Trump administration defends oil and gas lease sales on pristine Alaska land

Three sets of conservation group plaintiffs sued the Trump administration in an attempt to block drilling activity.(CN) — The Trump administration’s Interior Department urged a federal judge Monday to find it acted within its authority when it opened up millions of acres of Alaskan wilderness to oil and gas lease sales.The decision spurred multiple lawsuits from conservation groups. U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason heard arguments in three of those cases, and the Barack Obama appointee said she intends to return a decision before the end of the month.Two of the cases were filed this year, shortly after the U.S. Bureau of Land Management opened public lands within the National Petroleum Reserve — the largest piece of undisturbed public land in the U.S. — to oil and gas leases. That agency decision reigned the third related lawsuit, originally filed by the Center for Biological Diversity in 2020.The announced land sale is the first of five mandated by the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” passed by Congress last year. The agency announced it in February as a “landmark oil and gas lease sale” of more than 600 tracts.Despite its name, the National Petroleum Reserve is more than just a giant oil field. It is considered by many to be an important habitat for migratory birds — it has been referred to as “Heathrow at the top of the world” — as well as caribou and polar bears, which are listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act.Earthjustice attorney Jeremy Lieb, representing the Center for Biological Diversity, called the agency’s decision a “dramatic reversal of decadeslong policy.”The Center argued the agency exceeded its authority by removing lands from areas earlier designated for maximum protection under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act — legislation that requires the Bureau of Land Management to prioritize protection of the reserves’ surface values.The Center also contended the agency violated the Endangered Species Act by relying on an inadequate biological opinion from the Fish and Wildlife Service about the impact on polar bears.Six conservation groups, led by the Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Arctic, likewise argued the agency failed to protect special areas within the reserve. The groups also contended the agency violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to analyze impacts and consider alternatives, and violated the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act by failing to conduct a subsistence evaluation.Suzanne Bostrom, an attorney with Trustees for Alaska representing the groups, argued the agency didn’t undertake a site-specific analysis for the lease sales.“The agency needs to look at the specific actions it is claiming it’s taking,” Bostrom said.The final set of plaintiffs — Grandmothers Growing Goodness and Wilderness Society — accused the Bureau of Land Management of failing to apply the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act’s conservation mandates to certain tracts.The federal defendants argued the collective plaintiffs’ claims “boil down to obstructionist efforts to prevent oil and gas development in a petroleum reserve.”The agency adopted the current integrated activity plan — which authorizes lease sales — last December. The defendants say the plan complies with the “One Big Beautiful Bill’s” directive to open up the Alaskan wilderness to drilling and mining while following federal law.Under the plan, approximately 18.6 million acres of federally managed land is open for oil and gas leasing. The government says the plan includes protective measures for certain habitat and movement corridors.“It stands across many of the arguments that have been raised today, these are meaningful state-of-the-art obligations that BLM takes to heart and that it drafted to address these concerns,” Justice Department attorney Paul Turcke said.The government said vacating the plan would create disruptive consequences, such as frustrating statutory priorities.Gleason declined to rule from the bench.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads