objective of BMP A-5 and minimize the impacts of 

contaminants from refueling operations on fish wildlife and the environment.”).

299 See AR8487 (stating that ConocoPhillips “provided . . . the bathymetry data for lake M0007” 

showing that a deviation from BMP B-2g “should not have an adverse effect on the overall 

hydrologic regime of the lake and should not impact habitat or populations of fish, invertebrates, 

or waterfowl); AR8489 (explaining that data submitted by ConocoPhillips and data developed by 

BLM “supports an increased use of ice aggregate beyond what is stated in . . . BMP B-2d, in 

concurrence with [Alaska State agency] water permitting specialists”); AR8492 (explaining that 

ConocoPhillips “has designed fuel storage facilities and developed plans and protocols to avoid 

critical waterbodies and to properly account for the project area’s hydrologic conditions” to 

mitigate deviation from BMP A-5); see also AR8537–40 (providing data regarding lakes in project 

area and characteristics supporting BMP B2-d deviation); AR8566–74 (responding to comments 

about BMP B-2 deviations).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 67 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 68 of 73

The 2018 EA concludes that deviation from BMPs B-2g, B-2d, and A-5 

would not result in additional adverse impacts and explained its reasoning.300 An 

alternative requiring compliance with these BMPs would therefore have 

substantially similar consequences to the EA’s preferred alternative. Under these 

circumstances, it was neither arbitrary nor capricious for the agency to exclude this

alternative from consideration.301

The Court is therefore satisfied that the 2018 EA considered a proper range 

of alternatives. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, an EA considering only a preferred 

alternative and a no-action alternative can satisfy an agency’s duty under NEPA.302 

And unlike the cases on which Plaintiffs rely, two of which are unreported, the two 

alternatives considered in 2018 EA would authorize meaningfully different levels

 

300 The Court defers to the agency’s scientific judgment regarding the impact of deviation from the 

BMPs. See Native Ecosys. Council v. Weldon, 697 F.3d 1043, 1051 (9th Cir. 2012) (“A court 

generally must be ‘at its most deferential’ when reviewing scientific judgments and technical 

analyses within the agency’s expertise under NEPA.” (quoting N. Plains Res. Council, Inc. v. 

Surface Transp. Bd., 668 F.3d 1067, 1075 (9th Cir. 2011))).

301 Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone of Nev. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 608 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 

2010) (“NEPA does not require a separate analysis of alternatives which are not significantly 

distinguishable from alternatives actually considered, or which have substantially similar 

consequences.” (quoting Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 914 F.2d 1174, 1181 (9th 

Cir. 1990))).

302 See, e.g., Id. at 602 n.11 (9th Cir. 2010) (“To the extent that [Plaintiff] is complaining that having 

only two final alternatives—no action and a preferred alternative—violates [NEPA’s] regulatory 

scheme, a plain reading of the regulations dooms that argument.” (alteration in original) (quoting 

Native Ecosys. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 1233, 1246 (9th Cir. 2005))); see also Earth 

Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 697 F.3d 1010, 1023 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that “it makes 

little sense to fault an agency for failure to consider more environmentally sound alternatives to a 

project which it has properly determined, through its decision not to file an impact statement, will 

have no significant environmental effects anyway.”).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 68 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 69 of 73

of activity.303 Finally, as discussed above, BLM’s decision not to consider the two 

alternatives proposed by Plaintiffs was appropriate. 

IV. Fifth Claim: Consideration of Alternatives Under ANILCA

The fifth claim for relief in the Amended Complaint is that Federal 

Defendants “failed to consider alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the use 

of lands needed for subsistence purposes” in violation of ANILCA.304 Section 

810(a) of ANILCA provides that:

In determining whether to withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise 

permit the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands under any 

provision of law authorizing such actions, the head of the Federal 

agency having primary jurisdiction over such lands or his designee 

shall evaluate the effect of such use, occupancy or disposition on 

subsistence uses and needs, the availability of other lands for the 

purposes sought to be achieved, and other alternatives which would 

reduce or eliminate the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands 

needed for subsistence purposes.305

The 2018 EA includes a separate ANILCA § 810 evaluation.306 The 

evaluation describes the winter exploration program and evaluates its “[e]ffect . . . 

 

303 See Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 655 F. App’x 595, 599 

(9th Cir. 2016) (holding that agency’s “decision not to give full and meaningful consideration to 

the alternative of a reduction in maximum interim contract water quantities was an abuse of

discretion” where no-action alternative assumed maximum interim contract water qualities); W. 

Watersheds Project v. Abbey, 719 F.3d 1035, 1050 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that EA’s consideration 

of alternatives was improper where three action alternatives and no-action alternative all 

“considered issuing a new grazing permit at the same grazing level as the previous permit”).

304 Docket 5 at 26–27, ¶¶ 108–11.

305 16 U.S.C. § 3120(a).

306 AR8581–86.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 69 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 70 of 73

on subsistence uses and needs.”307 It finds that ConocoPhillips’ winter exploration 

would “not significantly reduce harvestable fisheries resources” or “significantly 

reduce the abundance of harvestable wildlife resources.”308 The evaluation 

determines that “no other lands are appropriate for this specific purpose” due to 

the nature of ConocoPhillips’ leases.309 Finally, it discusses the no-action 

alternative, explaining that it was “contrary to the current Administration’s policy 

and [ConocoPhillips’] lease rights.”310 The evaluation ultimately concludes that:

The direct and indirect effects of the proposed action are not 

anticipated to significantly restrict subsistence uses. The proposed 

action is anticipated to result in minor to moderate, short-term impacts 

to subsistence uses, primarily associated with restrictions on hunter 

access and reduced availability of subsistence resources in areas 

where they are traditionally harvested.311

As with their NEPA claim, Plaintiffs contend that this evaluation is deficient, 

and that ANILCA § 810(a) required the 2018 EA to either consider a fewer-wells 

alternative and an alternative with no deviations from the 2012 IAP/EIS BMPs or 

provide an adequate explanation for not doing so.312 Courts generally evaluate 

the procedural requirements of ANILCA and NEPA under the same standard.313

 

307 AR8585.

308 AR8585.

309 AR8585.

310 AR8585.

311 AR8586.

312 Docket 27 at 35–39.

313 See, e.g., City of Tenakee Springs v. Clough, 915 F.2d 1308, 1311–1312 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting 

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 70 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 71 of 73

At the outset, Federal Defendants argue that consideration of Plaintiffs’ 

proposed alternatives is not mandated by ANILCA § 810(a). They contend that 

ANILCA only requires the consideration of alternatives that would reduce the total 

amount of land needed for a given action.314 The Court finds this argument 

unconvincing. The plain language of § 810(a) requires agencies to consider 

alternatives that would “reduce or eliminate the use, occupancy, or disposition of 

public lands needed for subsistence purposes;”

315 an alternative could restrict the 

ability to use an area for subsistence purposes without reducing that area’s size.

Federal Defendants rely on the Ninth Circuit’s statement in Kunaknana v. 

Clark that § 810(a) requires an agency to consider “other alternatives which would 

reduce or eliminate the amount of land taken away from subsistence uses.”316 But 

the Circuit there applied the language of § 810(a) to the particular facts of the case, 

which concerned BLM’s decision to offer certain tracts in the NPR-A for oil and gas 

leasing.

317 Since Kunaknana, the Ninth Circuit has considered alternatives that 

 

that “[b]oth NEPA and ANILCA require the [agency] to consider reasonable alternatives to a 

proposed action” and evaluating claims brought under each statute together); Alaska Wilderness 

Recreation & Tourism Ass’n v. Morrison, 67 F.3d 723, 731 (same); Sierra Club v. Penfold, 

664 F. Supp. 1299, 1307 (D. Alaska 1987) (“NEPA case law is helpful in interpreting § 810.”).

314 Docket 30 at 30–32. According to Federal Defendants, consideration of potential mitigation 

measures, as they characterize Plaintiffs’ proposed alternatives, is only necessary under ANILCA 

when the agency determines that an action will “significantly restrict subsistence uses.” Id. at 31 

(quoting 16 U.S.C. § 3120(a)).

315 16 U.S.C. § 3120(a) (emphasis added).

316 742 F.2d 1145, 1150–51 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 3120(a)); see also Docket 30 at 31–

32.

317 Id. at 1150–51. The Ninth Circuit explained that “[t]he plain terms of Section 810(a) 

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 71 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 72 of 73

reduce the scope or intensity of an activity within a given area to fall within § 

810(a)’s meaning.318 Moreover, even if Federal Defendants were correct on this 

point, Plaintiffs’ proposed alternatives would have reduced the footprint of the

2018-2019 winter exploration by authorizing fewer wells or prohibiting the use of 

certain areas for infrastructure by denying ConocoPhillips’ BMP deviation

requests.319 Plaintiffs’ proposed alternatives therefore fell within the scope of 

ANILCA § 810(a). 

Nevertheless, the Court is satisfied that BLM fulfilled its obligation under that 

provision to evaluate “alternatives which would reduce or eliminate the use, 

occupancy, or disposition of public lands needed for subsistence purposes.”320 As 

noted above, this section is analogous to NEPA’s mandate to consider reasonable 

and appropriate alternatives, and “NEPA case law is helpful in interpreting § 

810.”321 As explained in the previous section of this decision, the 2018 EA’s 

 

require . . . the BLM . . . to ‘evaluate’ three factors concerning the decision to issue oil and gas 

leases involved in the programmatic leasing sale.” Id. at 1150 (emphasis added).

318 See Alaska Wilderness Recreation & Tourism Ass’n v. Morrison, 67 F.3d 723, 730 (9th Cir. 

1995) (holding that failure to consider alternative reducing volume of logging in Tongass National 

Forest violated NEPA and ANILCA § 810); City of Tenakee Springs v. Clough, 915 F.2d 1308, 

1311 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that EIS violated NEPA and ANILCA § 810 because it did not 

consider alternative “which would have resulted in less timber being made available”).

319 See Docket 33 at 23.

320 16 U.S.C. 3120(a).

321 Sierra Club v. Penfold, 664 F.Supp. 1299, 1307 (D. Alaska 1987); see also City of Tenakee 

Springs v. Clough, 915 F.2d 1308, 1311–12 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that “[b]oth NEPA and ANILCA 

require the [agency] to consider reasonable alternatives to a proposed action” and evaluating 

claims brought under each statute together).

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 72 of 73
Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, 

et al.

Decision and Order

Page 73 of 73

consideration of only the preferred alternative and a no-action alternative was 

permissible under NEPA, and Federal Defendants’ decision to eliminate Plaintiffs’ 

proposed alternatives from consideration was neither arbitrary nor capricious.322 

For the same reasons, the Court finds that the EA complied with ANILCA § 810(a).

ORDER

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that:

Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth are 

DISMISSED for lack of standing.

The 2018 EA and the ROD authorizing ConocoPhillips’ 2018-2019 winter 

exploration in the NPR-A are UPHELD. Plaintiffs’ requests at Docket 27 for

declaratory relief and vacatur of the 2018 EA and the ROD are therefore DENIED. 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Supplemental Factual Materials 

at Docket 44 is GRANTED. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment accordingly.

DATED this 9th day of January, 2020 at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

322 See supra 61–69.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-SLG Document 46 Filed 01/09/20 Page 73 of 73