Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

regulationcontinental shelf
regulationcontinental shelf

Related Cases

National Pork Producers Council v. U.S. E.P.A., 635 F.3d 738, 72 ERC 2205
View Case »
In re Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 88 S.Ct. 1344, 20 L.Ed.2d 312, 75 P.U.R.3d 257
View Case »
Chevron USA, Inc. v. Bronster, 363 F.3d 846, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2792, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3258, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4021, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4637
View Case »
Safe Food and Fertilizer v. E.P.A., 350 F.3d 1263, 57 ERC 1694, 358 U.S.App.D.C. 416, 34 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,006
View Case »
Trinity Episcopal School Corp. v. Romney, 387 F.Supp. 1044
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, 982 F.3d 723, 20 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12,672, 2020 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,976

Facts

Hilcorp Alaska, LLC sought to construct an offshore drilling and production facility known as the Liberty project in the Beaufort Sea, estimated to contain 120 million barrels of recoverable oil. The project required approval from BOEM, which is governed by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and must comply with NEPA, ESA, and MMPA. Conservation groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, argued that BOEM's environmental impact statement (EIS) was inadequate and that the agency failed to comply with the necessary environmental regulations.

Hilcorp Alaska, LLC sought to construct an offshore drilling and production facility known as the Liberty project in the Beaufort Sea, estimated to contain 120 million barrels of recoverable oil. The project required approval from BOEM, which is governed by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and must comply with NEPA, ESA, and MMPA. Conservation groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, argued that BOEM's environmental impact statement (EIS) was inadequate and that the agency failed to comply with the necessary environmental regulations.

Issue

Did BOEM comply with NEPA, ESA, and MMPA in approving the Liberty project, particularly regarding the adequacy of the environmental impact statement and the consideration of foreign oil consumption?

Did BOEM comply with NEPA, ESA, and MMPA in approving the Liberty project, particularly regarding the adequacy of the environmental impact statement and the consideration of foreign oil consumption?

Rule

Under NEPA, an EIS must evaluate the environmental consequences of a proposed action and consider reasonable alternatives, including a no-action alternative. The ESA requires that federal agencies ensure their actions do not jeopardize endangered species or adversely modify their habitats.

Under NEPA, an EIS must evaluate the environmental consequences of a proposed action and consider reasonable alternatives, including a no-action alternative. The ESA requires that federal agencies ensure their actions do not jeopardize endangered species or adversely modify their habitats.

Analysis

The court analyzed BOEM's EIS and found that while the agency did not use different methodologies for calculating emissions from the action and no-action alternatives, it failed to include foreign oil consumption in its analysis. This omission was deemed significant as it misrepresented the potential environmental impacts of the project. The court emphasized that NEPA requires consideration of both direct and indirect effects, and the failure to account for foreign oil consumption constituted a violation of NEPA's requirements.

The court analyzed BOEM's EIS and found that while the agency did not use different methodologies for calculating emissions from the action and no-action alternatives, it failed to include foreign oil consumption in its analysis. This omission was deemed significant as it misrepresented the potential environmental impacts of the project. The court emphasized that NEPA requires consideration of both direct and indirect effects, and the failure to account for foreign oil consumption constituted a violation of NEPA's requirements.

Conclusion

The court vacated and remanded BOEM's approval of the Liberty project, requiring further analysis to adequately consider the indirect effects of foreign oil consumption on greenhouse gas emissions.

The court vacated and remanded BOEM's approval of the Liberty project, requiring further analysis to adequately consider the indirect effects of foreign oil consumption on greenhouse gas emissions.

Who won?

Center for Biological Diversity and the conservation groups prevailed in part, as the court found that BOEM's EIS was inadequate for failing to consider foreign oil consumption, which is a significant indirect effect of the proposed drilling.

Center for Biological Diversity and the conservation groups prevailed in part, as the court found that BOEM's EIS was inadequate for failing to consider foreign oil consumption, which is a significant indirect effect of the proposed drilling.

You must be