Opinion ID: 742736
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Oil and Gas Leasing (Count V)

Text: 120 Plaintiffs challenge the oil and gas leasing in the Shawnee on four main grounds: (1) the Forest Service does not have the authority to make oil and gas leasing a priority; (2) the FSEIS is inconsistent with the Hoosier National Forest FSEIS; (3) the Forest Service failed to analyze the effects of an oil spill; and (4) there is no discussion of oil and gas leasing in the cumulative effects analysis covering fish and wildlife. The Court will address each argument in turn. 121 Plaintiffs' first argument is straightforward. They contend that there is no law authorizing the Forest Service to make oil and gas leasing a priority. The Forest Service counters that the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (FOOGLRA), Pub.L. No. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-256 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 3148 (1988) and scattered sections of 30 U.S.C.), and its implementing regulations, 36 C.F.R. § 228.100 et seq. (1992), direct the Forest Service to identify suitable lands for oil and gas leasing. 122 The plaintiffs provide no statutory authority or case law stating that the Forest Service does not have the authority to make oil and gas leasing a priority. Instead, they state, without argument, that MUSYA prevents the Forest Service from making oil and gas leasing a priority. However, there is nothing in MUSYA that prevents the Forest Service from considering oil and gas as a resource to be managed and considered along with all of the other resources in the Shawnee. Furthermore, the Forest Service has a duty under FOOGLRA to consider oil and gas leasing. Thus, there is no merit to the plaintiffs' first contention. 123 Plaintiffs' second contention is that the FSEIS fails to discuss the reasons why oil and gas leasing is allowed in the Shawnee when it is not allowed in the Hoosier National Forest. The plaintiffs contend that this defect is fatal because the Shawnee and the Hoosier National Forest are similar. (See FSEIS at 4-57 (adapting a analysis of the Hoosier National Forest for use in analyzing the Shawnee because both Forests are part of the same geologic basin and are of similar ecological regimes.).) The Forest Service counters that the difference between the Hoosier National Forest and the Shawnee is that there is interest in oil and gas leasing in the Shawnee whereas in the Hoosier National Forest there is not. The plaintiffs reply that the Forest Service's rationale is a post-hoc justification that cannot be upheld by the Court. 124 Although the Court agrees with the plaintiffs that post-hoc justifications do not suffice, this does not mean that the analysis of oil and gas leasing in the Shawnee is insufficient. The Forest Service is required to analyze the environmental effects of oil and gas leasing. It is not necessarily required to explain why its decision in one forest differs from that in another. There are some situations, such as the all-terrain vehicles issue discussed below, where the Forest Service has information from one forest that has implications for the environmental effects on another forest. Here, however, the difference in the two plans seemed to be the interest in oil and gas leasing in the Shawnee as compared to almost complete opposition in the Hoosier National Forest. Admittedly, this explanation is not in the FSEIS, but rather in the Forest Service's brief. Nevertheless, although this is a post-hoc rationalization, the Court does not believe that the Forest Service must document why its decision in one forest is different from another forest unless there is environmental information developed with respect to one forest that has a bearing on the other forest. Therefore, since the difference here is based on public support (or the lack thereof), rather than on environmental effects, the Court does not believe that it was arbitrary and capricious for the Forest Service to omit discussing the Hoosier National Forest in the FSEIS with respect to the oil and gas leasing. 125 The plaintiffs' third contention is that the FSEIS is deficient because the Forest Service does not discuss the environmental effects of an oil spill. It is true that the Forest Service does not discuss the effects of an oil spill in the FSEIS. However, the FSEIS does contain a general discussion of the possibility of a spill, stating: 126 In addition, long experience with oil and gas production on federal leases has demonstrated that accidental discharge of contaminants from drill sites or production facilities is extremely rare. For example: according to BLM [Bureau of Land Management] records, of the 98 wells drilled on federal leases in the Northeastern Region over the last five years, only one has experienced such a release (on Department of Defense land); it was small (about 10 barrels of oil), contained in the designed facility, and stopped quickly; no water was contaminated. It was caused when oil-haulers went on strike and one of the storage tanks over-flowed before the operator could shut-in the well. 127 (FSEIS at 4-62.) Based on this paragraph, the fact that oil and gas leasing will take place on only 10-20 acres of the Shawnee, and the fact that the mitigating measures are discussed, the Forest Service contends that the effects of an oil spill have been discussed. 128 Contrary to the Forest Service's assertion, however, the actual effect of an oil spill has not been discussed. What the Forest Service has done is: (1) explain that an oil spill is unlikely; (2) explain that the oil and gas leasing will take place only on a small portion of the Shawnee; and (3) explain the steps that are taken to minimize the damage to the environment. However, none of these explanations analyzes the consequences if an oil spill were in fact to occur. 129 The Forest Service goes on to make two arguments as to why it need not discuss the effects of an oil spill. First, it contends, citing to Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766, 774 (1983), that the plaintiffs have not shown that the effects of an oil spill are in a reasonable chain of causation. Second, it contends that analyzing the effects of an oil spill is not necessary at the forest plan level because the effects of a spill will be discussed with respect to specific projects. 130 The Forest Service's first justification is without merit. In Metropolitan Edison, the Court held that the National Regulatory Commission need not consider the psychological effect on residents of reopening the Three Mile Island nuclear plant. Id. at 778. In reaching this holding, the Court stated, NEPA does not require the agency to assess every impact or effect of its proposed action, but only the impact or effect on the environment. Id. at 772. Thus, the Court was concerned with expanding the NEPA analysis ad infinitum beyond the effects on the environment. Here, however, the plaintiffs do not argue that the Forest Service failed to analyze some far-removed effect. Instead, they argue that the Forest Service failed to consider the effect of an oil spill on the environment. This is precisely the type of analysis mandated by NEPA and its implementing regulations. 131 The Forest Service's second justification, while having a surface appeal, is unavailing as well. The regulations implementing NEPA authorize the use of tiering. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.20 (1992); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.28 (1992). Tiering allows the Forest Service to undertake a broad analysis at the forest plan level and to analyze the specifics when an EIS or an Environmental Assessment (EA) is prepared for a specific project. 132 What the Forest Service has done here is not to tier but to omit. The Forest Service does not provide a broad, generalized discussion of the effects of an oil spill in the FSEIS. Rather, the Forest Service does not discuss the effects at all. The Court agrees with the Forest Service that it may wait until specific projects are proposed before providing a detailed analysis. However, this does not absolve the Forest Service from discussing the general effects of an oil spill in the FSEIS. 133 The Forest Service makes the contention that oil spill risk analysis at the leasing stage is usually speculative, and any deficiencies in the analysis 'at the lease sale stage are unlikely to result in environmental damage, as a lease sale does not directly mandate further activity that would raise an oil spill problem.'  (Consolidated Mem. (Doc. 26) at 43-44 (quoting Tribal Village of Akutan v. Hodel, 869 F.2d 1185, 1992 (9th Cir.1988)).) What the Forest Service does not state is that the internal quotation above was part of a discussion on the use of incomplete or speculative data. The Akutan case involved a situation where the Secretary of the Interior had discussed the effects of an oil spill, and the plaintiffs challenged the methodology and information used. Id. Thus, it does not stand for the proposition that an analysis of the effects of an oil spill is not required at the forest plan level. Rather, it stands for the proposition that such an analysis need not follow a particular methodology or contain a discussion of every assumption underlying a particular methodology. Id. Therefore, the Court finds that the Forest Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in failing to conduct at least a general analysis of the effects of an oil spill in the FSEIS. 134 The plaintiffs' final argument with respect to the oil and gas leasing is that the portion of the cumulative effects analysis discussing fish and wildlife does not mention oil and gas leasing at all. The Forest Service does not respond to this argument, either assuming that its argument as presented above would suffice, or perhaps because the portion of the cumulative effects analysis dealing with wildlife does not, in fact, mention oil and gas leasing. Suffice it to say that the Court's reasoning as detailed in part II.B.2 applies to this omission. The cumulative effects analysis is supposed to be precisely that, namely, an analysis of the effect of all the activities contemplated for the Shawnee taken as a whole. Obviously, this type of analysis requires that the Forest Service take all the activities, including oil and gas leasing, into account. The failure to consider oil and gas leasing in the discussion of the cumulative effects on fish and wildlife is arbitrary and capricious.