Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Artic et al v. Bureau of Land Management et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
SOVEREIGN IÑUPIAT FOR A LIVING
ARCTIC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
et al.,
Defendants.
and
CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA, INC.,
Intervenor-Defendant.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
et al.,
Defendants,
and
CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA, INC.,
Intervenor-Defendant.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG
Case 3:20-cv-00290-SLG Document 54 Filed 02/06/21 Page 1 of 11

Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG, Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG, Ctr. for Biological Diversity, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Order re Motions for Injunction Pending Appeal
Page 2 of 11
ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL
Before the Court are SILA Plaintiffs’ Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal1
and CBD Plaintiffs’ Rule 62(d) Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal.2 Federal
Defendants3 and ConocoPhillips4 responded in opposition.
BACKGROUND
The Court detailed the background of this case in its Order Denying Motions
for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order.5 In short, SILA
Plaintiffs and CBD Plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) maintain that Federal
Defendants unlawfully reviewed and approved ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.’s
(“ConocoPhillips”) Willow Master Development Plan (“Willow Project” or “Project”)
in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (“NPR-A”).6 Both sets of Plaintiffs
sought to enjoin ConocoPhillips from undertaking Willow Project construction
1 Docket 46 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG). SILA Plaintiffs seek to enjoin ConocoPhillips from
engaging in “all construction activities related to Willow for 21 days so that emergency relief can
be sought and ruled on by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals . . . .” Docket 46 at 3.
2 Docket 45 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG). CBD Plaintiffs seek an injunction for the duration
of the appeal that enjoins all “on-the-ground activities” or, alternatively, a short-term injunction
prohibiting all activity until February 26, 2021. Docket 45 at 2; Docket 45-1 at 1.
3 Docket 50 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG); Docket 50 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG).
4 Docket 51 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG); Docket 51 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG).
5 Docket 44 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG); Docket 43 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG).
6 See Docket 1 (Compl.) and Docket 36 (Am. Compl.) (Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG); see also
Docket 1 (Compl.) (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG).
Case 3:20-cv-00290-SLG Document 54 Filed 02/06/21 Page 2 of 11

Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG, Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG, Ctr. for Biological Diversity, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Order re Motions for Injunction Pending Appeal
Page 3 of 11
activities scheduled to commence this winter (“Winter 2021 Construction
Activities”).7
On February 1, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motions seeking
preliminary injunctive relief.8 The Court reasoned that Plaintiffs’ NEPA claims were
likely time-barred by the NPRPA’s judicial review provision.9 The Court also found
that SILA Plaintiffs had not established likely irreparable harm to the Southern
Beaufort Sea polar bears as necessary for their ESA claim.10 Accordingly, the
Court concluded that Plaintiffs did not satisfy certain Winter requirements
necessary to warrant preliminary injunctive relief.11
Plaintiffs each filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
and now ask this Court for injunctive relief pending their appeals.12
7 See Docket 17 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG); Docket 9 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG).
8 Docket 44 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG); Docket 43 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG).
9 Docket 44 at 12–22 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG); Docket 43 at 12–22 (Case No. 3:20-cv-
00308-SLG).
10 Docket 44 at 22–27 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG); Docket 43 at 22–27 (Case No. 3:20-cv-
00308-SLG).
11 Docket 44 at 21–22, 27, 28 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG); Docket 43 at 21–22, 27, 28
(Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG); see also Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20
(2008).
12 Docket 45 (Notice of Appeal) and Docket 46 (Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal) (Case
No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG); Docket 44 (Notice of Appeal) and Docket 45 (Motion for Injunction
Pending Appeal) (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG).
Case 3:20-cv-00290-SLG Document 54 Filed 02/06/21 Page 3 of 11

Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG, Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG, Ctr. for Biological Diversity, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Order re Motions for Injunction Pending Appeal
Page 4 of 11
LEGAL STANDARD
“The standard for evaluating an injunction pending appeal is similar to that
employed by district courts in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction.”13
DISCUSSION
I. Injunction for the Duration of the Appeal
CBD seeks an injunction for the duration of the appeal. For the reasons
discussed in the Court’s Order Denying Motions for Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated “a strong likelihood
of success on appeal” or the existence of “serious legal questions.”14 As
particularly relevant here, the Court concluded that the text of the judicial review
provision and the entire 1980 rider to the NPRPA, the object and the policy of the
statute, and the legislative history strongly indicate that Congress intended the
judicial review provision to apply to claims like Plaintiffs’ NEPA challenges against
the Willow EIS. Accordingly, the Court denies CBD Plaintiffs’ motion for injunction
13 Feldman v. Arizona Sec'y of State's Office, 843 F.3d 366, 367 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Lopez v.
Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983) and Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v.
U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 472 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006)); see also Nken v. Holder, 556
U.S. 418, 428–29 (2009) (“A stay pending appeal certainly has some functional overlap with an
injunction, particularly a preliminary one. Both can have the practical effect of preventing some
action before the legality of that action has been conclusively determined. But a stay achieves
this result by temporarily suspending the source of authority to act—the order or judgment in
question—not by directing an actor's conduct. A stay ‘simply suspend[s] judicial alteration of the
status quo,’ while injunctive relief ‘grants judicial intervention that has b een withheld by lower
courts.’”) (quoting Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U.S. 1312, 1313
(1986) (SCALIA, J., in chambers)).
14 Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 966–68 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted).
Case 3:20-cv-00290-SLG Document 54 Filed 02/06/21 Page 4 of 11

Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG, Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG, Ctr. for Biological Diversity, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Order re Motions for Injunction Pending Appeal
Page 5 of 11
pending appeal to the extent that it seeks to enjoin the entire Winter 2021
Construction Activities at Willow for the duration of the pending appeal.
II. Limited Injunctive Relief to Seek Emergency Relief from the Ninth
Circuit
The Court recognizes that the question of how to apply the NPRPA’s judicial
review provision is a matter of first impression in the Ninth Circuit. Moreover, if
Plaintiffs’ NEPA claims are not time barred, CBD Plaintiffs’ argument that Federal
Defendants violated NEPA by failing to properly estimate global greenhouse gas
emissions associated with the Willow Project could well be likely to succeed on the
merits.15 Accordingly, should the Ninth Circuit determine that CBD Plaintiffs have
demonstrated serious legal questions concerning the NPRPA’s judicial review
provision, CBD Plaintiffs may be entitled to the injunctive relief they have been
seeking, given the likelihood of irreparable harm to them that will be caused by the
2021 Winter Construction Activities, as discussed herein infra.
“Environmental injury, by its nature, can seldom be adequately remedied by
money damages and is often permanent or at least of long duration, i.e.,
irreparable.”16 A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief pending appeal must show that
15 Docket 9 at 8–11 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG); see also Docket 1 at 26–27, ¶¶ 84–91
(Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG) (Compl.); see also Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, 982
F.3d 723 (9th Cir. 2020).
16 Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, AK, 480 U.S. 531, 545 (1987).
Case 3:20-cv-00290-SLG Document 54 Filed 02/06/21 Page 5 of 11

Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG, Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG, Ctr. for Biological Diversity, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Order re Motions for Injunction Pending Appeal
Page 6 of 11
they themselves will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.17 And a plaintiff
“must show that an irreparable injury is the more probable or likely outcome.”18
ConocoPhillips plans to break ground at the Willow mine site on February
12, 2021, by blasting overburden and plans to begin gravel hauling and road
construction on March 12, 2021.19 CBD Plaintiffs assert that “[c]onstruction of a
permanent road and associated industrial impacts will destroy the natural setting
of the area and adversely affect opportunities for Plaintiffs’ members’ enjoyment
of the region and nearby areas, as well as their interest in wildlife protection.”20
The Ninth Circuit has held this type of injury constitutes irreparable harm in
similar contexts.21 For example, in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, the
plaintiffs asserted that logging and road construction would “harm its members'
ability to ‘view, experience, and utilize’ the areas in their undisturbed state.”22 The
Court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the “likelihood of irreparable injury”
17 Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200, 1214 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Nken, 556 U.S. at 434–35).
18 Id. (citing Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 968 (9th Cir. 2011)).
19 Docket 31-4 at 5–8, ¶¶ 6, 8, 10, 12 (Decl. of James I. Brodie) (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG).
20 Docket 9 at 19 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG); see, e.g., Docket 9-14 at 9-11, ¶¶ 22-24
(Decl. of Daniel Ritzman) (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG); Docket 9-15 at 6, ¶ 15 (Decl. of
Jeffrey Scott Fair) (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG).
21 Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 886 F.3d 803, 822 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)).
22 All. for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135.
Case 3:20-cv-00290-SLG Document 54 Filed 02/06/21 Page 6 of 11

Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG, Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG, Ctr. for Biological Diversity, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Order re Motions for Injunction Pending Appeal
Page 7 of 11
requirement articulated in Winter.23 Here, once ConocoPhillips begins blasting to
remove the overburden at the mine site on February 12, 2021,24 the landscape
will be irreparably altered.25 The Court also finds that Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, a
member of Plaintiff Friends of the Earth and resident of Nuiqsut, which is located
approximately seven miles from the planned mine site, has demonstrated that she
will be likely irreparably injured once the mining activities start.26 Ms.
Ahtuangaruak states that she and others “hunt caribou where the mine is going to
be located” and “[t]hat area, like the whole Willow Project area, is part of [their]
traditional use areas.”27 Even though Ms. Ahtuangaruak does not state specifically
when she will visit the area where the mine or the gravel road are located, she
lives, hunts, and harvests in the area.28 As soon as ConocoPhillips begins its
blasting operations, Ms. Ahtuangaruak will immediately be deprived of her ability
23 Id.
24 Docket 31-4 at 5–8, ¶¶ 6, 8, 10, 12 (Decl. of James I. Brodie) (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG).
25 The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that seasonal ice roads and pads are
likely to irreparably harm the environment; accordingly, this order does not prohibit ice road and
pad construction.
26 Docket 9-13 at 1, ¶¶ 1, 3 (Decl. of Rosemary Ahtuangaruak) (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG).
27 Docket 9-13 at 18–19, ¶ 36 (Decl. of Rosemary Ahtuangaruak) (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-
SLG).
28 See generally Docket 9-13 (Decl. of Rosemary Ahtuangaruak) (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-
SLG).
Case 3:20-cv-00290-SLG Document 54 Filed 02/06/21 Page 7 of 11

Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG, Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG, Ctr. for Biological Diversity, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Order re Motions for Injunction Pending Appeal
Page 8 of 11
to “view, experience, and utilize” the affected areas in their undisturbed state.29
Accordingly, the Court finds that at least one of Plaintiffs’ members will likely be
irreparably injured absent immediate injunctive relief.
Other courts have entered limited short term injunctions pending appeal in
similar circumstances. In Western Land Exchange Project v. Dombeck, the
plaintiffs sought an injunction pending appeal to prevent the federal government
from transferring public lands to a private logging company.30 The court found that
“an injunction pending appeal should not be granted because” the plaintiffs failed
to meet three of the Rule 62(d) considerations.31 But the court nonetheless
enjoined the land transfer for 60 days, “given the nature of the environmental
consequences which will result from the land exchange,” so as to accord the
plaintiffs the ability to seek relief from the Ninth Circuit.32 Similarly, in Conservation
Congress v. United States Forest Service, “the court conclude[d] that plaintiffs are
not entitled to a Rule 62([d]) injunction pending appeal because they ha[d] not
raised a serious legal question, nor that the balance of hardships or the public
29 All. for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135.
30 47 F. Supp. 2d at 1217.
31 Id. at 1218.
32 Id. (stating that “Rule 62([d]) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the court in its
discretion to act in a reasonable manner after considering all of the factors discussed above”).
Case 3:20-cv-00290-SLG Document 54 Filed 02/06/21 Page 8 of 11

Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG, Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG, Ctr. for Biological Diversity, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Order re Motions for Injunction Pending Appeal
Page 9 of 11
interest tip[ped] sharply in their favor.”33 But “because of the potential for
irreparable harm,” the Court entered a limited injunction of ten days to allow the
plaintiffs to seek relief from the Ninth Circuit.34
Similar circumstances are present here to warrant a brief and limited
injunction. Notably, there is a strong likelihood of irreparable environmental
consequences once blasting operations commence. Further, the interpretation of
the NPRPA’s judicial review provision is a matter of first impression. Although the
Court remains confident in its reasoning, the Ninth Circuit may disagree.
Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion by issuing a brief and limited
injunction.35
//
//
//
//
33 803 F. Supp. 2d at 1134.
34 Id.
35 ConocoPhillips plans to break ground at the mine site on February 12, 2021. Docket 31-4 at
8, ¶ 12 (Decl. of James I. Brodie) (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG). Accordingly, this Court’s
limited two-week injunction should delay ConocoPhillips’ construction activities by approximately
one week, while giving Plaintiffs an opportunity to seek relief from the Ninth Circuit. That being
said, the Court fully acknowledges the significant challenges in undertaking construction
activities in the Arctic and the highly compressed time frame within which such activities must
occur.
Case 3:20-cv-00290-SLG Document 54 Filed 02/06/21 Page 9 of 11

Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG, Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG, Ctr. for Biological Diversity, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Order re Motions for Injunction Pending Appeal
Page 10 of 11
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that CBD Plaintiffs’ Rule 62(d)
Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal at Docket 4536 is DENIED, insofar as the
motion sought for injunctive relief for the duration of its appeal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SILA Plaintiffs’37 and CBD Plaintiffs’38
motions for an injunction pending appeal of brief duration is GRANTED as follows:
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. ConocoPhillips is ENJOINED from breaking ground at the Willow
Mine Site Area 2, including blasting, surface mining, or the use of
other equipment to remove overburden or gravel;
2. ConocoPhillips is ENJOINED from carrying out any gravel road
construction;
3. ConocoPhillips is not prohibited from constructing seasonal ice roads
and pads;
4. This injunction is effective as of the date of this order and shall remain
effective through February 20, 2021, or until the Ninth Circuit rules on
36 Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG.
37 Docket 46 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG).
38 Docket 45 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG).
Case 3:20-cv-00290-SLG Document 54 Filed 02/06/21 Page 10 of 11

Case No. 3:20-cv-00290-SLG, Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SLG, Ctr. for Biological Diversity, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Order re Motions for Injunction Pending Appeal
Page 11 of 11
any motions for an injunction pending appeal in that Court, whichever
occurs first;
5. No bond or other security is required for this short term and limited
injunction.
DATED this 6th day of February, 2021 at Anchorage, Alaska.
s/ Sharon L Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:20-cv-00290-SLG Document 54 Filed 02/06/21 Page 11 of 11