ELR Citation: 52 ELR 20067
No(s). 19-55526, 19-55707, 19-55708, 19-55718, 19-55725, 19-55727, and 19-55728 (9th Cir. Jun 3, 2022)

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court's grant of summary judgment in a challenge to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement's authorization of well stimulation treatments on offshore oil drilling platforms in the Pacific outer continental shelf. Environmental groups and the state of California argued the agencies violated NEPA because their EA did not constitute a "hard look" at environmental impacts of allowing the treatments, and because they did not prepare an EIS. The district court concluded the agencies reasonably decided to conduct an EA rather than an EIS and took a sufficiently hard look at environmental impacts. The appellate court found that the agencies relied on an incorrect assumption that treatments would be infrequent and did not give adequate consideration to a reasonable range of alternatives, and that they should have prepared an EIS. The groups separately argued the agencies violated the ESA by failing to consult with FWS and NMFS to ensure the treatments would not jeopardize endangered species or their habitats. The appellate court found the district court correctly held the agencies failed to consult in violation of the ESA. California separately argued the agencies violated the CZMA because they did not conduct a consistency review to determine whether offshore well stimulation was consistent with the state's coastal management plan. The appellate court agreed with the district court that the treatments qualified as "federal agency activity" and required a consistency review. It reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment upholding the EA, and affirmed summary judgment for plaintiffs on their ESA and CZMA claims.