Norton

Appellants (“United States”) 1 granted “suspensions” of thirty-six oil leases off *1165 shore of central California pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 1334 (a)(1). The purpose of the lease suspensions was to extend the lives of the leases and to allow the lessees to “facilitate proper development of the lease[s].” 43 U.S.C. § 1334 (a)(1). Without the suspensions, the leases would have expired and the lessees would have lost all production rights because the lessees had not begun production in paying quantities and the term of the leases had elapsed. Id.

Appellee (“California”) asserted authority to review the lease suspensions for consistency with California’s Coastal Management Program pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451-1465 . California also objected to the lease suspensions on grounds that the United States failed to perform an environmental review of the lease suspensions pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 -4370f. The United States refused to submit the lease suspensions to California for review, claiming that lease suspensions are not subject to review by California under the terms of the Coastal Zone…