Oceana v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil rig spilled 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf); it was the largest oil spill in United States history. After the spill, as required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the government agency responsible for offshore oil leases, reinitiated consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to update NMFS’s existing biological opinion regarding the impact of oil-lease sales on the Gulf’s endangered species. Before completing the update, BOEM approved two Gulf oil-lease sales. Subsequently, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), BOEM issued a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for the Gulf oil-leases that incorporated information from the DWH spill. The SEIS stated that, barring another low-probability, catastrophic oil spill, there would be limited adverse environmental impact from continued oil-lease sales. The SEIS incorporated the DWH spill data into analyses about deepwater drilling effects and the impacts of catastrophic oil spills; however, it did not incorporate the DWH data into its updated risk-analysis table for oil spills because the DWH spill was an outlier. Oceana (plaintiff), a conservation nonprofit, sued BOEM, arguing that (1) the SEIS should have incorporated the DWH data into its updated risk-analysis; and (2) BOEM violated the ESA by restarting oil-lease sales before completing the updated biological opinion.