ELR Citation: 50 ELR 20098
No(s). 18-1674 (RBW) (D.D.C. Apr 21, 2020) (Walton, J.)

A district court granted summary judgment to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) in a challenge to the agency's decision to hold oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. Environmental groups argued that BOEM failed to evaluate a "true" no-action alternative in its EIS by assuming that the same environmental effects would occur regardless of whether it held the lease sales, in violation of NEPA. The court found that BOEM's conclusion that if a lease sale were to be cancelled, the resulting development of oil and gas would likely be postponed to a future lease sale and the cumulative level of outer continental shelf oil-and-gas-related activity would only be reduced by a small percentage was reasonable, because the Gulf of Mexico was a hotbed for oil and gas leases generally and it was very likely that even if the particular leases at issue were cancelled, other scheduled leases in the same area would present the same environmental risks. The groups next challenged BOEM's reliance in the EIS on the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement's (BSEE's) safety rules, because BOEM knew at the time it was preparing the EIS that BSEE was repealing significant portions of the rules. The court found it was not arbitrary or capricious for BOEM to issue the EIS without taking into account BSEE's proposed amendments because the rules had no legal effect at the time the EIS was issued. The groups also questioned BOEM's use of a higher royalty rate in its estimates of activity levels despite the fact that the Bureau had reduced the rate to increase bidding and lease activity, and its failure to discuss the rate reduction in its EIS. The court found the change in royalty rate did not create a significantly different picture of the effects of the lease sales, and thus did not require an EIS. It therefore denied the groups' motion for summary judgment and granted BOEM's cross-motion.