Center For Biological Diversity v. The Bureau Of Land Management

Facts

The Monterey Shale Formation is a massive sedimentary rock formation estimated to contain over 15 billion barrels of oil, equal to 64 percent of the nation's total shale oil reserve, most of which is not retrievable through conventional drilling techniques. The shale oil remains locked deep within the impermeable shale itself, which is currently only economically accessible through fracking. D manages federal onshore oil and gas resources subject to the requirements of the MLA and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). D is required to undergo a 'three-phase decision-making process' in granting access to public lands for oil and gas development. D must prepare a Resource Management Plan (RMP) covering a general regional area. D then can lease specific parcels. Lessees then submit applications for drilling permits to D. In June 2006, D prepared a Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) to govern management of the Southern Mountain Diablo Range and Central Coast of California. It outlined the plan for managing approximately 274,000 acres of land and 588,197 acres of 'split estate.' The plan projected that no more than 15 wells would be drilled within the next 15-20 years, based on a survey of past oil and gas activities within the boundaries of the HFO and the very small amount of federal mineral estate within the areas of high development potential. The HFO also analyzed the environmental impacts of proposed leasing in the HFO area. After publishing the report and receiving comments from the public, D adopted the PRMP/FEIS in September 2007 in its Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD established certain management requirements for activities and projects expected to take place on the lands at issue, including mitigation requirements and oil and gas stipulations that would be applied to new leases issued. D proposed a competitive oil and gas lease sale for approximately 35,000 acres in the HFO area but in April 2011, D announced a decidedly scaled-down proposed lease sale for approximately 2,700 acres and issued a corresponding draft Environmental Assessment (EA). During the 36-day public comment period for the EA, D received comments from several individuals, agencies, and organizations, including Ps. Many comments centered on the potential effects of fracking as well as climate change. D noted 'these issues are outside the scope of this EA because they are not under the authority or within the jurisdiction of D.' In June 2011, having considered and addressed the public comments it received, D issued its final EA. The EA evaluated the environmental impacts of different alternatives. Critically, the EA also provided a projection on the extent of drilling activity to be conducted and the impact of such drilling activity. D assumed that no more than one exploratory well would be drilled in total on the land within the leases. Most of the active prior oil and gas development had occurred almost completely within a 188,000-acre 'administrative field' area-and only 5,400 of these acres are federal mineral estate. The EA did not discuss fracking in great detail beyond noting that it was 'not relevant to the analysis of impacts... because the reasonably foreseeable development scenario anticipates very little (if any) disturbance to the human environment.' On June 16, 2011, D executed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), announcing his determination that the proposed action would not result in any significant environmental impact requiring further analysis under NEPA. D issued its final Decision Record documenting its decision to offer for competitive oil and gas lease auction of eight parcels encompassing the 2,703 acres of federal mineral estate. D stated that a further NEPA review would be conducted at the APD stage and '[a]lthough a lessee generally has the right to develop a lease, D retains the authority to require proposals to be relocated or redesigned in such a way as to protective sensitive resources.' Ps and others immediately protested the sales and expressed concerns with deficiencies in the environmental review for the proposed Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale pending September 14, 2011. D successfully auctioned leases in three parcels. D issued all four leases with its 'standard' stipulations as well as three Special Stipulations. D issued all four leases with its 'standard' stipulations as well as three Special Stipulations. All four parcels contain Special Stipulation No. 1 (Endangered Species Stipulation) and Special Stipulation No. 2 (Cultural Resource Stipulation) some of the parcels Stipulation No. 3, a 'No Surface Occupancy' (NSO) stipulation. Ps sued and moved for summary judgment because D violated NEPA. D argues that its obligation to conduct NEPA analysis had not yet accrued, and even if it did, it satisfied this obligation by conducting an EA and finding the proposed action carried no significant environmental impact requiring a full EIS.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2025 ABN Study Partner.