`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 21-cv-01827
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
`COUNCIL, INC.
`40 West 20th Street, 11th Floor
`New York, NY 10011
`
`AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
`ZOOLOGICAL PARKS AND
`AQUARIUMS INC. d/b/a Association of Zoos
`& Aquariums
`8403 Colesville Road, Suite 710
`Silver Spring, MD 20910
`(Montgomery County)
`
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
`378 N. Main Avenue
`Tucson, AZ 85701
`
`HEALTHY GULF
`1010 Common Street, #902
`New Orleans, LA 70112
`
`SURFRIDER FOUNDATION
`942 Calle Negocio, Suite 350
`San Clemente, CA 92673
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`JANET COIT,
`in her official capacity as
`Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
`National Marine Fisheries Service
`1315 East-West Highway
`Silver Spring, MD 20910
`(Montgomery County)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 2 of 61
`
`
`
`NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
`1315 East-West Highway
`
`
`
`Silver Spring, MD 20910
`(Montgomery County)
`
`NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
`ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
`1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 5128
`Washington, DC 20230
`
`GINA RAIMONDO, in her official capacity
`as Secretary of Commerce,
`United States Department of Commerce
`1401 Constitution Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20230
`
`BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY
`MANAGEMENT
`1849 C Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20240
`
`AMANDA LEFTON,
`in her official capacity as Director,
`Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
`1849 C Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20240
`
`DEB HAALAND,
`in her official capacity as Secretary of the
`Interior,
`United States Department of the Interior
`1849 C Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20240
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 3 of 61
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`This case arises from the federal government’s approval of seismic airgun
`
`surveys that will “take”—that is, disturb, injure, and even kill—countless marine
`
`mammals and other protected ocean species, some already on the brink of extinction.
`
`These federal approvals violated the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal
`
`Protection Act, and National Environmental Policy Act, and flouted the Administrative
`
`Procedure Act’s standards for reasoned agency decision-making.
`
`
`
`The ocean is an acoustic world. Sound travels far more efficiently
`
`underwater than through the air, and whales, dolphins, and other marine mammals
`
`depend on sound to find mates, forage, avoid predators, navigate, and communicate—
`
`in short, for virtually every life function. These animals are acutely sensitive to acoustic
`
`disturbance.
`
`
`
`The oil and gas industry uses seismic airgun surveys to locate fossil fuel
`
`deposits beneath the ocean floor. These surveys typically deploy arrays of airguns,
`
`which are towed behind ships across broad swaths of the ocean. While seismic surveys
`
`are useful for oil and gas prospecting, they have devastating impacts on marine life.
`
`
`
`Seismic airgun arrays fire intense blasts of energy into the water about
`
`every 10 to 12 seconds for days, weeks, or months at a time depending on the length of
`
`the survey. A large seismic array can produce effective levels of sound—above 250
`
`decibels—greater than that of virtually any other man-made source, save explosives.
`
`These noise blasts penetrate deep into the seafloor and rebound to the surface for
`
`analysis.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 4 of 61
`
`
`
`
`
`At close range, the intensity of the energy blasts fired from seismic airgun
`
`arrays can kill or physically injure marine life. The sound then radiates outward and is
`
`so powerful that it can still be heard thousands of miles away. Seismic surveys can
`
`therefore disrupt entire acoustic habitats, masking sound signals and interfering with
`
`behaviors that are essential to marine species’ feeding, mating, and rearing of young.
`
`
`
`In the Gulf of Mexico, seismic surveys are the dominant source of noise
`
`pollution, particularly in the low frequencies that are crucial for baleen and sperm
`
`whales. Due in substantial part to these surveys, ambient noise levels in the Gulf are
`
`among the highest measured anywhere on earth.
`
`
`
`At the core of this case is the government’s failure to satisfy its duties,
`
`under multiple statutes, to assess, minimize, and prevent unlawful harm from this
`
`highly disruptive activity.
`
`
`
`In March 2020, the National Marine Fisheries Service (“the Service”)
`
`issued a Biological Opinion under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that found that
`
`anticipated seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico would contribute to the extinction of
`
`the endangered Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale, of which only about 50 individual
`
`whales remain. Despite that conclusion, the Service then arbitrarily decided that minor
`
`mitigation measures—measures that would not reduce the number, location, or
`
`intensity of seismic surveys in any way—would nevertheless eliminate the extinction
`
`risk. This unexplained conclusion did not follow from the Service’s own factual
`
`findings, violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s standards for reasoned agency
`
`decision-making, and contravened the Service’s unequivocal statutory duty to assist
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 5 of 61
`
`
`
`federal agencies in “insur[ing] that [their actions] [are] not likely to jeopardize the
`
`continued existence of any endangered species,” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), (b).
`
`
`
`In January 2021, the day before a new administration took office, the
`
`Service published a rule (“the Seismic Rule”) that authorizes harm from five years of
`
`seismic airgun blasting in the Gulf of Mexico under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
`
`(MMPA), 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq. 86 Fed. Reg. 5322 (Jan. 19, 2021). The extent of harm
`
`allowed under the Seismic Rule is enormous. Under the rule, multiple airgun surveys
`
`may traverse the Gulf, on average, every hour of every day for the next five years,
`
`disrupting and in some cases injuring marine mammals more than eight million times
`
`over that period.
`
`
`
`The MMPA allows the Service to authorize the “incidental” take of “small
`
`numbers” of marine mammals only if certain conditions are met. 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1371(a)(5)(A)(i). Among other requirements, the incidental take must have no more
`
`than a “negligible impact” on marine mammal species or populations. Id. And the
`
`Service must require mitigation to minimize the impact to the species and their habitat
`
`to the “least practicable” level. Id. The Service violated those standards, authorizing the
`
`“take” of up to one-third of each species during each survey. The Service rested that
`
`decision on an unscientific surmise that the taking of a third of any species is a “small”
`
`number. The Service then compounded that error by failing to evaluate potentially
`
`practicable mitigation measures. For several of the Gulf’s marine mammals, including
`
`the endangered Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale, the authorized harm will not be
`
`“negligible.” See id. It will be devastating.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 6 of 61
`
`
`
`
`
`The Service and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management also violated
`
`the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by relying on an outdated
`
`environmental impact statement (EIS). NEPA “requires that [an] agency take a ‘hard
`
`look’ at environmental impacts before taking major actions.” Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v.
`
`Dep’t of Navy, 422 F.3d 174, 184 (4th Cir. 2005). Here, the Service and the Bureau failed
`
`to update their analysis—which by the time of their decisions was years old—to include
`
`the Service’s own ESA finding that the agencies’ actions would contribute to the
`
`potential extinction of the Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale. These agencies also violated
`
`NEPA by failing to address the presence of Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whales in areas of
`
`the Gulf where the Service and the Bureau intend to authorize nearly unrestricted
`
`seismic blasting. “The hallmarks of a ‘hard look’ are thorough investigation into
`
`environmental impacts and forthright acknowledgment of potential environmental
`
`harms.” Id. at 187 (citation omitted). The agencies’ efforts here “fell short in both
`
`regards.” Id.
`
`
`
`These government actions are unlawful and threaten to unnecessarily
`
`harm hundreds of thousands of marine mammals.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`
`This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question)
`
`and 5 U.S.C. § 702 (Administrative Procedure Act). The relief sought is authorized by 28
`
`U.S.C. § 2201(a) (declaratory relief), 28 U.S.C. § 2202 (injunctive relief), and 5 U.S.C.
`
`§ 706(2) (vacatur).
`
`
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (e)(1)
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 7 of 61
`
`
`
`because Defendant Janet Coit, in her official capacity as Assistant Administrator for
`
`Fisheries, has her office in this District; Defendant National Marine Fisheries Service’s
`
`headquarters are located in this District; Plaintiff American Association of Zoological
`
`Parks and Aquariums Inc. resides in this district (and no real property is involved in
`
`this action against agencies and officers of the United States); and a substantial part of
`
`the events and omissions which gave rise to this action occurred in this District,
`
`including:
`
`a. The Biological Opinion and Seismic Rule were signed by Donna Wieting and
`
`Samuel D. Rauch III, respectively, Service officials who work at the Service’s
`
`headquarters office in Silver Spring, Maryland, in this District;
`
`b. The Service was a consulting agency on the NEPA review led by the Bureau,
`
`and the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement was reviewed
`
`by Service staff and adopted by the Service as the NEPA document for the
`
`Seismic Rule in this District;
`
`c. A substantial portion of the work in preparing, reviewing, and approving
`
`these agency actions was done by those and other Service officials and staff at
`
`the Silver Spring headquarters office in this District;
`
`d. The Seismic Rule was prepared by the Service in this District, and the
`
`Service’s “consultation lead” for the Biological Opinion was based in this
`
`District;
`
`e. The Service’s review and approval of the Final Programmatic Environmental
`
`Impact Statement was conducted in this District by Service and National
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 8 of 61
`
`
`
`Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials, including Vicki
`
`Wedell, NOAA’s then-acting Chief of the Policy and Planning Division;
`
`f. The administrative records for the Seismic Rule and for the Biological
`
`Opinion are located in this District; and
`
`g. Documents in the Service’s possession that are part of the administrative
`
`record for the Service’s review and approval of the Programmatic
`
`Environmental Impact Statement, and for its adoption of the Programmatic
`
`Environmental Impact Statement as a NEPA document for the Seismic Rule,
`
`also are located in this District.
`
`PARTIES
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) is a nationwide
`
`nonprofit environmental organization. NRDC has over 400,000 members nationwide.
`
`NRDC’s mission is to “safeguard the Earth: its people, its plants and animals, and the
`
`natural systems on which all life depends.” For more than two decades, NRDC has
`
`worked to protect marine mammals and other wildlife from the harmful effects of ocean
`
`noise.
`
` NRDC members derive recreational, conservation, aesthetic, and other
`
`benefits from the ecosystems and species of the Gulf of Mexico and its coastline,
`
`including marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico.
`
`
`
`For example, one NRDC member, Bonny Schumaker, who is also a
`
`member of Plaintiff Healthy Gulf, regularly visits the Gulf of Mexico and enjoys seeing
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 9 of 61
`
`
`
`or seeking marine wildlife, including the Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale and sperm
`
`whale. Ms. Schumaker is a pilot who routinely flies over the Gulf—including over the
`
`habitat for the Bryde’s whale and other marine mammals—along with scientists and
`
`other observers to locate, photograph, and document the presence of marine mammals
`
`and other wildlife. She has done so for over a decade. Ms. Schumaker’s work supports
`
`conservation efforts and scientific research. Ms. Schumaker plans to continue regular
`
`flights during the next 12 months and for the foreseeable future thereafter over the
`
`northeastern Gulf and the habitat of the Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale and sperm
`
`whale, and to look for and attempt to see these species, as well as other marine
`
`mammals such as bottlenose dolphins.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums Inc.,
`
`d/b/a Association of Zoos & Aquariums, (Association of Zoos and Aquariums or AZA)
`
`is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to the advancement of zoos and
`
`aquariums in the areas of conservation, education, science, and recreation. AZA
`
`represents more than 240 facilities in the United States and overseas, including facilities
`
`along the Gulf of Mexico, which collectively draw more than 200 million visitors every
`
`year and are leaders in conservation education. AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums
`
`dedicate millions of dollars annually to conduct scientific research, conservation, and
`
`education programs, including programs for marine mammal conservation in waters
`
`affected by Defendants’ actions. AZA members engage with other key stakeholders to
`
`redress the harm to endangered or threatened species injured, stranded, or otherwise
`
`harmed in coastal waters off the United States. AZA’s members intend to continue to do
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 10 of 61
`
`
`
`so in the months and years ahead. AZA’s headquarters and principal place of business
`
`is located in Silver Spring, Montgomery County, Maryland.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity is a nonprofit organization that
`
`works to protect wildlife, including endangered species and their habitats. The Center
`
`has more than 84,000 members who are dedicated to environmental conservation. The
`
`Center has longstanding interests in marine mammals, endangered species, and their
`
`habitat. Toward these interests, the Center has engaged in advocacy and actions to
`
`protect marine habitat from the adverse impacts of offshore oil and gas activities. The
`
`Center has worked to protect Gulf of Mexico wildlife—sperm, Bryde’s, and Cuvier’s
`
`beaked whales; manatees; bottlenose dolphins; loggerhead, Kemp’s Ridley, and
`
`leatherback sea turtles; bluefin tuna; oceanic whitetip shark; smalltooth sawfish; and
`
`numerous corals. The Center has members who appreciate and benefit from these
`
`animals and their habitat for viewing, photography, recreation, research, and personal
`
`enjoyment. For example, the Center has a member who regularly visits the Gulf of
`
`Mexico to enjoy marine wildlife. They go to the Gulf of Mexico to observe manatees,
`
`whales, and other marine mammals. This member works to advocate for wildlife
`
`protections from threats such as fisheries, oil and gas development, pollution, and
`
`habitat destruction. Additionally, the Center’s member has a strong interest in
`
`conserving sea turtles, often visiting Gulf sea turtle habitat and nesting beaches.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Healthy Gulf is a nonprofit network of community, conservation,
`
`environmental, and fishing groups and individuals committed to protection and
`
`restoration of the natural resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Healthy Gulf’s purpose is to
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 11 of 61
`
`
`
`collaborate with and serve communities who love the Gulf of Mexico by providing
`
`research, communications, and coalition-building tools needed to reverse the long-
`
`pattern of over-exploitation of the Gulf’s natural resources. Healthy Gulf is
`
`headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana, with offices in Pensacola, Florida, and
`
`Madison, Mississippi. Healthy Gulf members live in the five Gulf states of Texas,
`
`Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, as well as other states.
`
` Healthy Gulf members and constituents, including member Bonny
`
`Schumaker, regularly use, enjoy, and benefit from the marine environment of the Gulf
`
`of Mexico. Healthy Gulf members benefit from the presence of the Gulf’s marine
`
`mammal species and their marine environment for recreational, aesthetic, commercial,
`
`scientific, and environmental purposes, including sailing, whale-watching, scientific
`
`study, boat touring, underwater diving, fishing, and photography. The ability of
`
`Healthy Gulf’s members to pursue these interests is contingent on the continued
`
`existence and wellbeing of marine mammal populations in the Gulf of Mexico.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Surfrider Foundation (Surfrider) is a nonprofit organization
`
`dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the world’s oceans, waves, and beaches.
`
`Surfrider has more than 350,000 supporters and members, 79 local chapters, and 92
`
`school clubs in the United States, and maintains five local chapters on the Gulf coast.
`
`Surfrider’s members look for, study, and enjoy marine species in the Gulf, including
`
`Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whales, sperm whales, and beaked whales. Surfrider’s members
`
`derive recreational, aesthetic, and economic benefits from the ocean in the Gulf of
`
`Mexico and the diverse marine life that resides there, including marine species that are
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 12 of 61
`
`
`
`likely to be harmed by seismic surveys. For example, Surfrider has members who visit
`
`the Gulf along the Texas coast often, mostly to surf, but also to fish. An essential part of
`
`those activities includes observing and experiencing the Gulf’s marine life, including
`
`dolphins that are frequently in the same waters. Surfrider’s members’ future use and
`
`enjoyment of Gulf waters depends on healthy and sustainable populations of marine
`
`mammals and other marine life.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs and their members derive significant benefits—recreational,
`
`aesthetic, economic, cultural, or scientific—from marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico
`
`and their ecosystems. Defendants’ failure to comply with federal law and the resulting
`
`harm to the marine environment, including the disturbance, injury, and death of marine
`
`mammals and other marine life, adversely and irreparably harms the interests of
`
`Plaintiffs and their members, and continues to do so.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiffs’ members’ injuries will be redressed by the relief
`
`they request, as that relief would undo or reduce the causes of those injuries. Plaintiffs
`
`have no other adequate remedy at law.
`
`II.
`
`Defendants
`
` Defendant Janet Coit, as Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, is the
`
`highest-ranking official within the National Marine Fisheries Service and, in that
`
`capacity, has responsibility for the administration and implementation of the MMPA
`
`and of the ESA with regard to marine species, and for compliance with all other federal
`
`laws applicable to the Service. Assistant Administrator Coit works out of the Service’s
`
`headquarters office in Silver Spring, Montgomery County, Maryland. She is sued in her
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 13 of 61
`
`
`
`official capacity.
`
` Defendant National Marine Fisheries Service is a federal agency within
`
`the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Department of
`
`Commerce. The Service is authorized and required by law to protect and manage the
`
`fish, marine mammals, and other marine resources of the United States, including by
`
`enforcing and implementing the MMPA and, with respect to marine species, the ESA.
`
`The Service’s headquarters and primary office are in Silver Spring, Montgomery
`
`County, Maryland.
`
`
`
`The Service issued the Seismic Rule and the Biological Opinion. The
`
`Service also adopted the environmental review documents challenged here that were
`
`prepared by Defendant Bureau of Ocean Energy Management under NEPA.
`
` Defendant National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is a federal
`
`agency within the Department of Commerce, with its principal offices in Washington,
`
`D.C. NOAA has supervisory authority over the Service.
`
` Defendant Gina Raimondo, United States Secretary of Commerce, is the
`
`highest-ranking official within the Department of Commerce and, in that capacity, has
`
`ultimate responsibility for the administration and implementation of the MMPA and
`
`the ESA, and for compliance with all other federal laws applicable to the Department of
`
`Commerce. She is sued in her official capacity.
`
` Defendants Coit, the Service, NOAA, and Raimondo are collectively
`
`referred to as the “National Marine Fisheries Service Defendants.”
`
` Defendant Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“the Bureau”) is an
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 14 of 61
`
`
`
`agency within the Department of the Interior. The Bureau is responsible for managing
`
`oil, gas, and mineral natural resources on the Outer Continental Shelf. The Bureau is
`
`responsible for the permitting and oversight of oil and gas leasing, exploration, and
`
`production activities in the Gulf of Mexico. The Bureau issued the Programmatic
`
`Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision challenged here, and is
`
`responsible for ensuring compliance with NEPA and all other federal laws.
`
` Defendant Amanda Lefton is the Director of the Bureau and is the official
`
`ultimately responsible for all Bureau activities. She is sued in her official capacity.
`
` Defendant Deb Haaland, Secretary of the United States Department of the
`
`Interior, is the highest-ranking official within that Department, and, in that capacity, has
`
`ultimate responsibility for the administration and implementation of NEPA and all
`
`other applicable federal laws with respect to the Bureau and Interior activities. She is
`
`sued in her official capacity.
`
` Defendants Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Lefton, and Haaland
`
`are collectively referred to as the “Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Defendants.”
`
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`To permit seismic surveying in the Gulf, the Service, the Bureau, and their
`
`officers must comply with several federal statutes: the ESA, the MMPA, NEPA, and the
`
`Administrative Procedure Act (APA), among others.
`
`I.
`
`Endangered Species Act
`
`
`
`The ESA is “the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of
`
`endangered species ever enacted by any nation.” Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153,
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 15 of 61
`
`
`
`180 (1978). Congress enacted the ESA because human activities had caused many
`
`species to go extinct, and other species “have been so depleted in numbers that they are
`
`in danger of or threatened with extinction.” 16 U.S.C. § 1531(a)(1)-(2).
`
`
`
`Section 7 of the ESA generally prohibits federal agencies from authorizing,
`
`funding, or carrying out any action “likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
`
`endangered species or threatened species.” Id. § 1536(a)(2). To “jeopardize” a species
`
`means to engage in an action that could reduce appreciably the likelihood of survival or
`
`recovery. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.02.
`
` A federal agency’s grant of permits or authorizations is agency action
`
`subject to the requirements of Section 7. Id. § 402.02(c).
`
`
`
`Section 7 of the ESA establishes a consultation process that agencies must
`
`follow to fulfill their substantive mandate to avoid jeopardizing endangered or
`
`threatened species and adversely affecting their habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). Under
`
`this process, an agency proposing an action that may affect such species must consult
`
`with the National Marine Fisheries Service (for most marine species) or with the U.S.
`
`Fish and Wildlife Service (for land-based species) to evaluate the current status of the
`
`species and the environmental baseline, as well as the proposed action and its direct,
`
`indirect, and cumulative effects. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a), (g).
`
`
`
`The agency proposing an action subject to the ESA section 7 consultation
`
`requirement is termed the “action agency,” while the National Marine Fisheries Service
`
`or the Fish and Wildlife Service, depending on the species at issue, is termed the
`
`“consulting agency.” In cases where one of the wildlife agencies is itself taking an
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 16 of 61
`
`
`
`action, the agency may be both the “action agency” and the “consulting agency” for the
`
`action, with different divisions within the agency engaging in consultation with each
`
`other.
`
`
`
`The ESA action agencies in this case are the Bureau, which engaged the
`
`Service’s ESA Interagency Cooperation Division for consultation on its oil and gas
`
`program for the Gulf of Mexico; and the Service’s Permits and Conservation Division,
`
`which engaged the Service’s ESA Interagency Cooperation Division for consultation
`
`with respect to the Seismic Rule.
`
` As part of the consultation process, the consulting agency must determine
`
`whether the action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species or result in
`
`the destruction or adverse modification of a species’ critical habitat. 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1536(b)(3)-(4); 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.02, 402.14(g)(3)-(4). The consulting agency makes this
`
`determination in a document known as a “biological opinion.” 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1536(b)(3)(A); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(h)(1).
`
` A biological opinion must include a summary of the information upon
`
`which the opinion is based, and an evaluation of “the current status of the listed
`
`species,” the “effects of the action,” and “cumulative effects.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(2),
`
`(3), (h)(1).
`
`
`
`The “environmental baseline” includes “the past and present impacts of
`
`all Federal, State or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the
`
`anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already
`
`undergone formal or early Section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or private
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 17 of 61
`
`
`
`actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process.” Id. § 402.02
`
`“Cumulative effects” include “future State or private activities, not involving Federal
`
`activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area.” Id. The consulting
`
`agency must evaluate and determine whether the action, when added to the
`
`environmental baseline and together with any cumulative effects, will jeopardize the
`
`continued existence of any listed species or destroy or adversely modify any species’
`
`critical habitat. Id. § 402.14(g)(3)-(4).
`
` During the consultation process, each agency must use the best scientific
`
`and commercial data available. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(8).
`
`
`
`If the consulting agency concludes that an action is likely to jeopardize an
`
`endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, it
`
`must list “reasonable and prudent alternatives” that would avoid jeopardy. 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1536(b)(3)(A); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(h)(2).
`
`
`
`If the consulting agency concludes that an action is not likely to jeopardize
`
`an endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, but
`
`could “take” listed species (within the meaning of the ESA), then the consulting agency
`
`must issue an incidental take statement that (1) describes the amount or extent of
`
`anticipated take, (2) specifies reasonable and prudent measures to minimize adverse
`
`impacts, and (3) prescribes mandatory terms and conditions for the action. 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1536(b)(4); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i)(1).
`
`
`
`The ESA defines “take” as “to harass, harm, . . . wound, [or] kill.” 16
`
`U.S.C. § 1532(19).
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 18 of 61
`
`
`
`
`
` Under Section 9 of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B), it is illegal for any
`
`person—including governmental agencies—to take any endangered species except in
`
`compliance with an incidental take statement or other authorization.
`
`II. Marine Mammal Protection Act
`
`
`
`In 1972, Congress enacted the MMPA because “certain species and
`
`population stocks of marine mammals are, or may be, in danger of extinction or
`
`depletion as a result of man’s activities.” 16 U.S.C. § 1361(1). Legislative history
`
`confirms that Congress intended to build a “conservative bias” into the Act, so that “no
`
`steps should be taken regarding these animals that might prove to be adverse or even
`
`irreversible in their effects until more is known.” H.R. Rep. No. 92-707, at 15 (1971), as
`
`reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4144, 4148.
`
`
`
`To protect against further depletion and extinction of these species, the
`
`MMPA establishes a “moratorium on the taking . . . of marine mammals.” 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1371(a). The term “take” means “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass,
`
`hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.” Id. § 1362(13). “Harassment” includes any
`
`act that has the potential to (1) injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock
`
`(referred to as “Level A harassment”), or (2) disturb a marine mammal or marine
`
`mammal stock by disrupting behavioral patterns such as migration, breeding, feeding,
`
`or sheltering (referred to as “Level B harassment”). Id. § 1362(18)(A), (C). All takings of
`
`marine mammals (other than those due to certain specific activities not relevant here)
`
`are prohibited by the Act. Id. § 1371(a).
`
` Under a limited exception to this prohibition, the Service may authorize
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 19 of 61
`
`
`
`the take of marine mammals incidental to a specified activity, under certain
`
`circumstances. Id. § 1371(a)(5)(A). To authorize such take over a period lasting more
`
`than one year, the Service must determine that the activity will take only “small
`
`numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock,” id. § 1371(a)(5)(A)(i),
`
`and that the authorized take will have at most “a negligible impact on such species or
`
`stock,” id. § 1371(a)(5)(A)(i)(I); see 50 C.F.R. § 216.103. In addition, if the Service
`
`authorizes incidental take under this exception, it must also prescribe “means of
`
`effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the marine mammal species or stock
`
`and its habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(5)(A)(i)(II)(aa). In making these determinations, the
`
`Service must employ “the best scientific evidence available.” 50 C.F.R. § 216.102(a); see
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(5)(A)(i).
`
`III. National Environmental Policy Act
`
` NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., establishes “a broad national commitment
`
`to protecting and promoting environmental quality.” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens
`
`Council, 490 U.S. 332, 348 (1989). It declares the federal government’s responsibility to
`
`act “as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations” and to use “all
`
`practicable means” to “assure . . . safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and
`
`culturally pleasing surroundings,” 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(1)-(2).
`
` NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an EIS for all “major Federal
`
`actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 4332(C). If an action may have a significant effect on the environment, or if there are
`
`substantial questions about whether it may, an agency must prepare an EIS.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 8:21-cv-01827-PX Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 20 of 61
`
`
`
`
`
`Through this mechanism, Congress intended NEPA to serve as “an
`
`environmental full disclosure law” that enables the public to “weigh a project’s benefits
`
`against its environmental costs.” Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 772 F.2d 1043,
`
`1049 (2d Cir. 1985). Congress also intended NEPA environmental review to ensure “the
`
`integrity of the agency process,” forcing agencies to “face” rather than “ignor[e]”
`
`“stubborn, difficult-to-answer objections.” Id. NEPA’s core requirement is that agencies
`
`“take a ‘hard look’ at the environmental effects of their planned action[s]” before
`
`approving them. Marsh v. Or. N