Case 1:21-cv-02317 Document 1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 1 of 52
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-2317
`
`FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
`1101 15th Street, NW
`11th Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`HEALTHY GULF
`100 Common Street
`Suite 902
`New Orleans, LA 70112,
`
`SIERRA CLUB
`2101 Webster Street
`Suite 1300
`Oakland, CA 94612,
`
`and,
`
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
`378 N Main Avenue
`Tucson, AZ 85701,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`v.
`
`DEBRA A. HAALAND, in her official capacity as
`SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
`1849 C Street NW
`Washington, DC 20240,
`
`LAURA DANIEL-DAVIS, in her official capacity
`as ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
`FOR LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT
`1849 C Street NW
`Washington, DC 20240,
`
`U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
`1849 C Street NW
`Washington, DC 20240,
`
`and,
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02317 Document 1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 2 of 52
`
`BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT
`1849 C Street NW
`Washington, DC 20240,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs Friends of the Earth, Healthy Gulf, Sierra Club, and Center for
`
`Biological Diversity challenge the unlawful decision by Secretary of the Interior Debra Haaland,
`
`acting through her delegated authority to Laura Daniel-Davis, the assistant secretary for land and
`
`minerals management, the Department of the Interior, and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
`
`(“the Bureau”) (collectively, “Interior”), to hold Offshore Oil and Gas Lease Sale 257 in the Gulf
`
`of Mexico in reliance on arbitrary environmental analyses, in violation of the National
`
`Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).
`
`2.
`
`President Biden’s administration has recognized that climate change presents
`
`immense harms and that bold, immediate actions are needed to achieve emission reductions and
`
`curb the climate emergency facing the globe. Despite this, the Biden administration’s Interior
`
`Department is holding Lease Sale 257. The sale will offer over 80 million acres of public waters
`
`to the oil and gas industry, making it the largest offshore lease sale in U.S. history. The lease sale
`
`will allow for new fossil fuel extraction over the next 50 years and will magnify greenhouse gas
`
`emissions worldwide.
`
`3.
`
`Lease Sale 257 will result in the production of up to 1.12 billion barrels and 4.4
`
`trillion cubic feet of fossil fuels over the next 50 years. The combustion of these fossil fuels for
`
`energy and transportation is the main human activity that emits carbon dioxide and contributes to
`
`a warming climate. The lease sale will thus contribute substantially to greenhouse gas pollution
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02317 Document 1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 3 of 52
`
`that, if not curbed, will exacerbate the climate crisis and burdens on communities in the Gulf of
`
`Mexico, which are already suffering from climate warming impacts like rising seas and
`
`worsening storms.
`
`4.
`
`On August 31, 2021, the Bureau released a Record of Decision to hold Lease Sale
`
`257 in the Fall of 2021.
`
`5.
`
`While the Bureau claimed to have assessed the environmental effects of the sale
`
`before reaching its decision, its irrational NEPA analysis substantially underestimates and fails to
`
`account for the environmental harm from this massive lease sale. The Bureau did not rationally
`
`evaluate the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions that will result from the sale, in violation of
`
`NEPA. According to the Bureau’s Record of Decision, producing up to 1.12 billion barrels of oil
`
`and 4.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that will result from the lease sale will not contribute to
`
`climate change. In fact, the Bureau’s environmental analysis incredulously asserts that burning
`
`those fossil fuels will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
`
`6.
`
`Interior also violated NEPA by relying on outdated NEPA analysis which by the
`
`time of the lease sale will be nearly five years old. The Bureau failed to update its analysis to
`
`include significant new information that demonstrates additional oil and gas leasing will
`
`exacerbate the climate crisis to an extent that the Bureau did not consider in its previous NEPA
`
`analysis. In addition, new information reveals that companies are increasingly drilling in deeper
`
`water with greater risks of accidents, undermining the Bureau’s previous assumptions that
`
`drilling will be concentrated in shallower areas. New information also shows that Gulf drilling
`
`threatens several newly listed species under the Endangered Species Act, including one of the
`
`most imperiled marine mammals on Earth (the Rice’s whale); that offshore well stimulation
`
`procedures like hydraulic fracturing are increasingly dangerous; that pipelines have not been
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02317 Document 1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 4 of 52
`
`adequately inspected or decommissioned; that there is a substantial new interest in leasing the
`
`Gulf for wind energy projects; and that the fossil fuel industry is increasingly harming frontline
`
`communities. This new information indicates that Lease Sale 257 will significantly affect the
`
`environment to an extent not previously considered.
`
`7.
`
`Interior’s arbitrary and capricious assumptions in its environmental analysis, and
`
`its failure to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement to fully evaluate significant
`
`new information about the effect of the lease sale violate NEPA and resulted in Interior making
`
`its lease sale decision without an adequate understanding of the environmental effects, including
`
`the full effects of the resulting greenhouse gas emissions.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiffs therefore ask this Court to declare that Interior’s decisions to hold Lease
`
`Sale 257 violates NEPA and the APA, to vacate the unlawful decision to hold Lease Sale 257,
`
`and to vacate or enjoin any leases issued pursuant to unlawful Lease Sale 257.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (federal
`
`question) and 5 U.S.C. §§ 702–706 (APA).
`
`10.
`
`Venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) because the Bureau’s
`
`headquarters are located in this District, a plaintiff resides in this district, and a substantial part of
`
`the events and omissions which gave rise to this action occurred in this District.
`
`11.
`
`This Court has authority to grant the requested relief in this case pursuant to the
`
`APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202.
`
`
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff FRIENDS OF THE EARTH (“FoE”) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit,
`
`PARTIES
`
`membership-based organization headquartered in Washington, DC. FoE currently has over 1.5
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02317 Document 1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 5 of 52
`
`million activists and over 140,000 members, located across all 50 states and the District of
`
`Columbia. FoE’s primary mission is to defend the environment and champion a more healthy
`
`and just world by collectively ensuring environmental and social justice, human dignity, and
`
`respect for human rights and peoples’ rights. FoE and its members are dedicated to fighting to
`
`reduce greenhouse gas emissions and domestic reliance on fossil fuels and support the temporary
`
`pause on oil and gas leasing on federal public lands and water. Specifically, FoE’s Climate &
`
`Energy and Oceans & Vessels programs directly engages in administrative and legal advocacy to
`
`protect the environment and society from climate change, pollution, and industrialization
`
`associated with fossil fuel development and greenhouse gas emissions. FoE’s members recreate
`
`and enjoy the waters and wildlife in the Gulf. For example, a Friends of the Earth member, who
`
`is also a member of Sierra Club, visits the Gulf of Mexico with his family to fish and recreate.
`
`He enjoys fishing, surfing, viewing the wildlife habitats, and visiting rescued turtles on South
`
`Padre Island. His enjoyment depends on a healthy environment and abundant marine wildlife
`
`protected from oil and gas impacts. Friends of the Earth brings this action for themselves and as
`
`representatives of its members.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff HEALTHY GULF is a network of community, conservation,
`
`environmental, and fishing groups and individuals committed to empowering people to protect
`
`and restore the natural resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Healthy Gulf’s purpose is to collaborate
`
`with and serve communities who love the Gulf of Mexico by providing research,
`
`communications, and coalition-building tools needed to reverse the long-pattern of over-
`
`exploitation of the Gulf’s natural resources. Healthy Gulf has been actively involved in efforts to
`
`strengthen oversight of the offshore oil and gas industry and end new oil and gas leasing in this
`
`region. Healthy Gulf is headquartered in New Orleans, La., with offices in Pensacola, Fla. and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02317 Document 1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 6 of 52
`
`Madison, Miss. Healthy Gulf’s members live in the five Gulf states of Texas, Louisiana,
`
`Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, and nationwide. For example, a member of Healthy Gulf is a
`
`small business owner of a Ship Island excursion company, which offers cruises to Ship Island,
`
`offshore from Mississippi, as well as dolphin watching cruises in the Gulf. The business has been
`
`in his family for generations. He relies on a healthy environment, clean waters, and healthy
`
`marine life to continue the family business which has already been impacted by oil and gas
`
`activities and resulting climate change. Healthy Gulf brings this action for itself and as
`
`representative of its members.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff SIERRA CLUB is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to exploring,
`
`enjoying, and protecting the wild places of the earth; to practicing and promoting the responsible
`
`use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources; to educating and enlisting humanity to protect and
`
`restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to using all lawful means to carry
`
`out these objectives. Sierra Club is one of the oldest and largest conservation groups in the
`
`country, with more than 800,000 members nationally in over 60 chapters in all of the 50 states,
`
`the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; including over 38,000 members in its Gulf chapters.
`
`Sierra Club members use the public lands and waters throughout the Gulf, including those that
`
`would be affected by oil and gas activities, for quiet recreation, aesthetic pursuits, and spiritual
`
`renewal. Sierra Club members further observe and enjoy wildlife found in the Gulf that may be
`
`harmed by oil and gas activities. Sierra Club brings this action for itself and as representative of
`
`its members.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (“Center”) is a nonprofit
`
`corporation that maintains offices across the United States and Baja California Sur, Mexico. The
`
`Center advocates for the protection of threatened and endangered species and their habitats
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02317 Document 1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 7 of 52
`
`through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center’s mission also includes protecting
`
`air quality, water quality, and public health. The Center’s Oceans Program focuses specifically
`
`on conserving marine ecosystems, and seeks to ensure that imperiled species such as marine
`
`mammals, corals, and sea turtles are properly protected from destructive practices in our oceans.
`
`The Oceans Program also works to protect coastal communities from the air pollution, water
`
`pollution, and other impacts that result from such practices. In pursuit of this mission, the Center
`
`has been actively involved in protecting the Gulf of Mexico from the harmful impacts of
`
`offshore oil and gas drilling. The Center has more than 84,300 members, including members
`
`who live and recreate throughout the Gulf of Mexico region. These members appreciate and
`
`benefit from wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico, such as Rice’s whales, sperm whales, loggerhead sea
`
`turtles, Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, leatherback sea turtles, and corals threatened by noise
`
`pollution, vessel traffic, oil spills, and/or climate pollution caused by oil and gas activity. For
`
`example, the Center has a member who regularly visits the Gulf of Mexico to enjoy marine
`
`wildlife. They go to the Gulf of Mexico to observe whales, sea turtles, and other marine
`
`mammals. This member works to advocate for wildlife protections from threats such as oil and
`
`gas development, pollution, and habitat destruction. Additionally, the Center’s member has a
`
`strong interest in conserving sea turtles, often visiting Gulf sea turtle habitat and nesting beaches.
`
`The Center brings this action for itself and as representative of its members.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ members and staff regularly use, enjoy, and benefit from
`
`the marine and coastal environments of the Gulf of Mexico, including waters within and adjacent
`
`to the five Gulf states. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ members and staff regularly enjoy and benefit
`
`from the presence of healthy marine and avian life within those environments for recreational,
`
`aesthetic, commercial, scientific, and environmental purposes, including whale watching, bird
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02317 Document 1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 8 of 52
`
`watching, scientific study, boat touring, underwater diving, fishing, photography, and beach
`
`bathing. Lease Sale 257 will directly and irreparably injure these interests. Lease Sale 257 will,
`
`for example, increase vessel traffic and noise pollution and increase the risk of oil spills and
`
`other accidents; it will also increase greenhouse gas emissions. The abilities of Plaintiffs and
`
`Plaintiffs’ members and staff to pursue these interests hinge on the health of the marine, coastal,
`
`and estuarine ecosystems (with clean water and oil-free beaches) and the well-being of the
`
`species that live, migrate, feed, and breed in areas affected by oil and gas activities. Interior is
`
`authorizing oil and gas development without a full and accurate analysis of its impacts or
`
`reasoned consideration of how to avoid or mitigate those impacts. As a result, Interior is enabling
`
`new oil and gas development to negatively impact the environment in which Plaintiffs and
`
`Plaintiffs’ members and staff have an interest. The interests of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ members
`
`and staff have been, are being, and will be adversely affected by Interior’s violations of federal
`
`law, as described herein. These harms can only be remedied if Interior is forced to comply with
`
`the requirements of NEPA and the APA. Were Interior directed to complete the required NEPA
`
`analysis, it could require additional environmental mitigation of the lease sale’s impacts or adopt
`
`alternatives that would minimize or avoid such impacts in the first place. Plaintiffs have no other
`
`adequate remedy at law.
`
`17.
`
`Interior’s failure to comply with NEPA by relying on flawed analysis and by
`
`failing to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement also deprives Plaintiffs and
`
`their members of procedural rights and information guaranteed by the statute. Plaintiffs and their
`
`members have and will continue to advocate regarding Gulf oil and gas leasing and its
`
`environmental impacts; seek to discuss the issue with relevant decisionmakers to encourage
`
`consideration of alternatives that would avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental harm; and
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02317 Document 1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 9 of 52
`
`seek to provide information to the public and the media regarding the lease sale and its impacts
`
`on the sensitive environmental resources of the Gulf of Mexico. If Interior had complied with
`
`NEPA, the process would have generated additional information on the sale’s impacts to the
`
`species, climate, and other environmental resources in which Plaintiffs and their members have
`
`an interest. Plaintiffs and their members would have access to this information and be better
`
`informed about the program and its impacts, improving their ability to participate in
`
`decisionmaking and to suggest potential mitigation. Interior’s failure deprives them of this
`
`information and the ability to comment on a draft NEPA analysis. If Interior is required to redo
`
`its NEPA analysis and/or prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement, these
`
`informational and procedural injuries would be redressed.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant DEBRA A. HAALAND is sued in her official capacity as the
`
`Secretary of the Interior. She is the chief officer of the Department of the Interior charged with
`
`overseeing the proper administration and implementation of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
`
`Act (“OCSLA”). OSCLA vests authority in the Secretary of the Interior to hold oil and gas lease
`
`sales on the Outer Continental Shelf and to issue leases. The Secretary of the Interior is required
`
`to comply with NEPA when taking any action affecting the environment.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant LAURA DANIEL-DAVIS is sued in her official capacity as the
`
`Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management. The Assistant Secretary
`
`for Land and Minerals Management is the official to whom the Secretary has delegated authority
`
`to sign records of decision to hold lease sales under OCSLA. The Assistant Secretary for Land
`
`and Minerals Management is required to comply with NEPA when taking any action affecting
`
`the environment.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR is the federal department
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02317 Document 1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 10 of 52
`
`with authority, through the Secretary, under OCSLA to hold oil and gas lease sales on the Outer
`
`Continental Shelf and to issue leases. The Department of the Interior is required to comply with
`
`NEPA when taking any action affecting the environment.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT is the federal
`
`agency within the Department of the Interior to which the Secretary has delegated authority
`
`under OCSLA to hold oil and gas lease sales on the Outer Continental Shelf and to issue leases.
`
`The Bureau is required to comply with NEPA when taking any action affecting the environment.
`
`STATUTORY BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
`
`22.
`
`NEPA is this country’s “basic national charter for protection of the environment.”
`
`40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(2019);1 see 42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq. Its purpose is to “promote efforts which
`
`will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4321. The Council on
`
`Environmental Quality has promulgated regulations implementing NEPA, which are “binding on
`
`all federal agencies.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.3; see id. §§ 1500.1–1508.28.
`
`23.
`
`Congress enacted NEPA to ensure that federal agencies incorporate
`
`environmental concerns into the decisionmaking process. 42 U.S.C. § 4331(a)–(b). To that end,
`
`NEPA has two principal purposes: (1) to ensure agencies evaluate prospectively the
`
`environmental impacts of proposed actions that they carry out, fund, or authorize; and (2) to give
`
`the public a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. NEPA ensures
`
`that detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts “will be made available
`
`
`1 The Council on Environmental Quality recently revised its regulations implementing NEPA. 85
`Fed. Reg 43,304 (July 16, 2020). Those new regulations do not apply to the NEPA analyses at
`issue here, which began in August 2016. 81 Fed. Reg. 55,480 (Aug. 19, 2016). See also 85 Fed.
`Reg. at 43,372, 43,340 (stating new regulations only “apply to any NEPA process begun after
`September 14, 2020”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02317 Document 1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 11 of 52
`
`to the larger [public] audience that may [] play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the
`
`implementation of that decision.” Robertson v. Methow Vally Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332,
`
`349 (1989).
`
`24.
`
`NEPA requires all agencies of the federal government to prepare a “detailed
`
`statement” regarding all “major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
`
`environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). This statement, known as an Environmental Impact
`
`Statement (“EIS”), must describe: (1) the “environmental impact of the proposed action”; (2) any
`
`“adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented”;
`
`(3) “alternatives to the proposed action”; (4) “the relationship between local short-term uses of
`
`man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity”; and
`
`(5) any “irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources which would be involved in the
`
`proposed action should it be implemented.” Id.; see also 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1.
`
`25.
`
`The decision to hold Lease Sale 257 is a major federal action subject to the
`
`requirements of NEPA. The Bureau is required to ensure it complies with the requirements of
`
`NEPA before holding the lease sale.
`
`26.
`
`Under NEPA, “agencies must ‘take a “hard look” at [the] environmental
`
`consequences’ of their actions, and ‘provide for broad dissemination of relevant environmental
`
`information.’” Pub. Emps. for Env’t Resp. v. Hopper, 827 F.3d 1077, 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2016)
`
`(alteration in original) (quoting Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350). The EIS must fully consider and
`
`disclose the potential environmental impacts of proposed actions and alternatives to that action to
`
`take the “hard look” NEPA requires. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4, 1502.1,
`
`1502.5.
`
`27.
`
`NEPA requires agencies to use high quality, accurate scientific information and to
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02317 Document 1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 12 of 52
`
`ensure the scientific integrity of their analyses. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500.1(b), 1502.24.
`
`28.
`
`To comply with NEPA, an agency must consider the site-specific impacts of the
`
`action as well as the cumulative impact of the proposed action when combined with other past,
`
`present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.7, .8, .25, .27.
`
`29.
`
`An EIS must analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed
`
`action and any identified alternatives thereto. Id. § 1508.25. Direct effects are those effects
`
`“which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.” Id. § 1508.8(a). Indirect
`
`effects are those effects “which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed
`
`in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.” Id. § 1508.8(b). Cumulative effects are those
`
`that “result[] from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
`
`reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or
`
`person undertakes such other actions.” Id. § 1508.7. “Effects include ecological (such as the
`
`effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected
`
`ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or
`
`cumulative.” Id. § 1508.8.
`
`30.
`
`Downstream greenhouse gas emissions, which are those that result from
`
`reasonably foreseeable transportation, processing, and especially combustion of fossil fuels, are
`
`effects that the agency must quantify and analyze. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Fed. Energy Regul.
`
`Comm’n, 867 F.3d 1357, 1373–74 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
`
`31.
`
`The Bureau’s NEPA obligations do not end with the preparation of an EIS. NEPA
`
`and its implementing regulations impose a continuing duty on agencies to prepare a
`
`supplemental EIS if a major federal action remains to occur and when “(i) The agency makes
`
`substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or (ii)
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02317 Document 1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 13 of 52
`
`There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and
`
`bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.” 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.9(c)(1)(i), (ii). An agency may
`
`also prepare “supplements when [it] determines that the purposes of [NEPA] will be furthered by
`
`doing so.” Id. § 1502.9(c)(2). An agency must prepare, circulate, and file a supplemental EIS “in
`
`the same fashion (exclusive of scoping) as a draft and final statement.” Id. § 1502.9(c)(4).
`
`32.
`
`NEPA requires that an agency incorporate its environmental analysis into its
`
`decision-making process. “NEPA’s purpose is not to generate paperwork—even excellent
`
`paperwork—but to foster excellent action.” Id. § 1500.1(c); see also id. (“Ultimately . . . it is not
`
`better documents but better decisions that count.”); id. § 1502.1 (“primary purpose” of an EIS is
`
`to “serve as an action-forcing device to insure that the policies and goals defined in the Act are
`
`infused into the ongoing programs and actions of the Federal Government. . . . An environmental
`
`impact statement is more than a disclosure document. It shall be used by Federal officials in
`
`conjunction with other relevant material to plan actions and make decisions.”).
`
`33.
`
`The NEPA data and analyses supporting an agency’s decision must be presented
`
`in the EIS. See id. § 1502.1. An agency may not rely on its Record of Decision to alter or
`
`augment its analyses or cure deficiencies in an EIS.
`
`II.
`
`OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT
`
`34.
`
`OCSLA governs the leasing, exploration, and development of oil and gas deposits
`
`in the Outer Continental Shelf. 43 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq. The Outer Continental Shelf extends
`
`from the outer boundary of state waters—typically three nautical miles from shore—to the outer
`
`boundary of the United States’ Exclusive Economic Zone, 200 nautical miles from shore. Id.
`
`§§ 1301(a)(2), 1331(a); 48 Fed. Reg. 10,605 (Mar. 14, 1983).
`
`35.
`
`In 1978, Congress amended OCSLA to provide, in part, for the development of
`
`resources on the Outer Continental Shelf “subject to environmental safeguards.” 43 U.S.C. §
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02317 Document 1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 14 of 52
`
`1332(3); see Pub. L. No. 95-372, 92 Stat. 632 et seq.
`
`36.
`
`OCSLA charges the Secretary of the Interior with managing oil and gas activities
`
`on the Outer Continental Shelf. E.g., 43 U.S.C. §§ 1334(a), 1344(a).
`
`37.
`
`OCSLA prescribes four, tiered stages for the Secretary to sell and allow
`
`development of offshore oil and gas deposits: 1) five-year leasing programs; 2) lease sales;
`
`3) exploration plans; and 4) development and production plans. Id. §§ 1337, 1340, 1344, 1351.
`
`38.
`
`At the five-year program stage, the Secretary designates “the size, timing, and
`
`location of leasing activity” over an upcoming five-year period. Id. § 1344(a).
`
`39.
`
`At the lease sale stage, the Secretary offers for sale leases that “entitle the lessee
`
`to explore, develop, and produce the oil and gas contained within the lease area,” subject to
`
`certain approvals. Id. § 1337. A lessee may conduct ancillary activities on its lease without any
`
`further federal approval under OCSLA. 30 C.F.R. §§ 550.105, .207–.209. These activities
`
`include geological and geophysical exploration, such as seismic reflection and refraction to
`
`detect the presence of oil or gas, and other surveys that are needed to determine how to explore
`
`or develop a lease. Id. §§ 550.105, .207.
`
`40.
`
`The Bureau is the federal agency within the Department of the Interior to which
`
`the Secretary has delegated authority to manage leasing, exploration, development, and
`
`production of oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf under OCSLA. 30 C.F.R.
`
`§ 550.101.
`
`41.
`
`The Bureau begins the lease sale process by preparing and publishing a proposed
`
`notice of lease sale. Id. § 556.304.
`
`42.
`
`The Bureau publishes a final notice of sale at least 30 days before holding the
`
`lease sale. Id. § 556.308(a).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02317 Document 1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 15 of 52
`
`43.
`
`The Bureau awards and executes leases once the winning bidder files the
`
`necessary paperwork and fees. Id. § 556.520. A lease becomes effective on the first day of the
`
`month after the Bureau executes the lease. Id. § 556.521.
`
`III.
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
`
`44.
`
`The APA confers a right of judicial review on any person who is adversely
`
`affected by agency action. 5 U.S.C. § 702.
`
`45.
`
`The APA provides that the reviewing court “shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside
`
`agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
`
`discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id. § 706(2)(A).
`
`46.
`
`Under the APA, a court shall also “hold unlawful and set aside” any agency
`
`action that was promulgated “without observance of procedure required by law.” Id. § 706(2)(D).
`
`47.
`
`The APA also provides that the reviewing court “shall compel agency action
`
`unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” Id. § 706(1).
`
`48.
`
`The adequacy of an agency’s NEPA analysis and its compliance with NEPA’s
`
`requirements is reviewed under the APA.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`I.
`
`LEASE SALE 257
`
`49.
`
`On November 18, 2020, the Bureau first announced the availability of the
`
`Proposed Notice of Sale for Lease Sale 257 in the Gulf of Mexico. 85 Fed. Reg. 73,508 (Nov.
`
`18, 2020). The notice proposed a regionwide sale, which would offer for lease nearly all
`
`unleased areas in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico, as well as additional unleased areas in
`
`the Eastern Gulf that are not subject to Congressional moratorium.
`
`50.
`
`On the last day of the Trump administration’s term, the Bureau announced the
`
`availability of a Record of Decision to hold Lease Sale 257, as proposed, relying on flawed and
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02317 Document 1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 16 of 52
`
`outdated environmental analyses. See 86 Fed. Reg. 6365 (Jan. 21, 2021). The Record of Decision
`
`stated that the Bureau would make available 79.7 million acres for sale. Id.
`
`51.
`
`The Biden Administration initially rescinded the decision to hold Lease Sale 257
`
`in order to complete a comprehensive review of all Federal oil and gas activity, including climate
`
`impacts. 86 Fed. Reg. 10,132 (Feb. 18, 2021).
`
`52.
`
`Before completing the comprehensive review, however, the Bureau decided to
`
`reverse course on its rescission of the Lease Sale 257 decision document and opted to move
`
`forward with the lease sale. The Bureau signed a new Record of Decision on August 31, 2021, to
`
`hold the sale in Fall of 2021 and indicated a Final Notice of Sale for Lease Sale 257 would be
`
`published in September 2021.2 The Bureau increased the area made available for lease from
`
`approximately 79.7 million acres to 80.8 million acres.
`
`53.
`
`The Bureau predicts that Lease Sale 257 will result in the production of up to 1.12
`
`billion barrels of oil and 4.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Bureau expects production to
`
`continue on the leases sold for at least the next fifty years.
`
`II.
`
`THE RICH ECOSYSTEM OF THE GULF OF MEXICO
`
`54.
`
`The Gulf of Mexico is an extraordinary aesthetic, economic, and environmental
`
`resource to the five Gulf Coast states and the nation, supporting some of the most productive and
`
`biodiverse tropical and temperate ecosystems in the United States.
`
`55.
`
`The Gulf of Mexico is home to thousands of marine species, ranging from simple
`
`invertebrates, such as conchs and sponges, to complex and highly evolved fish and marine
`
`mammals. In addition, five of the world’s seven species of sea turtles, as well as hundreds of
`
`shore and coastal bird species, reside in or migrate through the Gulf of Mexico. Over 300 species
`
`
`2 The Record of Decision is posted at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/oil-
`gas-energy/GOM-LS-257.pdf.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02317 Document 1 Filed 08/31/21 Page 17 of 52
`
`of coral, as well as other hard-bottom communities, wetlands, seagrass beds, mangroves, and soft
`
`bottom communities, provide the habitats necessary to support this rich assemblage of marine
`
`life.
`
`56.
`
`Over two dozen marine and coastal bird species living in the Gulf of Mexico are
`
`listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, including Rice’s whale—
`
`one of the most endangered whales on the planet, with less than 50 individuals remaining.
`
`57.
`
`The Gulf of Mexico’s environmental beauty and productivity also support a
`
`robust economy. The region produces more than one-third of the nation’s domestic seafood
`
`supply. The Gulf’s commercial fisheries and coastal tourism generate more than $40 billion
`
`annually in economic act