(CN) — A federal judge in Alaska blocked two environmental groups’ attempts to halt construction involving ConocoPhillips’ Willow Project on Monday, citing inconsistencies within declarations intended to show irreparable harm and considerations of the broader public interest.
The order came down from U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Gleason regarding two related motions challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s approval of ConocoPhillips Alaska’s Willow Project in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska — a vast reserve that is not only the largest single public land unit in the country, but also contains designated areas with maximum protections due its ecological importance.
One motion for a preliminary injunction came from the Center for Biological Diversity while the other came from the Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic — along with a motion for a temporary restraining order — to prevent ConocoPhillips from continuing construction activities on its Willow Project for the remainder of the winter season.
In February, the bureau released a final environmental impact statement nudging the Department of the Interior to grant approval on an alternative oil drilling proposal for Willow, one of the largest oil and gas development projects on federal territory. Previously, the bureau determined drilling in the area would be bad for subsistence hunters in the village of Nuiqsut, Alaska.
The move angered climate advocates, prompting them to call on the Biden administration to keep its promise to battle climate change. Social media campaigns ensued, especially on TikTok, yet on March 13, the Biden administration approved Willow, gaining the president a rare nod of approval from Republican counterparts.
The Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic led a lawsuit against the bureau the following day, explaining how the reserve provides rich habitat for caribou, grizzly and polar bears, wolves and a range of migratory birds and waterfowl. Additionally, the group said it is home to the Western Arctic and Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Herds, which provides key subsistence resources to numerous communities across northwest Alaska.
The Center’s lawsuit, filed on March 15, claimed the Biden administration’s approval of Willow violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, particularly since the project’s expected greenhouse gas contributions will harm sea ice habitat that protected polar bears and seals need to survive.
However, when it came down to justifying the groups’ motions for preliminary injunctions and demonstrating irreparable harm, Gleason indicated that she was not convinced, expressing that some of the concerns about ConocoPhillips’ constructions activities are irrelevant to the negative impacts of its oil and gas extraction.
According to Gleason, both injunctions sought to enjoin construction activities including the opening of a gravel mine on the Tiŋmiaqsiuġvik River, the construction of up to 3.1 miles of gravel road and the building of a subsistence boat ramp on the Tiŋmiaqsiuġvik.
“Plaintiffs have filed numerous declarations from persons who are deeply concerned about the negative impacts from the extraction of oil and gas over the lifetime of the Willow Project, and in particular its impact on global climate change,” Gleason wrote. “But regardless of the validity of these concerns, they are not relevant to the court’s consideration of the current motions because the planned winter 2023 construction activities do not include the extraction of any oil and gas.”
Gleason also said that some declarants complained of ConocoPhillips’ proposed blasting activity, stating that past blasting from the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation gravel mine shook their “houses, bodies and minds” and even “cracked house windows and broke water and sewer pipes.”
Yet, the judge said that however disturbing the blasting is, the noise and vibration is short-lived and not permanent. Besides, Gleason wrote, the noise from the proposed Tiŋmiaqsiuġvik mine site would be considerably quieter than the Arctic Slope mine because it would be four miles further away and the bureau determined that blasting would only attenuate to 59 decibels in Nuiqsut, “which is roughly the volume of conversational speech.”
Gleason also determined that Nuiqsut residents submitted conflicting declarations regarding potential impacts of construction activities. For instance, one resident voiced concerns that road construction and mine blasting would scare away caribou for subsistence hunting, while another said that building a road would make it easier for him to hunt long-term. Likewise, the judge found that two other declarations failed to indicate how construction activities would directly cause harm to them.
Lastly, Gleason factored in public interest, determining that an injunction halting winter construction activities would have an immediate economic impact on Nuiqsut, a community with an unemployment rate of 13%.
“Intervenor-defendants have filed numerous declarations showing that Nuiqsut residents are relying on the seasonal jobs and income associated with the winter 2023 construction activities,” Gleason wrote, adding that one declarant, Thomas Bourdon, hired 86 people to provide lodging, food and other services for Willow this winter. If construction halted, however, those jobs would be lost.
Another resident, the judge wrote, expects to drive gravel trucks at the new Willow mine to pay for his daughter’s braces and to buy ammunition and fuel for subsistence hunting. Several other declarations continue in a similar manner.
“In sum, the court has weighed the environmental harm posed by the proposed winter 2023 construction activities against the economic damages, benefits to most subsistence users, and the state and federal legislative pronouncements of the public interest that would be impacted by a preliminary injunction prohibiting these construction activities at this time and concludes that the balance of the equities and the public interest tip sharply against preliminary injunctive relief,” Gleason wrote. “The court has further determined that plaintiffs have not established that irreparable injury to their members is likely if winter 2023 construction activities proceed.”
Representatives of the Center remained determined on Monday.
“It’s heartbreaking that ConocoPhillips has been allowed to break ground on Willow before the court has fully assessed whether the project is lawful,” said Center senior attorney Kristen Monsell in a statement. “But this case isn’t over, and we’ll keep fighting to protect struggling Arctic wildlife and our climate from this disastrous project. We’re hopeful we’ll get the Willow project’s approval thrown out once again.”
Follow @alannamayhampdx
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
