Gulf Restoration Network v. Debra Haaland, 47 F.4th 795

Background

The Interior Department (through BOEM) conducted Lease Sales 250 and 251 in the Gulf of Mexico in 2018 and prepared a programmatic EIS, a multisale EIS, and a supplemental EIS for those sales.
Environmental groups sued, arguing the supplemental EIS violated NEPA by (1) failing to analyze a true “no action” alternative, (2) ignoring the possibility that two 2016 BSEE safety rules might be weakened, and (3) failing to address a GAO report alleging deficiencies in BSEE enforcement.
The district court granted summary judgment to Interior. The environmental plaintiffs appealed to the D.C. Circuit, which reviews agency NEPA compliance under the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard.
The D.C. Circuit held BOEM adequately considered a no-action alternative via tiering with the programmatic EIS and reasonably declined to analyze speculative regulatory changes to BSEE rules that were not meaningfully possible to assess at the time.
The court concluded BOEM acted arbitrarily by failing to address the GAO report raising legitimate concerns about BSEE enforcement and remanded for further agency consideration of that issue.
The court declined to vacate the supplemental EIS, records of decision, or the leases, instead remanding without vacatur because of disruptive consequences and a plausible chance the agency can cure the defect.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of “no action” alternative	The EIS assumed future leasing would occur, so it never analyzed a true no-action (full cancellation) alternative.	BOEM incorporated programmatic EIS analysis by reference and reasonably forecast that a single cancelled sale would only delay inevitable Gulf development.	BOEM’s tiered analysis satisfied NEPA; its no-action treatment was adequate.
Consideration of possible changes to BSEE safety rules	BOEM unreasonably assumed 2016 Production Safety and Well Control Rules would remain in force and should have analyzed effects if rules were weakened.	Potential rule changes were too speculative/inchoate at the time of the supplemental EIS to require analysis.	BOEM permissibly declined to analyze speculative regulatory changes.
Consideration of GAO report on BSEE enforcement	BOEM relied on effective enforcement but ignored GAO findings that raised legitimate concerns about enforcement rigor; it should have analyzed or explained why it rejected those concerns.	Interior treated enforcement as presumptively adequate and argued GAO findings did not show a complete enforcement breakdown.	BOEM acted arbitrarily in failing to address the GAO report or explain reversal of its prior promise to consider those concerns.
Remedy (vacatur vs remand)	Plaintiffs sought vacatur or at least injunctive limits on lease activity.	Defendants warned vacatur or injunction would be highly disruptive to lessees who relied on the leases.	Court remanded for further consideration of the GAO report but declined to vacate the EIS, records of decision, or leases (remand without vacatur).

Key Cases Cited

Sec’y of the Interior v. California, 464 U.S. 312 (1984) (lease confers no immediate or absolute right to develop; later approvals required)
Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004) (CEQ regulations implement NEPA procedural requirements)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (agency action arbitrary if it runs counter to the evidence)
W. Org. of Res. Councils v. Zinke, 892 F.3d 1234 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (tiering programmatic and project-specific EISs)
Nevada v. Dep’t of Energy, 457 F.3d 78 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (incorporation by reference from programmatic EIS may suffice)
Del. Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 753 F.3d 1304 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (agency need not analyze possibilities that are not meaningfully possible)
Friends of Back Bay v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 681 F.3d 581 (4th Cir. 2012) (it is arbitrary to rely on regulatory protections that are entirely unenforced)
Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. NRC, 988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (factors governing whether to vacate an agency action on remand)
Fox TV Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 556 U.S. 502 (2009) (agency must explain changes in position to permit reasoned review)