## Facts

- The Department of the Interior (DOI) conducted Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease Sale No. 39 in the Gulf of Alaska, offering over one million acres for oil and gas leasing.
- Environmental studies sponsored by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) identified the Eastern Gulf of Alaska as posing especially high environmental risks from OCS development.
- DOI prepared and circulated a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the lease sale for agency and public review.
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended delaying the sale to allow additional environmental study; CEQ concurred and also recommended postponement.
- The Secretary of the Interior decided to proceed, reasoning that the principal hazards were already understood and that further studies were unlikely to change the overall risk picture enough to justify delay.
- The State of Alaska sued to enjoin the sale, arguing the EIS was inadequate under NEPA and that DOI lacked discretion to proceed in the face of EPA/CEQ objections.
- The sale occurred and leases were issued; exploratory drilling began under DOI operating orders regulating exploration and drilling.

## Issues

1. Whether the EIS for OCS Lease Sale No. 39 satisfied NEPA’s requirement for a detailed analysis of likely environmental consequences and reasonable alternatives despite gaps in baseline data.
2. Whether NEPA required postponing the lease sale until further studies were completed, particularly given EPA and CEQ recommendations to delay.
3. What remedy was appropriate after the sale occurred and exploration was underway, including whether to set aside the sale or enjoin drilling.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit declined to set aside Lease Sale No. 39 and declined to enjoin ongoing exploratory drilling.
- The court held that EPA and CEQ recommendations were important but not binding and did not give those agencies veto authority over DOI’s decision.
- The court accepted that NEPA does not demand complete scientific certainty before an agency acts, so long as the EIS provides a reasonably thorough discussion of probable consequences and acknowledges uncertainty.
- The court relied on the staged structure of OCS decision-making and treated leasing as an early step followed by later, more site-specific approvals.
- The court required that DOI’s promised environmental controls be given “meaningful effect” by promptly reconsidering existing operating orders and supporting that reconsideration with an EIS that includes discussion of alternatives.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA requires a reasonably thorough discussion of probable environmental consequences; it does not require an agency to eliminate all uncertainty or complete every potentially useful study before taking an initial programmatic step.
- NEPA permits tiered review in a multi-stage federal program: early-stage analysis may be more general if later approvals will trigger more detailed, action-specific environmental review.
- EPA and CEQ comments under NEPA are advisory; an action agency may proceed despite objections if it meaningfully considers and responds to them in its analysis and decision rationale.
- Remedies for NEPA violations are equitable and discretionary; courts may preserve completed transactions and protect reliance interests while ordering forward-looking compliance measures.

## Conclusion

The court left the Gulf of Alaska OCS lease sale intact and allowed exploration to continue, but required DOI to strengthen NEPA compliance going forward by promptly reconsidering exploration and drilling operating orders and preparing an EIS that addresses alternatives for that regulatory framework.


Alaska v. Andrus, 580 F.2d 465 (D.C. Cir. 1978)