ELR Citation: 52 ELR 20104
No(s). 20-5179 (D.C. Cir. Aug 30, 2022)

The D.C. Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part summary judgment for DOI in a challenge to a supplemental EIS that BOEM prepared for two oil and gas lease sales in 2018. Three environmental groups had argued that BOEM failed to assess a true “no action” alternative because it assumed energy development would occur sooner or later, even if the two lease sales at issue did not; unreasonably assumed two rules designed to reduce the risk of oil and gas spills would remain in effect, despite the possibility of future modifications; and unreasonably assumed the rules would be effectively enforced, despite a report suggesting otherwise. The district court granted summary judgment to DOI, finding BOEM had reasonably assumed that development was inevitable, concluding that it did not need to consider whether existing rules would change, and accepting its assumption that DOI would adequately enforce the rules. The appellate court held DOI adequately considered the non-leasing option and reasonably refused to consider potential future regulatory changes, but unreasonably refused to consider possible deficiencies in enforcement. It reversed in part the grant of summary judgment and remanded for further agency consideration, but declined to vacate the supplemental EIS, the records of decision announcing the lease sales, or the leases issued through the sales.