37 F. Supp. 3d 147
D.D.C.2014Background
- Deepwater Horizon spill (2010) prompted revised NEPA/ESA analyses for Gulf of Mexico OCS leases.
- BOEM approved Lease Sales 216/222 and 218 in CPA/WPA after SEIS updates.
- Plaintiffs allege NEPA violations, ESA jeopardy concerns, and APA delay claims against BOEM/NMFS.
- 2007 Multisale EIS and 2009–2012 Supplemental EIS underpin the 2012 SEIS reviewed here.
- Interim NMFS/BOEM consultation ongoing; Biological Opinion anticipated around 2015.
- Court grants summary judgment for defendants; denies plaintiffs' summary judgment motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NEPA §1502.22 compliance for incomplete information | BOEM failed to disclose why information was unavailable or prohibitively costly. | BOEM disclosed unavailability, relevance, and used credible evidence; costs need not be shown. | BOEM complied; disclosed information gaps and used credible support. |
| Consideration of new catastrophe spill analyses | BOEM ignored updated spill risk analyses and failed to model new scenarios. | BOEM integrated new data, performed a special OSRA run, and tiered analysis appropriately. | BOEM's approach satisfied NEPA; hard look taken at spill risks. |
| No action alternative analysis under NEPA | No action alternative was not properly presented or compared. | BOEM analyzed a true no action alternative and explained practical inevitability of future leases. | BOEM satisfied NEPA no-action requirements; analysis reasonable. |
| ESA consultation and no-jeopardy before lease sales | BOEM needed complete consultation before action; risk to listed species uncertain. | Section 7(d) allows action; lease sales are not irreversible commitments; no-jeopardy mitigations exist. | BOEM complied with ESA; not necessary to complete consultation before lease sales. |
| Delay of NMFS Biological Opinion and TRAC factors | NMFS delay is unreasonable and endangers species. | Delay reasonable given complexity, interagency coordination, and resource limits. | NMFS delay reasonable; no compelled issuance required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., 419 U.S. 281 (1974) (arbitrary/nonarbitrary agency action standard; reasonableness review)
- Wilderness Soc’y v. Salazar, 603 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2009) (hard look NEPA review; judicial deference to agency expertise)
- North Slope Borough v. Andrus, 486 F. Supp. 326 (D.D.C. 1979) (NEPA completeness and timing; discussion of data availability)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 563 F.3d 466 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (multi-stage ESA/OCSLA analysis; leasing implications)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., 871 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (S.D. Ala. 2012) (ESA consultation and lease-sale stage considerations)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., 684 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2012) (reinitiation of consultation and reliance on prior biological opinions)
- Nevada v. Dep’t of Energy, 457 F.3d 78 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (rule of reason and agency timelines in NEPA)
- Tribal Village of Akutan v. Hodel, 869 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1989) (ESA consultation and staged review; no jeopardy considerations)
- Wyoming Outdoor Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 165 F.3d 43 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (irreversible/irretrievable commitments; leasing context)