Seabed mining leases in US territories likely to outpace environmental review

By Ron Rocky Coloma

Federal plans to open waters near Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa to seabed mining could allow long-term leases to be issued before full environmental reviews are completed, legal experts warn.

The concern centers on how the U.S. government is using the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to advance offshore mineral development, a process that experts say prioritizes early lease sales while deferring deeper scientific analysis to later stages.

“The process is being front-loaded,” said Bobbi-Jo Dobush, a consultant focused on ocean law and policy. “A lot of the scientific investigation is happening after the lease sale, but once the lease is issued, you are in a different legal space.”

For Guam, the CNMI and American Samoa, that sequence could carry lasting consequences. Once a lease is granted, companies gain long-term rights to explore and potentially mine, and reversing those decisions could become difficult.

Dobush said leases are typically issued for at least 20 years and can be extended, making them legally durable even if environmental concerns emerge later.

“There’s been a conversation saying a lease isn’t a guarantee that anything is going to happen,” she said. “But actually, once the lease is out the door, we’re in a completely different space, legally and in terms of rights.”

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the federal agency overseeing offshore energy and mineral development, has already moved ahead in American Samoa, where it has completed the request-for-information stage and the “area identification” phase, a key step that narrows where leasing could occur. Guam and the CNMI entered that phase more recently.

A proposed lease sale, and ultimately the award of leases to companies, can proceed after the environmental review. But experts say the type and timing of environmental review matters. Federal officials have indicated that environmental assessments, which are less detailed than full environmental impact statements, could be completed in a matter of months. More comprehensive reviews may not be required until later stages, including before actual mining begins.

ADVERTISEMENT

That sequencing has raised questions about whether enough scientific data will be available before key leasing decisions are made.

“As these legal questions are being raised, there are many other questions being raised,” said Rebecca Kihslinger, a senior science and policy analyst. “Is science and environmental data being considered in the decision-making processes, and how is that being considered?”

The issue is compounded by the fact that seabed mining under U.S. law has little precedent.“There hasn’t really ever been leasing for these minerals,” Dobush said. “So in some ways, this is kind of an open book.”

At the same time, federal agencies are under pressure to move quickly. A series of executive actions has directed agencies to accelerate development of offshore critical minerals, which are used in batteries, electronics and renewable energy technologies.

BOEM is seeking to streamline the process and move forward with lease sales, even as questions about environmental impacts and technology remain unresolved.

Another concern raised by legal experts is that once leases are issued, they may be difficult to revoke.

Robin Kundis Craig, a professor at the University of Kansas School of Law, said federal leasing agreements typically include specific conditions under which a lease can be withdrawn.

“If you take away a lease for anything other than what’s in the contract itself, that’s a taking,” she said, referring to constitutional protections that can require the government to compensate leaseholders. “The federal government has to cough up a lot of money.”

That legal reality means early decisions about leasing could carry long-term consequences.

Beyond the leasing process itself, a web of environmental laws still applies, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Those laws can shape how projects proceed and may provide opportunities for public input or legal challenges. But in many cases, they come into play after leases have already been granted.

“Many of these laws provide opportunities for participation and for court challenge,” Craig said. “They are vehicles for the public to make its opinion known.”

Even so, experts say the balance of influence shifts once a lease is in place.

For Guam, the CNMI and American Samoa, one of the most immediate tools for influence may be the Coastal Zone Management Act.

The law allows states and territories with approved coastal management programs to review federal actions for consistency with local policies. That authority can extend beyond territorial waters if offshore activities are shown to affect coastal resources, including fisheries.

“The activity can be inside or outside of the coastal zone,” said Jeff Burright, an Oregon coastal management official. “What matters is whether it has an effect.”

Those effects could include sediment plumes drifting toward reefs, disruptions to marine food webs and impacts on fisheries that support local economies.

If a territory determines that a project is inconsistent with its policies, it can object. In the case of federal permits, that objection can halt the project unless it is overturned by the U.S. secretary of commerce.

However, that authority depends on whether territories have enforceable policies that clearly address those impacts.

At the same time, some regulatory changes under consideration could reduce structured opportunities for public and territorial engagement, including revisions to administrative procedures and notification requirements.

For American Samoa, the current moment also reflects a longer history.

A seabed mining proposal was first introduced there in 2004 but did not move forward after consultations with the territorial government. A similar proposal resurfaced in 2025 under a different policy environment and is now advancing through federal review.

In Guam, officials have sought greater coordination with federal agencies, including requests for joint task forces similar to those used in offshore wind development. So far, it is unclear whether those mechanisms will be used for seabed mining.

Across the Pacific territories, the central question is not only whether seabed mining will move forward, but when key decisions are being made relative to the science.

Experts say that timing could ultimately determine how much influence local governments and communities have.

“If you are looking to make your voice heard about seabed mining,” Dobush said, “the time is now, not after the lease sale.”

Subscribe to

our monthly

digital edition