Native Village of Point Hope v. Salazar
680 F.3d 1123
9th Cir.2012Background
- OCSLA authorizes Interior to lease offshore areas and approve exploration plans, subject to environmental safeguards and potential harm limits.
- MMS previously handled leasing and plan approvals; post-Deepwater Horizon, responsibilities split into BOEM, BSEE, and ORR, with BOEM handling exploration approvals and NEPA analyses.
- Shell submitted a Beaufort Sea exploration plan; MMS/BSEE/BOEM approvals followed a multi-year sequence culminating in a 2011–2012 revision.
- Petitioners allege the 2011–2012 Shell plan failed informational, technological, and feasibility requirements under OCSLA and its regs.
- BOEM approved the revised exploration plan with conditions after NEPA review, and petitioners seek review under 43 U.S.C. § 1349(c) and the APA.
- The Ninth Circuit denied the expedited petitions, holding BOEM’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and deferential agency expertise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plan satisfied spill-response reference requirements | Point Hope/Inupiat claim plan lacked proper 550.219(a)(2) references | BOEM reasonably found compliance given later approval of a revised spill plan | Moot; informational requirements satisfied by later plan approval |
| Whether plan adequately described new or unusual technology | Plan failed to provide sufficient description of well-capping stack per 550.213(d) | Plan provided adequate description; BOEM accords deference to agency interpretation | BOEM rational; description satisfied the regulation |
| Whether BOEM properly reconciled inconsistencies in Shell's statements about feasibility | BOEM erred by not reconciling pre-2011 statements with 2011 plan | No requirement to reconcile; Shell reassessed feasibility with new information | BOEM's approach supported by substantial evidence; no error |
| Whether BOEM acted arbitrarily by conditioning approval on additional information | Conditions improper or beyond scope of approval | Conditions to provide monitoring information and seek further authorizations are consistent with regulatory scheme | Merits of conditioning upheld; not arbitrary or capricious |
Key Cases Cited
- Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (deferential review for agency technical decisions; factors for arbitrary action)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, 588 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009) (deference to agency scientific judgments on complex data)
- Humane Soc'y v. Locke, 626 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2010) (courts defer to agency explanations not plainly erroneous)
- Edwardsen v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 268 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2001) (jurisdictional allocation between BOEM/BSEE review)
- American Rivers v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 1997) (informational and procedural sufficiency; mootness context)
- Idaho Dep't of Fish & Game v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 56 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 1995) (agency technical decisions deserving deference)