User:Seabaztian/sandbox

In 2017, three months after the inauguration of President Donald Trump, an executive order was signed into law that rolled back Obama era seafloor protections of Arctic marine areas as well as other established marine sanctuaries. The following November, the United States House of Representatives and Senate both passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which contained legislation that allowed for the possible leasing of the oil-rich “1002 area” of the Alaska Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (AANWR) as well as set aside funding for a an environmental impact analysis for the coastal plains of the refuge. While this was considered a major feat for republicans as previous attempts to pass similar legislation have failed on multiple occasions, the act was met with opposition due to scientific evidence supporting negative long term impacts of oil spills on Arctic ecosystems within the Alaska North Slope region of the AANWR. This successful passing of this act contributed to the ongoing Arctic Refuge Drilling Controversy. Once the act came into effect, U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management was assigned to conduct an environmental impact statement on the coastal plains of the “1002 area” of the AANWR.

In March of 2019, two years after the rollback of AANWR protections, Alaska Judge Sharon L. Gleason overturned President Trump’s executive order on the protections. She ruled that the executive branch had overstepped and that order was considered to violate the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953. It is stated within the act that the executive branch has the capability to protect areas from offshore drilling, but does not have the ability to make areas eligible for such oil and gas ventures. It is specified that such ability lies firmly with the legislative branch. The following month, it was reported that the Trump Administration plans regarding oil-drilling had come to a standstill, as the interior department could not act without appealing the ruling. During the month of September, the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management released the finalized version of the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program, an environmental impact statement (EIS) that reported the effects of oil drilling in the AANWR would be insignificant to the surrounding environment and ecosystems. This statement has rallied republicans, as it provides materials to aid in attempting to overturn Judge Gleason’s ruling. However, the statement has also been met with criticism by environmentalists questioning the accuracy and credibility of the EIS, as the analysis was conducted and completed in under two years, which was notably faster compared to other EIS of similar scope.