Alaska Wilderness League v. Sally Jewell
788 F.3d 1212
9th Cir.2015Background
- Shell secured Beaufort leases (2005, 2007) and Chukchi leases (2008) and submitted exploration plans with OSRPs for 2010.
- Deepwater Horizon aftermath shifted approval authority from MMS to BOEM/BSEE, with new guidance for OSRPs in 2010–2012.
- OSRPs for Beaufort and Chukchi were updated in 2011 and 2012; BSEE approved them in Feb–Mar 2012.
- Environmental groups challenged BSEE’s OSRP approvals under the Administrative Procedure Act; district court granted summary judgment for defendants and Shell; appeal followed.
- Key statutory framework spans OCSLA, Clean Water Act, NEPA, ESA, and implementing regulations; central dispute concerns agency discretion and mandatory approvals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| APA claim about OSRP approval | Pls claim BSEE relied on an unrealistic 90–95% recovery assumption. | Shell and agencies show no reliance on such a recovery rate; OSRPs meet statutory criteria. | Affirmed: BSEE approval not arbitrary or capricious. |
| ESA consultation trigger | Approval of OSRPs constitutes agency action that may affect listed species; ESA consultation required. | Approval is nondiscretionary and does not trigger ESA consultation under Chevron framework. | Held to not require ESA consultation. |
| NEPA review before OSRP approval | NEPA requires an EIS for major federal actions; approval of OSRPs should trigger NEPA. | NEPA not required because OSRP approval is constrained by statute and prior NEPA analyses cover related actions. | NEPA review not required prior to OSRP approval. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-step Chevron framework for agency statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (U.S. 2001) (limits Chevron when Congress has spoken directly to issue)
- Young v. Community Nutrition Inst., 476 U.S. 974 (U.S. 1986) (defers to agency interpretation of ambiguous statutes when reasonable)
- Public Citizen, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 541 U.S. 752 (U.S. 2004) (NEPA rule-of-reason framework; agency cannot be arbitrary)
- National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (U.S. 2007) (ESA consultation issue clarified in context of mandatory/nondiscretionary duties)
- Cuellar de Osorio v. Scialabba, 134 S. Ct. 2191 (U.S. 2014) (discusses Chevron deference and statutory ambiguity in complex schemes)
- National Resources Defense Council v. Jewell, 749 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc decision on agency discretion under ESA/NEPA framework)