Defenders of Wildlife v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, & Enforcement
871 F. Supp. 2d 1312
S.D. Ala.2012Background
- OCSLA governs offshore leasing in four stages: five-year leasing plan, lease sales, exploration, and development/production, each with separate review and consultation requirements.
- Lease Sale 213 occurred in March 2010 under the Five-Year Plan; B.O.E.M. reviewed and accepted bids in Phases 1 and 2 before Deepwater Horizon.
- Deepwater Horizon spill began April 20, 2010, triggering heightened concern about offshore drilling safety and environmental impacts.
- Following the spill, BOEM issued safety moratoriums and suspensions on deepwater drilling while continuing Lease Sale 213 bid approvals in Phase 2.
- DOW sued, alleging violations of ESA and NEPA for continuing to approve Lease Sale 213 bids after the spill without reinitiating ESA consultation or preparing a SEIS.
- The court held that the lease-sale stage is a separate, narrow action under OCSLA and that the agency’s actions at that stage must be evaluated under a stage-by-stage ESA/NEPA framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BOEM violated ESA §7(a)(2) at the lease-sale stage post-spill | DOW argues no jeopardy; must reinitiate consultation before further leases. | BOEM complied with §7(a)(2) at lease-sale stage; reinitiation not required for this stage. | BOEM did not violate §7(a)(2) at lease-sale stage. |
| Whether BOEM needed to prepare a SEIS under NEPA before continuing Lease Sale 213 bids | New spill information post-DWH required SEIS before further approvals. | Remaining action at lease-sale stage did not show significant new environmental impacts requiring SEIS. | No NEPA violation; SEIS not required for the lease-sale actions at issue. |
| Whether the §7(d) ban on irreversible commitments bars action during consultation | Approval of bids irreversibly committed resources during consultation. | §7(d) permits action short of irretrievable commitments; lease-sale is prelude, not final commitment. | §7(d) did not bar lease-sale bids; no irreversible commitment occurred. |
| Whether the OCSLA stage-by-stage framework supports breaking ESA/NEPA review by stage | ESA/NEPA review should be comprehensive across stages; cannot skip ahead. | Each stage has its own review; leasing stage reviewed separately under ESA/NEPA. | Court approved stage-by-stage analysis; lease-sale stage review upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Secretary of Interior v. California, 464 U.S. 312 (1984) (OCSLA stages require separate environmental review)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 563 F.3d 466 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (stage-by-stage ESA/NEPA review under OCSLA framework)
- North Slope Borough v. Andrus, 642 F.2d 589 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (lease-stage activities are preliminary and do not irrevocably commit resources)
- Tribal Village of Akutan v. Hodel, 869 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1988) (ESA review implicated at multiple stages; lease sale stage itself is subject to review)
- Florida Key Deer v. Brown, 386 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (ESA consultation and 7(d) considerations in stage-by-stage review)
- Van Antwerp v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 526 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2008) (NEPA/APA standard of review; no deference to agency conclusions without rational basis)
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) (SEIS requirement trigger: new information may require additional analysis)