Free tier, this brief uses 1 of 2 remaining for the month.Resets May 1
¶BOEM published a Notice of Intent to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) covering up to six offshore oil and gas lease sales across the Northern, Central, and Southern California Outer Continental Shelf planning areas. The docket drew an overwhelming volume of public opposition, dominated by individual Californians citing spill risk, marine ecosystem damage, and harm to coastal tourism and fisheries economies. A smaller number of organizations, government bodies, and Tribal groups submitted more detailed legal and scientific comments, while a handful of commenters expressed support for leasing on grounds of energy security or employment. The loudest recurring concerns are the inadequacy of a single programmatic review for an 840-mile coastline, BOEM's stated intention not to hold public hearings or issue a draft PEIS for comment, and the threat to National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine Protected Areas. A significant share of comments are near-identical form letters from at least two distinct advocacy templates.🔒1🔒2🔒3
07Document timeline
1 source documents
2026-02-27
NOI
Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Oil and Gas Lease Sales in the Northern, Central, and Southern California Program Areas
BOEM is preparing a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for proposed oil and gas lease sales in the Northern, Central, and Southern California Outer Continental Shelf Program Areas, covering roughly 26.2 million hectares (approximately 65 million acres) of the Pacific Ocean. The PEIS will analyze three alternatives: Alternative A (full lease sale across all three program areas), Alternative B (no action), and Alternative C (lease sale limited to blocks developable from existing Southern California infrastructure). Potential impacts include air and water quality, benthic habitats, marine mammals, birds, and cultural resources. BOEM will not issue a draft PEIS for public comment; scoping comments are due by March 30, 2026.
Commenters invoke the 1969 Santa Barbara blowout, 2015 Refugio spill, and 2021 Huntington Beach pipeline rupture as proof that spills are inevitable and that cleanup on California's rugged, inaccessible coastline is impossible.
"Since 1969, the United States has experienced dozens of major offshore spills, with hundreds of thousands of gallons leaking annually. Allowing additional drilling only increases the likelihood of future disasters that can immediately shut down fisheries, tourism, and coastal businesses."
Representative quote, cluster 01
Commenters argue that California's coastal economy (tourism, recreation, fishing, surfing) generates roughly $45-51 billion annually and that even a minor spill would devastate these industries far more than any oil revenue could offset.
"California's coastal economy generates roughly $45 billion annually and supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, including in areas near the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary."
Representative quote, cluster 02
Commenters argue that the five California National Marine Sanctuaries (Monterey Bay, Greater Farallones, Cordell Bank, Channel Islands, Chumash Heritage) are legally and morally off-limits, and that the PEIS has not committed to excluding them.
"The point of a marine sanctuary is for it to be a sanctuary."
Representative quote, cluster 03
Commenters object that BOEM plans no in-person public meetings and no draft PEIS for public review, calling this a violation of environmental democracy and demanding hearings in coastal communities before any review is finalized.
"For a proposal of this magnitude — covering 65 million acres of the Pacific Ocean and six proposed lease sales — eliminating public hearings and draft comment periods represents a fundamental failure of environmental democracy."
Representative quote, cluster 04
Commenters argue that using one programmatic document to cover all three planning areas is a novel approach never used in California, that it cannot substitute for site-specific NEPA review, and that each area requires its own analysis.
"This approach has never been used in California — only in the Gulf of Mexico — and is wholly inadequate for a coastline of this ecological complexity and legal significance."
Representative quote, cluster 05
Commenters argue that new offshore leasing contradicts federal and state climate goals, locks in decades of greenhouse gas emissions, and contradicts IEA guidance against new fossil fuel development.
"Expanding fossil fuel extraction in federal waters would lock in decades of additional greenhouse gas emissions at a time when the United States must rapidly transition to clean energy."
Representative quote, cluster 06
Commenters cite that the US is already the world's largest oil producer and a net exporter, holds over 1,800 unused leases covering 10 million acres, and therefore has no legitimate energy-security justification for new California leasing.
"The United States is already a net oil exporter and remains so; claims of an 'energy crisis' are misleading and largely serve to justify continued extraction for export and profit rather than public need."
Representative quote, cluster 07
Commenters cite threats to blue and gray whales, sea otters, leatherback sea turtles, kelp forests, seabirds, rockfish, and the Pacific Flyway, with particular concern for seismic survey noise, chronic pollution, and habitat fragmentation.
"Offshore drilling poses severe risks of oil spills, chronic hydrocarbon leakage, seismic disturbance from exploration activities, and long-term habitat degradation — threats from which these ecosystems may not recover for decades, if ever."
Representative quote, cluster 08
A small minority of commenters support new lease sales, citing energy independence, national security, lower gasoline prices, and arguing that platforms can support marine life and that natural seeps already release more oil than controlled drilling.
"I fully support and encourage the proposed offshore oil and gas lease sales in the Northern, Central, and Southern California planning areas of the Outer Continental Shelf. I firmly believe these are vitally important to our countries self sustainability, energy security and National Security."
Representative quote, cluster 09
Hundreds of comments use near-identical text (two primary templates) calling for No Action Alternative B, citing the $45 billion coastal economy, 308,000 prior comments, and requesting a full PEIS compliant with federal law.
"For these reasons, BOEM must prepare a robust PEIS that fully complies with federal law and adopt the most reasonable alternative, Alternative B (No Action)."
Representative quote, cluster 10
Commenters argue that California has enacted a permanent ban on new offshore drilling, that local ordinances block onshore infrastructure, that Tribal cultural resources and treaty rights require government-to-government consultation, and that CZMA consistency review cannot be bypassed.
"Federal lease sales in these waters would proceed in direct defiance of the communities most affected. California has consistently opposed offshore oil and gas development and has enacted strong coastal protections under the California Coastal Act."