Cook Inletkeeper et al v. Raimondo et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
COOK INLETKEEPER and
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GINA RAIMONDO, Secretary of
Commerce, et al.,
Defendants,
and
HILCORP ALASKA, LLC, et al.,
Intervenor-Defendants.
Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG
ORDER RE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court at Docket 53 is Plaintiffs Cook Inletkeeper and Center for
Biological Diversity’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs challenge the
incidental take regulations (“ITR”) promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries
Service (“NMFS”) that authorize Hilcorp Alaska, LLC (“Hilcorp”) to conduct certain
oil and gas exploration and production activities in Cook Inlet from 2019 to 2024.1
Hilcorp responded at Docket 60. Federal Defendants responded at Docket 61.2
1 84 Fed. Reg. 37442 (July 31, 2019), codified at 50 C.F.R. §§ 217.160–217.167.
2 Federal Defendants are Gina Raimondo, in her official capacity as Secretary of Commerce;
James Balsiger, in his official capacity as Regional Administration of the National Marine
Fisheries Service; and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 1 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 2 of 52
The State of Alaska responded at Docket 62 and filed a Cross Motion for Summary
Judgment at Docket 63. Plaintiffs replied at Docket 64 and responded to the State
of Alaska’s motion at Docket 65. Oral argument was held on December 14, 2020.3
BACKGROUND
Cook Inlet is a large, semi-enclosed estuary in southcentral Alaska.4 Cook
Inlet is inhabited by various marine mammals, including beluga whales, harbor
porpoise, harbor seals, killer whales, humpback whales, fin whales, minke whales,
Dall’s porpoise, gray whales, and Steller sea lions.5 The inlet is of shallow depth
and has high background noise from tidal currents.6
Beluga whales are small whales that inhabit “fjords, estuaries, and shallow
waters of the Arctic and subarctic oceans.”7 Cook Inlet beluga whales are one of
five stocks of beluga whales found in Alaska and remain in Cook Inlet year-round.8
Beluga whales use “sound rather than sight for many important functions,” such as
to “communicate, locate prey, and navigate”; they produce “high frequency sounds
which they use as a type of sonar for finding and pursuing prey, and likely for
3 Docket 71.
4 PR1_NEPA 000068 (Environmental Assessment (“EA”)).
5 PR1_NEPA 000068 (EA).
6 PR1_ESA 000103 (Biological Opinion (“BiOp”)); MMPA 786. The administrative record filed at
Docket 68 contains two copies of the BiOp—one at AKR1004652 and the other at PR1_ESA
000003. For clarity, the Court cites only to the copy beginning at PR1_ESA 000003.
7 76 Fed. Reg. 20180, 20181 (Apr. 11, 2011).
8 PR1_ESA 000063–64 (BiOp).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 2 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 3 of 52
navigating through ice-laden waters.”9 As such, they “are vulnerable to
harassment and injury from human-caused sources of noise,”10 which in Cook Inlet
includes noise from vessels, aircraft, military detonations, seismic surveys, and
industrial activities. The number of Cook Inlet beluga whales has steadily declined
from an estimated 1,300 in 1979 to an estimated 279 in June 2018.11 Due to this
population decline, Cook Inlet beluga whales were listed as endangered pursuant
to the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) in 2008,12 and portions of Cook Inlet were
designated as their “critical habitat” in 2011.13 Despite these measures, their
population has continued to decline; the NMFS has identified Cook Inlet beluga
whales as one of the eight species in the nation “most at-risk of extinction.”14
The Marine Mammal Protection Act15 (“MMPA”) places a moratorium on the
“take” of marine mammals, including by harassment16; however, it also directs the
Secretary of Commerce to authorize takes of “small numbers” of marine mammals
9 76 Fed. Reg. 20180, 20203 (Apr. 11, 2011).
10 JOINTSUPP200883 (Species in the Spotlight).
11 PR1_KeyRef 003211, 003182 (Recovery Plan); JOINTSUPP100028–29 (beluga whale
abundance report).
12 PR1_ESA 000063 (BiOp); 73 Fed. Reg. 62919 (Oct. 22, 2008); 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1544.
13 PR1_NEPA 000068 (EA); 76 Fed. Reg. 20180 (Apr. 11, 2011).
14 JOINTSUPP200881 (Species in the Spotlight).
15 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361–1432.
16 16 U.S.C. §§ 1371, 1362(13), (18). The MMPA defines “take” as meaning “to harass, hunt,
capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.” 16 U.S.C. §
1362(13).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 3 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 4 of 52
incidental to specified activities for up to five-year periods, provided that the
Secretary finds that the takes will have a “negligible impact” on the species and
prescribes regulations “effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the
species, along with monitoring and reporting requirements.17
Hilcorp owns 15 offshore production platforms in central Cook Inlet.18 Some
of these platforms have permanent drill rigs installed; others require the use of a
mobile drill rig.19 On April 17, 2018, NMFS received an application from Hilcorp
requesting authorization pursuant to the MMPA for Hilcorp to take by harassment
marine mammals in Cook Inlet incidental to noise exposure generated by its oil
and gas activities.20 Relevant here, Hilcorp sought to conduct 2D seismic
exploration throughout Cook Inlet and drill exploratory and development wells
using a drill rig that would be transported by tugboats; each of these activities
would produce significant levels of underwater noise.21 Hilcorp would drill two to
four exploratory wells in lower Cook Inlet and one to two exploratory wells in the
Trading Bay area22; the drill rig would be “towed on site using up to three ocean-
17 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(5)(A)(i).
18 PR1_MMPA 002258 (ITR); 84 Fed. Reg. 37442, 37448 (July 31, 2019).
19 PR1_MMPA 002258 (ITR); 84 Fed. Reg. 37442, 37448 (July 31, 2019).
20 PR1_MMPA 002253 (ITR); 84 Fed. Reg. 37442, 37443 (July 31, 2019).
21 PR1_MMPA 002256–57 (ITR); 84 Fed. Reg. 37442, 37446–47 (July 31, 2019). Hilcorp’s
proposal also included 3D seismic exploration, which has already been conducted and is not
part of Plaintiffs’ challenges here.
22 PR1_MMPA 001394–95, 001409 (Petition for ITR).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 4 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 5 of 52
going tugs . . . .”23 Additionally, Hilcorp would conduct plugging and abandonment
activities at a discovery well in the North Cook Inlet Unit, which would require the
use of up to three ocean-going tugs towing a jack-up rig.24 Hilcorp predicted that
without mitigation measures, the noise from its tug operations in the Trading Bay
area would take 15 beluga whales by harassment, and an additional four beluga
whales would be taken by noise harassment in the Northern Cook Inlet Unit.25
In July 2019, NMFS granted Hilcorp’s request, authorizing the incidental
taking of various marine mammal species including Cook Inlet beluga whales for
23 PR1_MMPA 000787 (Petition for ITR); see also PR1_MMPA 001387, 001400 (Figures 3 & 8)
(tug path).
24 PR1_001408 (Petition for ITR); see also PR1_MMPA 001400 (Figure 8) (tug path). The Court
takes judicial notice of a Letter of Authorization (LOA) issue to Hilcorp approving of well
abandonment activity in the North Cook Inlet Area, valid for one year beginning on April 22,
2020. 86 Fed. Reg. 6878-01 (Jan. 25, 2021) (Notice of LOA); Year 2 LOA (available at
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-hilcorp-alaska-llc-oil-and-gas-
activities-cook-inlet-alaska) (last accessed Mar. 26, 2021). Judicial notice is the “court’s
acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a party’s proof, of a well-known
and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept such a fact.” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.
2019); see also Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005)
(“Materials from a proceeding in another tribunal are appropriate for judicial notice.”) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201. However, it is not clear
whether Hilcorp has already completed these abandonment activities. Additionally, the ITR
includes tug operations in Granite Point that were not considered in the proposed rule.
PR1_MMPA 002254 (Petition for ITR). The ITR states that the Granite Point activities were
planned for 2019; however, it does not appear that either of the Letters of Authorization granted
so far have authorized the Granite Point tug operations. See PR1_MMPA 002254 (Petition for
ITR), 002456 (Year 1 LOA) (amended as noticed by 84 Fed. Reg. 53119); Year 2 LOA (available
at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-hilcorp-alaska-llc-oil-and-gas-
activities-cook-inlet-alaska).
25 PR1_MMPA 001462, 001464 (Table 18). In its Year 1 Letter of Authorization Request, Hilcorp
stated that “[p]er NMFS recommendation in the ITR process, tugs towing the rig were not
considered further to evaluate Level A or Level B acoustic harassment in this LOA.”
PR1_MMPA 002375. The total beluga whale take that Hilcorp estimated for all its activities was
approximately 36 using NMFS aerial survey data and more than 200 using the Goetz density
model. PR1_MMPA 001464 (Petition for ITR) (Table 18).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 5 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 6 of 52
a five-year period from 2019 through 2024.26 NMFS issued incidental take
regulations (“ITR”) that included various mitigation and monitoring measures,
including the use of aerial surveys to search for Cook Inlet beluga whales before
beginning seismic surveys.27 NMFS estimated that with these measures, Hilcorp’s
activities would harass approximately 31 beluga whales each year.28 The ITR
authorizes Hilcorp to take by harassment up to 35 Cook Inlet beluga whales per
year.29 NMFS’s take estimate did not include any take resulting from tug
operations.
NMFS also prepared a biological opinion (BiOp) pursuant to the ESA and
determined that Hilcorp’s activities would not jeopardize the existence of any
endangered marine mammals, including Cook Inlet beluga whales, nor destroy or
adversely modify any critical habitat.30 Additionally, NMFS prepared an
Environmental Assessment (“EA”) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act, and determined that authorizing Hilcorp’s oil and gas activities in Cook Inlet
would “not significantly impact the quality of the human environment.”31
26 PR1_MMPA 002252–316 (ITR); 84 Fed. Reg. 37442 (July 31, 2019).
27 PR1_MMPA 002304, 002252 (ITR); 84 Fed. Reg. 37442, 37494, 37442 (July 31, 2019).
28 PR1_MMPA 002293, 002301 (ITR); 84 Fed. Reg. 37442, 37483, 37491 (July 31, 2019).
29 PR1_MMPA 002301 (ITR); 84 Fed. Reg. 37442, 37491 (July 31, 2019).
30 PR1_ESA 000003 (BiOp). See generally 16 U.S.C. §§ 1536(a)(2), 1536(b)(3)(A).
31 PR1_NEPA 000044–106 (EA); PR1_NEPA 000107 (FONSI); 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C) (requiring
environmental impact statement for federal actions that may significantly affect quality of human
environment); 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b) (providing that agencies may prepare environmental
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 6 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 7 of 52
On September 4, 2019, Plaintiffs initiated this action against Federal
Defendants, alleging violations of the MMPA, ESA, National Environmental Policy
Act (“NEPA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).32 On September 18,
2019, Hilcorp moved to intervene.33 On October 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint.34 On November 13, 2019, the State of Alaska (the “State”)
moved to intervene.35 On June 15, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Complaint
adding an allegation that NMFS had violated the ESA in failing to reinitiate intra-
agency consultation after a new population survey for the beluga whales had been
released.36
LEGAL STANDARD
Plaintiffs bring their claims pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.37
Under that statute, a reviewing court shall not set aside an agency’s decision unless
assessments to determine whether environmental impact statement is required). “The Council
on Environmental Quality has adopted new regulations that became effective on September 14,
2020.” Bair v. California Dep’t of Transp., 982 F.3d 569, 577 n.20 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Update
to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act, 85 Fed. Reg. 43,304, 43,304 (July 16, 2020) and 40 C.F.R. § 1506.13 (2020)). Federal
Defendants applied the previous regulations to the ITR, and so the Court does as well. Docket
61 at 16 n.5. Thus, all citations to the CEQ’s regulations in this order refer to 40 C.F.R. Part
1500 (2018).
32 Docket 1 at 37–41 (Complaint).
33 Docket 15.
34 Docket 28.
35 Docket 31.
36 Docket 47, ¶¶ 176–80.
37 Docket 47 at 6, ¶ 15 (Supplemental Complaint).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 7 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 8 of 52
it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance
with law.”38 Agency action is arbitrary and capricious if it
relie[s] on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider,
entirely fail[s] to consider an important aspect of the problem, offer[s]
an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before
the agency, or is so implausible that it c[an]not be ascribed to a
difference in view or the product of agency expertise.39
A court’s review of whether an agency action is arbitrary and capricious should be
“searching and careful,” but “narrow,” as a court may not substitute its judgment
for that of the administrative agency.40 Courts will generally “uphold agency
decisions so long as the agencies have ‘considered the relevant factors and
articulated a rational connection between the factors found and the choices
made.’”41 “Agency action is ‘not in accordance with the law’ when it is in conflict
with the language of the statute . . . .”42 “Whether agency action is ‘not in
accordance with law’ is a question of statutory interpretation, rather than an
38 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
39 Protect Our Cmtys. Found. v. LaCounte, 939 F.3d 1029, 1034 (9th Cir. 2019) (alterations in
original) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43
(1983)).
40 Marsh v. Or. Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378 (1989) (quoting Citizens to Pres. Overton
Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971)).
41 Protect Our Cmtys. Found., 939 F.3d at 1034 (quoting City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d
1186, 1206 (9th Cir. 2004)).
42 Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. EPA, 537 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting City of Cleveland v.
Ohio, 508 F.3d 827, 838 (6th Cir. 2007)).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 8 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 9 of 52
assessment of reasonableness in the instant case.”43
DISCUSSION
I. Waiver
As a threshold issue, Hilcorp maintains that Plaintiffs have waived several
allegations in their motion by failing to raise them during the administrative
process. These allegations include: Plaintiffs’ arguments that NMFS improperly
ignored take of Cook Inlet beluga whales caused by vessel noise; that NMFS
improperly segmented its “small numbers” MMPA analysis; and that NMFS failed
to take the requisite “hard look” at vessel noise under NEPA.44 Hilcorp also
maintains that these arguments were waived because they were not pleaded in
either the Amended Complaint or in the Supplemental Complaint.45 Federal
Defendants add that Plaintiffs waived the “narrow legal issue” that “NMFS did not
give a detailed explanation of” its small numbers methodology because they failed
to bring that issue to NMFS’s attention during the administrative process.46
43 Singh v. Clinton, 618 F.3d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Nw. Envtl. Advocates, 537 F.3d at
1014).
44 Docket 60 at 18–21 (citing Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, 588 F.3d 701, 710 (9th
Cir. 2009); Havasupai Tribe v. Robertson, 943 F.2d 32, 34 (9th Cir. 1991); Kunaknana v. U.S.
Army Corps of Eng’rs, 23 F. Supp. 3d 1063, 1088 (D. Alaska 2014); Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v.
Bonneville Power Admin., 501 F.3d 1009, 1024 (9th Cir. 2007); and Exxon Mobil Corp. v. U.S.
EPA, 217 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2000)).
45 Docket 60 at 18–19.
46 Docket 61 at 26 (citing Glacier Fish Co. LLC v. Pritzker, 882 F.3d 1113, 1128 (9th Cir. 2016);
Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978)).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 9 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 10 of 52
Plaintiffs respond that they raised the issue of vessel noise and small
numbers segmentation in their comments to the agency, and that even had they
not raised the issues, waiver does not apply where the agency “‘had independent
knowledge of the very issue that concern[ed] Plaintiffs.’”47 Plaintiffs also contend
that the “small numbers” challenge was raised in comments to the agency by a
non-party to this litigation, and that Plaintiffs also raised it, even if only in general
terms.48
“A participant in an administrative process must ‘alert[] the agency to [their]
position and contentions.’ Failure to raise such ‘particular objections’ may result
in “forfeit[ure of] any objection’ to the resulting regulation.”49 However, the Ninth
Circuit has “held that the exhaustion requirement should be interpreted broadly,”
explaining that “[p]laintiffs fulfill the requirement if [they] ‘provided sufficient notice
to the [agency] to afford it the opportunity to rectify the violations that the plaintiffs
alleged.’”50 As such, “[p]laintiffs need not state their claims in precise legal terms,
47 Docket 64 at 14–16, 20–21 (quoting ‘Ilio’ulaokalani Coal. v. Rumsfeld, 464 F.3d 1083, 1093
(9th Cir. 2006)).
48 Docket 64 at 21 (citing Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 501 F.3d at 1024); Docket 64 at 20 (citing
Idaho Sporting Cong. v. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d 957, 965–66 (9th Cir. 2002) and PR1_MMPA
000964–66, 001792 n.30. At oral argument, Plaintiffs acknowledged that claims pleaded in their
complaint but not briefed in their motion for summary judgment have been waived.
49 Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 588 F.3d at 710 (alterations in original) (quoting Vt. Yankee
Nuclear Power Corp., 435 U.S. at 533 and Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 765–
66 (2004)) (holding plaintiffs did not forfeit MMPA objection to agency regulation because
objection was raised in letter to agency).
50 Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 606 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir.
2010) (citing Native Ecosystems v. Dombeck, 304 F.3d 886, 899 (9th Cir. 2002)) (holding
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 10 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 11 of 52
and need only raise an issue ‘with sufficient clarity to allow the decision maker to
understand and rule on the issue raised, but there is no bright-line standard as to
when this requirement has been met.’”51 Moreover, with respect to NEPA, the
Supreme Court has held that “the agency bears the primary responsibility to
ensure that it complies with NEPA, and an EA’s or an EIS’ flaws might be so
obvious that there is no need for a commentator to point them out specifically in
order to preserve its ability to challenge a proposed action.”52 A flaw is “so obvious”
that it does not result in waiver “where the agency had independent knowledge of
the issues that concerned Plaintiffs.”53 “This is true even if the issue was
considered sua sponte by the agency or was raised by someone other than the
petitioning party.”54
agency received sufficient notice of plaintiffs’ Federal Land and Policy Management Act
objection because although plaintiffs did not identify the statutory provision under which their
objection arose, they adequately explained basis for their objection such that agency had
sufficient notice).
51 Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n, 606 F.3d at 1065 (quoting Great Basin Mine Watch v.
Hankins, 456 F.3d 955, 968 (9th Cir. 2006)).
52 Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. at 765.
53 ‘Ilio’ulaokalani Coal., 464 F.3d at 1092 (citing Friends of Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d
552, 558–59 (9th Cir. 2000)) (holding plaintiffs did not waive objection by failing to raise it to
agency where “the record [was] replete with evidence that the Army recognized the specific
shortfall of the []EIS raised by Plaintiffs”).
54 Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 501 F.3d at 1024 (citing Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Johnson, 754
F.2d 1475, 1481 (9th Cir. 1985), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Clatskanie
Peoples Utility Dist. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 330 Fed. App’x 637, 638 (9th Cir. 2009))
(holding agency was “fully appraised” of plaintiffs’ objections arising under the Northwest Power
Act because other parties raised same objections during comment period and thus objections
were not waived).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 11 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 12 of 52
Plaintiffs cite numerous portions of the record that they maintain
demonstrate that the issue of vessel noise was raised before the agency.55 While
there is “no bright-line rule” for determining when an issue has been sufficiently
raised, the references to the effects of vessel noise on beluga whales cited by
Plaintiffs are particularly oblique.56 Nonetheless, the record indicates that NMFS
was independently aware that noise from vessel traffic poses a threat to beluga
whales as evidenced by Federal Defendants’ own assertion that NMFS sufficiently
addressed the issue57; thus, the issue was “so obvious” as to not be waived even
if Plaintiffs did not clearly raise it before the agency.58
As to Plaintiffs’ claim that NMFS failed to take a “hard look” at the effects of
Hilcorp’s activities as required by NEPA, Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity
(“CBD”) submitted a letter to the agency objecting to the sufficiency of the
environmental assessment (“EA”) as well as to NMFS’s decision not to prepare an
EIS.59 This letter states that “[n]one of the impacts of . . . vessel traffic . . . is ever
55 Docket 64 at 15 (citing PR1_MMPA 002553; PR1_MMPA 002547, 51; PR1_MMPA 000963;
PR1_MMPA 000964; PR1_MMPA 000971–72).
56 Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n, 606 F.3d at 1065 (quoting Great Basin Mine Watch, 456
F.3d at 968). See Docket 64 at 15 (citing PR1_MMPA 002553, 002547, 002551, 000963,
000964, and 000971–72).
57 See, e.g., PRA1_ESA 000182 (BiOp) (“Beluga whale responses to vessels noise varies
greatly from tolerance to extreme sensitivity depending on the activity of the whale and previous
experience with vessels.”); Docket 61 at 18–21, 40–41.
58 See ‘Ilio’ulaokalani Coal., 464 F.3d at 1092 (citing Friends of Clearwater, 222 F.3d at 558–59).
59 PR1_MMPA 000967, 000969 (CBD Letter).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 12 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 13 of 52
described in the draft EA.”60 CBD’s letter also states that “the impacts on an
endangered species like the environmentally and culturally significant Cook Inlet
beluga and its designated critical habitat alone is enough to trigger a full
environmental impact statement.”61 Together, these statements were sufficient to
place NMFS on notice that Plaintiffs objected to the EA on the grounds that it failed
to adequately consider the effects of vessel noise on beluga whales, even if
Plaintiffs’ arguments are now more thoroughly developed.62
Regarding NMFS’s “small numbers” analysis, the portion of CBD’s letter to
NMFS that is cited by Plaintiffs centers around the argument that NMFS conflated
the “small numbers” and “negligible impact” standards by using a relative approach
to the small numbers analysis. 63 In another letter, CBD asserted that “take of 35
belugas every year over five years may result in a greater than negligible impact”
and stated that Hilcorp’s proposed activities “will also take more than small
numbers of marine mammals, specifically for Cook Inlet beluga whales.”64
60 PR1_MMPA 000971 (CBD Letter).
61 PR1_MMPA 000968–69 (CBD Letter).
62 See Lands Council v. McNair, 629 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding challenge to 10%-
old-growth standard in forest plan not waived even though plaintiff’s “arguments are now more
fully developed than they were in prior proceedings” because plaintiff’s comments to agency put
agency “on notice that it challenged the 10%-old-growth standard . . . .”).
63 PR1_MMPA 000965–66 (“Although the Service uses different headings for its small numbers
and negligible impact findings, by defining small numbers to be relative to the overall population
the criterion ends up being similar to the negligible impact finding.”).
64 PR1_MMPA 002546 (CBD Letter).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 13 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 14 of 52
Plaintiffs also cite the following comment made by the Marine Mammal
Commission with regard to the “small numbers” analysis for harbor seals: “This is
the total number of takes for the entire five-year period rather than a one-year
period. It is unclear why NMFS did not assess the numbers of takes on an annual
basis consistent with all other proposed rules.”65
It is “incumbent upon intervenors who wish to participate to structure their
participation so that it is meaningful, so that it alerts the agency to the intervenors’
position and contentions.”66 CBD’s comments to the agency did not directly object
to the agency’s annual approach for the small numbers determination; instead,
CBD merely stated that Hilcorp’s activities would take more than small numbers of
beluga whales, without explaining their current contention that determining take on
an annual basis for a five-year authorization in the small numbers determination
violates the MMPA. The only portion of CBD’s comments that mentions the
annualized take numbers does so in the context of the negligible impact
determination, which is a separate inquiry.67 Likewise, the Marine Mammal
Commission’s comment did not raise the objection to NMFS; that comment was in
reference to the small numbers determination for a different species and also
seems to encourage rather than object to the annualized approach. Because the
65 PR1_MMPA 001792 n.30 (Marine Mammal Commission Letter).
66 Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., 435 U.S. at 553.
67 See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 695 F.3d 893, 903 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that
“small numbers” and “negligible impact” inquiries are distinct).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 14 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 15 of 52
comments from CBD and the Marine Mammal Commission mention but do not
object to the annual approach of the small numbers determination, these
comments could not have alerted NMFS that the agency’s small numbers
methodology was being challenged. Nor do Plaintiffs argue that this objection was
so obvious as to be preserved despite not having been raised before the agency.
Thus, Plaintiffs may not raise this objection for the first time before this Court.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have waived their challenge to NFMS’s small numbers
determination by failing to raise it before the agency during administrative
proceedings and may not pursue it here. However, Plaintiffs have not waived their
objections to NMFS’s consideration of vessel noise.68 Thus, the Court will consider
those claims on the merits.
II. MMPA
The MMPA places a moratorium on the “take” of marine mammals, which
means “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill . . . any marine mammal.”69 Harassment
can take the form of “Level A harassment,” which means harassment that “has the
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild,” or “Level
68 The Court also finds that these allegations were sufficiently pleaded in the Supplemental
Complaint. Plaintiffs reference “noise from . . . vessel traffic” as a threat to beluga whales and
allege that the BiOp “excluded noise from . . . vessels.” Docket 47 at 47, ¶ 162 and at 31, ¶ 98
(Supplemental Complaint). Plaintiffs incorporated these allegations by reference into its claims
that NMFS “failed to take a ‘hard look’ at the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental
impacts of its decision” in its EA and “underestimated the extent and degree of take” caused by
Hilcorp’s activities. Docket 47 at 53, ¶ 184 and at 47–48, ¶ 163 (Supplemental Complaint).
69 16 U.S.C. §§ 1371(a), 1362(13).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 15 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 16 of 52
B harassment,” which means “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which . . .
has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration,
breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.”70 However, the MMPA
provides a relevant exception:
[U]pon request therefor by citizens of the United States who engage
in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region, the Secretary shall allow, during periods of not
more than five consecutive years each, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking by citizens while engaging in that activity within that
region of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or
population stock if the Secretary, after notice . . . and opportunity for
public comment—
(I) finds that the total of such taking during each five-year (or less)
period concerned will have a negligible impact on such species or
stock . . . and
(II) prescribes regulations setting forth—
(aa) permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity,
and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the availability of such species or
stock for subsistence uses; and
(bb) requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of
such taking.71
70 16 U.S.C. § 1362(18)(A), (C), (D).
71 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(5)(A)(i) (emphases added).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 16 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 17 of 52
Plaintiffs assert two violations of the foregoing portion of the MMPA.72 First,
they allege that NMFS ignored Cook Inlet beluga whale take caused by vessels in
concluding that Hilcorp’s activities would take only small numbers of beluga whales
and have a negligible impacts on their stock; second, they allege that NMFS failed
to require sufficient mitigation and/or monitoring measures.
A. Vessel Noise
Plaintiffs contend that although “NMFS admits that Hilcorp’s oil and gas
activities will increase vessel noise in the Inlet,” NMFS disregarded take caused
by tugs towing the drill rig and other vessel noise in its small numbers and
negligible impact determinations by “summarily claiming that such take is not
likely.” Plaintiffs assert that NMFS did not adequately explain its conclusion in light
of the fact that NMFS’s Recovery Plan for Cook Inlet beluga whales identified noise
from tug boats as a major threat to beluga whales, and that Hilcorp’s tugs will travel
through Cook Inlet beluga whale critical habitat.73 Plaintiffs maintain that the best
available science suggests that tug and vessel noise regularly exceeds the 120 dB
Level B harassment threshold at 100 meters; they cite one recent study that “found
72 Plaintiffs’ third alleged MMPA violation—that NMFS impermissibly segmented its “small
numbers” analysis by considering beluga take on an annual basis rather than for the whole five-
year project period—has been waived. See discussion supra at 13–15.
73 Docket 53-1 at 17 (citing PR1_KeyRef 003211 (Recovery Plan); PR1_ESA 000206 (BiOp)).
The administrative record filed at Docket 68 contains two identical copies of the Recovery Plan;
Plaintiffs and Defendants each cite to different copies. For clarity, the Court cites only to the
copy starting at PR1_KeyRef 003121.
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 17 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 18 of 52
that ‘[s]ome vessels, such as tugs towing barges or oil rigs, can produce sound
capable of harassing marine mammals located over 2 km from the source.’”74
Federal Defendants maintain that NMFS reasonably concluded that vessel
noise, and specifically tugboat noise, would not take Cook Inlet beluga whales.75
They contend that NMFS “reasonably considered the relevant factors” related to
marine mammal responses to vessel noise, such as “distance from a source,
background noise levels, and the context of exposure,” in determining that vessel
noise would not take belugas, particularly because belugas are generally not found
where Hilcorp will be working during operational months.76 Federal Defendants
also assert that NMFS considered the effects of vessel and tugboat noise in the
BiOp and concluded that with the implementation of mitigation measures, the
impact of vessel noise is “immeasurably small” and poses a very low probability of
causing Level B harassment.77 Federal Defendants also maintain that Plaintiffs
mischaracterize studies on beluga whales because Plaintiffs ignore that “the
highest concentrations of noise occur in the Upper Cook Inlet,” whereas Hilcorp
74 Docket 53-1 at 18–19 (alteration in original) (citing PR1_ESA 000109 (BiOp)).
75 Docket 61 at 18–19 (citing PR1_MMPA 002257 (ITR)).
76 Docket 61 at 19–20 (citing PR1_MMPA 002278; PR1_MMPA 002286; PR1_ESA 000181–83;
PR1_MMPA 002273; PR1_MMPA 002266–67; and PR1_MMPA 002263).
77 Docket 61 at 20 (citing PR1_ESA 00183). See PR1_MMPA 002261 (ITR); 84 Fed. Reg.
37442, 37451 (July 31, 2019) (referencing the BiOp’s conclusion).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 18 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 19 of 52
will be operating in the middle and lower portions of the inlet.78 Hilcorp adds that
NMFS explained in the BiOp that some whale species “have been noted to tolerate
slow-moving vessels within several hundred meters, especially when the vessel is
not directed toward the animal and when there are no sudden changes in direction
or engine speed,” which supports the agency’s conclusion that noise from tugboats
and other vessels would not take beluga whales.79
Plaintiffs reply that Defendants impermissibly conflate whether a take has
occurred with the negligible impact determination by relying on the prediction that
any behavioral responses would be brief, infrequent, or have “minimal” impacts.80
Plaintiffs stress that the MMPA prohibits activities that have the “potential” to cause
behavioral disruptions.81 Plaintiffs also assert that the mitigation measures
required by NMFS will not prevent take because the Level B harassment zone for
tugs is larger than the monitoring zone created by the ITR, and because even if a
beluga is spotted, the tug will not be able to shut down when towing the rig.82
78 Docket 61 at 21.
79 Docket 60 at 22 (citing PR1_ESA 000175 (BiOp)).
80 Docket 64 at 9–11 (citing Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Evans, 364 F. Supp. 2d 1083, 1108–
09 (N.D. Cal. 2003); Salazar, 695 F.3d at 906).
81 Docket 64 at 9–10 (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1362(13), (18)(A)(ii); Evans, 364 F. Supp. 2d at 1109).
82 Docket 64 at 14 (citing PR1_ESA 00044–45 (BiOp)).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 19 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 20 of 52
Plaintiffs point out that Hilcorp itself estimated in its application that it would take
15 beluga whales by level B harassment while towing the drill rig to Trading Bay.83
The Court finds that NMFS failed to provide a reasoned explanation or
identify adequate support in the record for its determination that tug noise from
Hilcorp’s activities would not take beluga whales. In the ITR, NMFS explained that
its quantitative take estimate consists of the “numbers of each marine mammal
species that could potentially be exposed to sounds associated with the activities
that exceed NMFS’s acoustic Level A and B harassment criteria[.]”84 NMFS used
an acoustic threshold of 120 dB for continuous sound generation, such as from a
tugboat, as “rising to the level of Level B Harassment.”85 And while the ITR
indicates that its take estimates included “the takes that are anticipated from all
activities for which take will be authorized across the five-year period,”86 tugs
towing the drill rig are not listed in the ITR as a source of Level B harassment
exposure.87 This is despite the fact that the record clearly indicates both that tugs
83 Docket 64 at 10 (citing PR1_MMPA 0014642).
84 PR1_MMPA 002292 (ITR); 84 Fed. Reg. 37442, 37482 (July 31, 2019).
85 84 Fed. Reg. 37442, 37477.
86 84 Fed. Reg. at 37484–85.
87 Compare PR1_MMPA 002304 (ITR) (Table 20) and PR1_MMPA 002304 (Table 11); 84 Fed.
Reg. 37442, 37494, 37484 (July 31, 2019). NMFS is not required to quantify its take estimate.
See Salazar, 695 F.3d at 907 (“The [agency] need not quantify the number of marine mammals
that would be taken under the regulations, so long as the agency reasonably determines
through some other means that the specified activity will result in take of only ‘small numbers’ of
marine mammals.”). But NMFS opted to quantify the estimated take here. See Docket 61 at
23. In the ITR, the agency explains that it took its quantitative “initial prediction” and then
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 20 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 21 of 52
towing the drill rig will produce sound in excess of the Level B harassment
threshold throughout a large radius and that Hilcorp will be operating tugs within
the beluga whale’s critical habitat.88 It appears clear from this record that tugs
towing the drill rig are quite likely to subject Cook Inlet beluga whales to sound in
excess of the 120 dB Level B harassment threshold and therefore cause take
within the meaning of the MMPA. In fact, using the same take estimate model as
NMFS, Hilcorp itself estimated that its tugboat operations would take 15 Cook Inlet
belugas.89
Nonetheless, NMFS concludes in its ITR that
[s]imilarly to transiting vessels, although some marine mammals could
receive sound levels in exceedance of the general acoustic threshold
of 120 dB from the tugs towing the drill rig during this project, take is
unlikely to occur, primarily because of the predictable movement of
vessels and tugs. Additionally, marine mammal population density in
the project area is low . . . and those that are present are likely
habituated to the existing baseline of commercial ship traffic. Further,
there are no activity-, location-, or species-specific circumstances or
other contextual factors that increase concern and the likelihood of
take from towing of the drill rig.90
assessed whether there was “additional information that can qualitatively inform [its] take
estimates[.]” 84 Fed. Reg. 37442, 37477 (July 31, 2019). But the ITR does not contain a
reasoned explanation for estimating that there would be zero take from tugs towing the drill rig,
as explained below.
88 PR1_ESA 000175 (BiOp) (“We anticipate that noise associated with towing the drill rig would
drop to the 120 dB isopleth within 2,154 meters (or less) of the active tugs.”). PR1_ESA 000068
(tug path), 000073 (critical habitat map).
89 PR1_MMPA 001462 (Petition for ITR) (“Using the Goetz model, the estimated Level B
exposures is . . . 15 animals associated with the tugs towing the rig to the Trading Bay wells.”).
90 PR1_MMPA 002257 (ITR); 84 Fed. Reg. 37442, 37447 (July 31, 2019).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 21 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 22 of 52
But this brief paragraph merely provides conclusions without explaining how those
conclusions were reached. Likewise, NMFS also explained in its ITR that
“depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from a given activity may
be a negligible addition to the local environment or could form a distinctive signal
that may affect marine mammals.”91 Yet the ITR did not claim that tugboat noise
represents a negligible addition to the local environment, let alone explain what
characteristics of tugboat noise make such noise unlikely to disturb marine
mammals.92 To the contrary, NMFS itself has identified tugboat noise as the most
important among “a wide variety of anthropogenic noise sources that could
potentially interfere with recovery [that] are present in CI beluga habitat . . . based
on signal characteristics and the spatio-temporal (space and time) acoustic
footprint.”93
91 Docket 61 at 19 (citing PR1_MMPA 002278, 002286).
92 The BiOp states that “[w]hale reactions to slow-moving vessels are less dramatic than their
reactions to faster and/or erratic vessel movements” and that “[s]ome species have been noted
to tolerate slow-moving vessels within several hundred meters, especially when the vessel is
not directed toward the animal and when there are no sudden changes in direction or engine
speed. Considering that tugs towing the drill rig are only anticipated to travel at ~ 5 knots, we
do not anticipate consequential reaction to towing noise.” PR1_ESA 000175. But as Hilcorp
itself acknowledged, “the activity of towing the rig onsite is not considered ‘typical’ vessel
activity.” PR1_MMPA 001443. Even travelling at 5 knots, tugs towing the drill rig will produce
significant noise levels. PR1_ESA 000175.
93 PR1_KeyRef 003211 (Recovery Plan). Federal Defendants argue that this “general finding
does not undercut NMFS’ activity-specific analysis” that considers low population density in
project areas, mitigation measures, and “tugboats operating at slower speeds with lower noise
levels.” Docket 61 at 19–20. However, as explained above, NMFS has not required shutdown
procedures or identified other mitigation measures for tugboats. Moreover, while the Recovery
Plan is not binding on the agency, the Court considers it to be persuasive in the absence of
record evidence or adequate explanation to the contrary.
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 22 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 23 of 52
NMFS also states in its ITR that Cook Inlet beluga whales “spend the ice-
free months generally in the upper Cook Inlet,” whereas Hilcorp will primarily be
active in the middle and lower Cook Inlet.94 But this passage notes only a “general”
distribution trend and explicitly recognizes that not all belugas will be in the upper
Cook Inlet during summer months.95 In fact, NMFS itself acknowledged 143
sightings of beluga whales during summer months “near some potential well sites”
in its BiOp, as well as a sighting of approximately 30 belugas in the Kasilof River
in April 2018.96 Additionally, the BiOp shows the tugs towing the drill rig on a path
through Cook Inlet beluga whales’ critical habitat, which NMFS described as
“known fall and winter foraging and transit habitat for beluga whales as well as
spring and summer habitat for smaller concentrations of beluga whales.”97 While
a lower population density in the lower and middle Cook Inlet during summer
months may result in lower take numbers, it does not support a conclusion that the
tugboats would not cause any take.98 This is particularly problematic where Hilcorp
94 PR1_MMPA 002273 (ITR); 84 Fed. Reg. 37442, 37463 (July 1, 2019).
95 For example, the ITR states that of the 18 beluga whales that have been tagged with satellite
transmitters since 1999, “most tagged whales were . . . near the Susitna River Delta from April
to July (60 to 90 percent of tagged whales) . . . .” PR1_MMPA 002273 (ITR); 84 Fed. Reg.
37442, 37463 (July 1, 2019).
96 PR1_ESA 000066, 000067 (BiOp).
97 PR1_ESA 000068 (tug path), 000073 (critical habitat map), 000071–72 (description of beluga
critical habitat).
98 PR1_MMPA 002301 (“Take estimates for Cook Inlet beluga whales were calculated using
densities from both the Goetz model and NMFS aerial surveys . . . .”).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 23 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 24 of 52
used the same density models as the agency and estimated that its tugboat
operations to Trading Bay would take 15 Cook Inlet belugas, and the agency never
addressed this disparity.99
Federal Defendants cite portions of the ITR for the proposition that “any
exposure to noise from Hilcorp’s vessels in these areas will be brief and infrequent
and allow belugas . . . to return to any areas that Hilcorp’s vessels might transit,”
and that “such ‘brief, transient behavioral response alone should not necessarily
be considered as having the potential to disturb by disrupting behavioral patterns’
sufficient to equate to Level B harassment.”100 This position fundamentally
misreads the MMPA, as it conflates the take estimate with the negligible impact
determination.101 The MMPA defines Level B harassment as any act of annoyance
that “has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to,
99 PR1_MMPA 001462 (Petition for ITR).
100 Docket 61 (citing PR1_MMPA 002266–67) (quoting PR1_MMPA 002263).
101 Moreover, Federal Defendants cite two unrelated portions of the ITR for this point. The first
portion states that the nature of the activities “allows beluga whales to return to favored areas
while activity continues in other locations”; this portion seems to concede that this response
would constitute take because it goes on to note that “by requesting take Hilcorp is requesting
permission to incidentally harass marine mammals by emitting anthropogenic noise.”
PR1_MMPA 002266. In contrast, the portion of the ITR discussing a “brief, transient behavioral
response” is in response to a comment by the Marine Mammal Commission recommending a
lower threshold for impulse sounds due to examples of animals “responding to sound.”
PR1_MMPA 002263. The two portions thus appear to be describing different and unrelated
responses.
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 24 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 25 of 52
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.”102 An exposure to
noise that results in, for example, a beluga whale leaving an area in which it is
foraging for food constitutes a disruption of its feeding pattern and is thus a take
by the plain language of the MMPA, even if the beluga returns shortly afterward.103
Moreover, the MMPA focuses on the “potential” for such disruption to occur; as
such, “the statute appears to consider all of the animals in a population to be
harassed if there is the potential for the act to disrupt the behavioral patterns of the
most sensitive individual in the group.”104
Nor is NMFS’s decision to disregard tugboat noise as a potential source of
take supported elsewhere in the record. For example, Federal Defendants identify
a portion of BiOp that states that at distances of 2,154 meters, “a whale or pinniped
that perceived the vessel noise is likely to ignore such a signal,” and that “[i]f
animals do respond, they may exhibit slight deflection from the noise source,
engage in low-level avoidance behavior, short-term vigilance behavior, or short-
term masking behavior,” but concludes that “these behaviors are not likely to result
102 16 U.S.C. § 1362(18)(A)(ii), (D).
103 Importantly, the MMPA defines Level B harassment in the context of military readiness
activities as a disruption of behavior patterns “to a point where such behavioral patterns are
abandoned or significantly altered.” 16 U.S.C. § 1362(18)(B)(ii). This additional language
would be rendered superfluous if a requirement of abandonment or significant alteration was
read into the definition of Level B harassment for non-military readiness activities. See Hibbs v.
Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 101 (2004) (quoting 2A N. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction §
46.06, pp 181–86 (rev. 6th ed. 2000) (stating the general rule that a statute “should be
construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or
superfluous . . . .”).
104 Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Evans, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1157 (N.D. Cal. 2003).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 25 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 26 of 52
in adverse consequences for the animals.”105 But this portion of the BiOp only
describes what happens at distances of 2,154 meters or more; it does not explain
what happens if a tugboat is closer than that distance to a beluga whale, or why
that is not expected to happen. More fundamentally, this conclusion refers to
“adverse consequences” instead of whether the effects would constitute take
under the definition of the MMPA, which is the proper inquiry.106 Rather, the low-
level avoidance behavior acknowledged in this passage concedes that such
activities could result in take under the MMPA.
Additionally, in discussing the effects of vessel noise on Cook Inlet beluga
whales, the BiOp acknowledges that “vessel noise could affect passage of Cook
Inlet beluga whales within their critical habitat . . . or cause temporary
abandonment of critical habitat areas used by Cook Inlet beluga whales,” but
concludes that “[w]ith the implementation of . . . mitigation and monitoring
measures, the impact of vessel noise is very minor, and thus adverse effects to
105 Docket 61 at 20 (citing PR1_ESA 000027–29 (BiOp)). The 2,154 meter figure was based on
measurements of a single tug in the Chukchi Sea; Hilcorp’s activities will involve three tugs
towing the drill rig. PR1_ESA 000175 (BiOp) (“Shell’s drilling activities in 2012 in the Chukchi
Sea of the tug Lauren Foss towing the Tuuq estimated source level at 167 dB at 1 μPa rms at 1
m, with the estimated 120 dB distance threshold of 2,154 m . . . The proposed action involves
three tugs (likely two actively towing and one for braking/positioning) transporting the drill rig.”).
Moreover, Cook Inlet’s shallow depth allows sound to travel further than usual. PR1_KeyRef
003212 (“Shallow sound channeling exists in Cook Inlet, which allows potential noise impacts to
be concentrated in shallow waters and become more spatially extensive (i.e., sound channels
can trap noise and allow it to travel farther).”).
106 See Salazar, 695 F.3d at 906 (explaining that the MMPA would not permit “a proposed
activity [that] might harass a large portion of the relevant mammal population, but have only a
negligible impact on the species or stock because the harassment is merely trivial and fleeting .
. . because it would result in a take of more than ‘small numbers’ of mammals”).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 26 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 27 of 52
Cook Inlet belugas will be immeasurably small.”107 Yet the BiOp explains
elsewhere that shutdown procedures will not apply to tugs towing the drill rig
because a shutdown in that situation would be dangerous.108 At oral argument,
counsel suggested that Protected Species Observers (“PSOs”) would have the
authority to order course changes if a beluga whale is seen within the 1,500 meter
safety zone for tugs towing the drill rig.109 However, the PSO protocols in the BiOp
state only that beluga whale presence in the safety zone will be recorded.110
Moreover, the 1,500 meter safety zone for tugs is considerably smaller than the
Level B harassment isopleth, which is up to 2,154 meters or even more.111 Thus,
even if tugs towing the drill rig can slow or divert course if a beluga enters the
safety zone, they are not required to do so for beluga whales they harass outside
of the safety zone. And like other citations to the BiOp, this conclusion is in
reference to “adverse effects,” rather than to whether the activities would constitute
a take under the MMPA.
In short, the ITR permits Hilcorp to operate tugs that will produce sound in
excess of the Level B take threshold through critical habitat used by beluga whales
107 PR1_ESA 000183 (BiOp).
108 PR1_ESA 000045 n.3 (BiOp).
109 Docket 72 at 16:18–22.
110 PR1_ESA 000051 (BiOp).
111 PR1_ESA 000175 (BiOp).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 27 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 28 of 52
without clearly defined mitigation measures. Federal Defendants have failed to
identify adequate support in the record for NMFS’s determination that this activity
will not cause any take of beluga whales. For the foregoing reasons, that
determination is arbitrary and capricious.
B. Mitigation and Monitoring Measures
“NMFS is required to prescribe regulations to achieve the ‘least practicable
adverse impact’ before it can authorize incidental take.”112 The “least practicable
impact” requirement is a “stringent standard,” and “‘[a]lthough the agency has
some discretion to choose among possible mitigation measures, it cannot exercise
that discretion to vitiate this stringent standard.’”113 “‘Practicable’ normally means
that something is capable of being done, or practical and effective.’”114 The Ninth
Circuit has explained that in the context of the MMPA, “a mitigation measure that
is practicable in reducing the impact of military readiness activities on marine
mammals must be both effective in reducing the impact, but also not so restrictive
of military activity as to unduly interfere with the government’s legitimate needs for
military readiness activities.”115 While the MMPA provides factors that should be
112 Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Pritzker, 828 F.3d 1125, 1134 (9th Cir. 2016).
113 Id. (quoting Evans, 279 F. Supp. 2d at 1159).
114 Id. (citing the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster for their definitions of
“practicable”).
115 Id. at 1134–35.
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 28 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 29 of 52
considered when determining the “least practicable impact” in the context of a
military readiness activity, it does not do so for other contexts.116
Plaintiffs contend that “NMFS failed to require ‘means [to ensure] the least
practicable adverse impact’ on the marine mammals to be taken” and also failed
to require sufficient monitoring as required by 16 U.S.C. §§ 1371(a)(5)(A)(i)(II)(aa)
and (bb).117 Plaintiffs contend that Hilcorp is only required to shut down seismic
operations and monitor up to a radius of 1,500 meters, but the Level B harassment
zone for such operations is 7,330 meters.118 Plaintiffs also assert that NMFS failed
to ensure “the least practicable impact” by not requiring a shutdown of operations
whenever any marine mammal enters the 1,500 meters safety zone, and not just
a beluga whale.119
Federal Defendants respond that the language of the MMPA “supports
considering potential measures under the least practicable adverse impact
standard in view of particular species’ needs,” and that NMFS chose shutdown
requirements “in specific recognition of concern about Cook Inlet beluga
116 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(5)(A)(iii).
117 Docket 53-1 at 23.
118 Docket 53-1 at 25–26; Docket 64 at 23 (citing Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries
Serv., 524 F.3d 917, 935–36 (9th Cir. 2008)).
119 Docket 53-1 at 24. The ITR requires a shut down when other whale species come within 500
meters of the seismic operations. PR1_CORR 004351.
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 29 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 30 of 52
whales.”120 Federal Defendants also maintain that it is “relevant (both in the impact
assessment and the practicability assessment) that belugas are only infrequently
observed in the lower and mid-Cook Inlet area of operations during the ice-free
months when Hilcorp is operating,” whereas “[o]ther protected mammal species
are much more abundant.”121 Federal Defendants add that Hilcorp must shut down
seismic activities if a beluga whale is spotted at any distance in the Level B zone,
even if the whale is more than 1,500 meters away.122
Plaintiffs have not established that it would be practicable to monitor the
entire 7,330 meter Level B harassment zone during seismic operations. In the
ITR, NMFS explains that it “carefully consider[ed] two primary factors: (1) the
manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the
measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals,” including “the
nature of the potential adverse impacts being mitigated” and the “likelihood that
the measure will be effective”; and “(2) the practicability of the measures for
applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost [and] impact on
operations . . . .”123 This formulation comports with the MMPA’s requirements by
considering a measure’s effectiveness as well its “capability of being done,” and
120 Docket 61 at 28.
121 Docket 61 at 29.
122 Docket 61 at 29 (citing PR1_MMPA 002265 (ITR); 50 C.F.R. 217.164(g)(6)).
123 PR1 MMPA 002303–04 (ITR); 84 Fed. Reg. 37442, 37493–94 (July 31, 2019).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 30 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 31 of 52
as such does not “vitiate” the “least practicable adverse impact” standard.124
NMFS applied these factors and found that requiring observers on mitigation
vessels to monitor the entire Level B harassment zone is not practicable.125
However, NMFS also required aerial overflights prior each day prior to
commencing seismic activities “in an effort to ensure areas of seismic surveying
are free of beluga whales” along with season closures in sensitive areas.126
Plaintiffs’ argument does not address why NMFS should have determined that
monitoring the entire Level B harassment area by vessel was practicable; nor do
Plaintiffs suggest alternative practicable means that NMFS could have used to
monitor the entire Level B harassment zone.
Plaintiffs cite National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries
Service. The agency there relied on future, non-binding plans to install mitigation
measures in finding that the action at issue would not jeopardize an endangered
124 See Pritzker, 828 F.3d at 1134 (citing the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster for
their definitions of “practicable”).
125 PR1_MMPA 002265 (ITR); 84 Fed. Reg. 37442, 37455 (July 31, 2019) (“NMFS has revised
the mitigation and monitoring scheme, taking into consideration comments received during the
public comment period. A 7,300 m monitoring zone is not required as it is not feasible or
practicable to cover that area during seismic surveying. Instead, a 1,500 m safety zone will be
implemented. This 1,500 m safety zone requires observers on the source vessel and the
mitigation vessel to observe to a distance of 1,500 m during seismic activity . . . . However, in
light of concerns surrounding the status of Cook Inlet beluga whales, NMFS implemented a
shutdown measure that requires Hilcorp to shut down active sound sources from which take
could occur if a Cook Inlet beluga whale is sighted at any distance within the relevant Level B
harassment isopleths.”).
126 Docket 61 at 30–31; PR1_MMPA 002269 (ITR); 84 Fed. Reg. 37442, 37459 (July 31, 2019).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 31 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 32 of 52
species, which the Ninth Circuit held impermissible.127 Here, NMFS determined
that broader visual monitoring from vessels was not practicable and recognized
that this could lead to take, which informed its take estimate. National Wildlife
Federation is inapposite, as it concerned a future non-binding mitigation measure;
this case focuses on whether a measure can be practicably implemented in the
first place.128
NMFS also did not violate the mitigation requirements of the MMPA by
mandating shutdowns of seismic operations when a beluga comes within 1,500
meters, but only 500 meters for other whale species. NMFS reasonably concluded
that requiring shutdowns for more numerous marine mammals would be less
practicable and overly restrictive of Hilcorp’s activities. Moreover, NMFS’s
consideration of the individualized needs of different species permissibly reflects
whether measures will be effective in reducing the impacts of Hilcorp’s activities.
Plaintiffs point to a request by Hilcorp to increase the shutdown zone to 1,200
meters for four species of whale for 3D seismic operations after a sound source
verification analysis as evidence that expanding the shutdown zone is
practicable.129 However, the 3D seismic portion of Hilcorp’s activities have already
127 524 F.3d at 935–36.
128 PR1_MMPA 002301 (ITR) (acknowledging that safety zones “are generally smaller than the
Level B harassment zones from various sources” and providing that “Level B harassment
exposures will be recorded and extrapolated based upon the number of observed take and the
percentage of the Level B harassment zone that is not visible”).
129 PR1_CORR 004351.
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 32 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 33 of 52
been completed, and Plaintiffs do not explain why this shows that expanding the
shutdown zone for 2D seismic or other activities is practicable. While NMFS’s
discretion is not unbounded, its choice of mitigation and monitoring measures here
did not negate the independent significance of the “least practicable adverse
impact” standard.
However, shutdown procedures do not apply to tugs towing the drill rig, and
the Court is not aware of any other mitigation measures that apply to that activity.
On remand, NMFS should consider whether any additional mitigation measures
for tugs towing the drill rig are necessary to comport with the MMPA’s least
practicable adverse impact requirement.
III. ESA
“The ESA was enacted to prevent the extinction of fish, wildlife, and plant
species.”130 To accomplish this goal, “[t]he ESA permits federal agencies to
authorize actions that will result in the taking of endangered or threatened species
only if the projected take ‘is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of’ any
listed species.”131 To “take” under the ESA means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
130 Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 376 F.3d 853, 873 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Turtle
Island Restoration Network v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 340 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2003)).
131 Turtle Island Restoration Network v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 878 F.3d 725, 735 (9th Cir.
2017) (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2)).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 33 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 34 of 52
conduct.”132 Under the ESA’s implementing regulations, harassment requires a
“likelihood of injury [to a listed species] by annoying it to such an extent as to
significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns . . . .”133 An action jeopardizes the
continued existence of a species if it “reasonably would be expected, directly or
indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of
a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution
of that species.”134 If an agency authorizing an action determines the action “may
affect listed [endangered] species or critical habitat” of a marine species, it must
formally consult with NMFS, which is the agency responsible for administering and
enforcing the ESA with regard to marine life.135 NMFS then “prepares a BiOp
evaluating the effects of the proposed action on the survival and recovery of the
species,” taking into account “the proposed action’s direct, indirect, and cumulative
effects . . . in relation to the environmental baseline, and opines on whether the
action is likely to jeopardize the species’ survival.”136 NMFS’s conclusions in the
BiOp must be based on “evidence supported by ‘the best scientific and commercial
132 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19).
133 50 C.F.R. § 17.3.
134 50 C.F.R. § 402.02.
135 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a), (g); Westlands Water Dist., 376 F.3d at 873.
136 Turtle Island Restoration Network, 878 F.3d at 736 (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1536(c); 50 C.F.R. §
402.14(g)(4); and Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 524 F.3d at 924).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 34 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 35 of 52
data available.’”137 After the BiOp is prepared, reinitiation of consultation is
required “[i]f new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed
[endangered] species or habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously
considered.”138
In this case, the NMFS Office of Protected Resources, Permits and
Conservation Division, in conjunction with the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, engaged in formal consultation with the NMFS Alaska Region.139
On June 18, 2019, the NMFS Alaska Region issued a BiOp, concluding that “[a]fter
reviewing the current status of the listed species, the environmental baseline within
the action area, the effects of the proposed action (including the likely continuation
of similar activities 30 years into the future), and cumulative effects, . . . the
proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Cook Inlet
beluga whales” or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat.140
Plaintiffs claim that NMFS violated the ESA in three ways: (1) NMFS’s BiOp
failed to properly consider the full effects of the action on the survival and recovery
of the Cook Inlet beluga whale; (2) NMFS failed to properly consider the cumulative
137 Id. (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(8)).
138 50 C.F.R. § 402.16(a)(2).
139 PR1_ESA 000012 (BiOp). The Court does not distinguish between the two NMFS offices
elsewhere in this order, as the distinction is largely procedural and has no apparent bearing on
the merits of this case.
140 PR1_ESA 000225 (BiOp).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 35 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 36 of 52
effects on Cook Inlet belugas; and (3) NMFS failed to reinitiate consultation despite
new information triggering that requirement.
A. Effects of the Action
In the BiOp, NMFS noted that tugs towing the drill rig “may cause
disturbance,” but “were not used to estimate Level A or B acoustic
harassment . . . .”141 NMFS also concluded that “[w]ith the implementation of . . .
mitigation and monitoring measures, the impact of vessel noise is very minor, and
thus adverse effects to Cook Inlet belugas will be immeasurably small” and
“extremely unlikely to occur.”142 Plaintiffs assert that “NMFS’s conclusory
dismissal does not equate to the careful analysis the ESA mandates.”143 Plaintiffs
add that rather than resolving scientific disagreement, NMFS flatly ignored the
science outlined in its Recovery Plan and a recent study by an NMFS scientist
showing the “significant threat to Cook Inlet belugas” posed by tugboat and other
vessel noise.144
Federal Defendants respond that “NMFS’ BiOp expressly considered the
potential effects of anthropogenic noise on Cook Inlet beluga whales, including
vessel noise from Hilcorp’s proposed activities,” and NMFS concluded that vessel
141 PR1_ESA 000172 (BiOp).
142 PR1_ESA 000183 (BiOp).
143 Docket 64 at 24.
144 Docket 64 at 25.
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 36 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 37 of 52
noise was not likely to adversely affect the Cook Inlet beluga whale or its critical
habitat.145
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that NMFS failed to adequately consider the
effects of noise from tugboats on the Cook Inlet beluga whale and its critical habitat
for many of the reasons already discussed in the MMPA section of this order. In
concluding that the adverse effects on beluga whales from tugs towing the drill rig
were “insignificant,” NMFS referenced mitigation measures146; however, the BiOp
explains that “[t]ug operations cannot discontinue controlling rig transport without
causing risk to life, property, or the environment, but PSOs will continue to monitor
for, and report on, the presence of mammals within 1,500 m of a tug.”147 Moreover,
the 1,500 meter safety zone for monitoring and reporting take is considerably less
than the distance threshold of 2,154 meters for Level B harassment that was
estimated in the Chukchi Sea for Shell’s single tug.148 The BiOp explains that “[a]t
these distances, a whale or pinniped that perceived the vessel noise is likely to
145 Docket 61 at 31 (citing PR1_ESA 000172 and PR1_ESA 000136–40; AKR3014211 (2019
study).
146 PR1_ESA 000175, 000178.
147 PR1_ESA 000045 n.3 (BiOp). It is not clear whether the ITR requires PSOs aboard the tugs
while towing the drill rig. But see PR1_ESA 000051 (“PSOs aboard the tugs will monitor the SZ
around each vessel while it is under power.”).
148 Compare PR1_ESA 000041 (safety zone) with PR1_ESA 000175 (“Shell’s drilling activities in
2012 in the Chukchi Sea of the tug Lauren Foss towing the Tuuq estimated source level at 167
dB at 1 μPa rms at 1 m, with the estimated 120 dB distance threshold of 2,154 m . . . We
anticipate that noise associated with towing the drill rig would drop to the 120 dB isopleth within
2,154 meters (or less) of active tugs.”).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 37 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 38 of 52
ignore such a signal,” and that “[i]f animals do respond, they may exhibit slight
deflection from the noise source”149; but the BiOp does not address the effects on
beluga whales that are closer to the tugboats, nor explain why beluga whales are
not expected to be encountered at closer distances. In short, the BiOp disregarded
the very real possibility that beluga whales would be subjected to high levels of
sound from the tugboats that could cause adverse effects.
Moreover, NMFS itself has identified noise from tugboats and other vessels
as a significant threat to Cook Inlet beluga whales.150 NMFS is tasked with using
its expertise to resolve scientific uncertainty and is not bound by recommendations
in previous studies or recovery plans. But here NMFS simply disregarded
evidence of the effects of tugboat noise without identifying mitigation measures or
contrary evidence on which it based its conclusion that the effects of the noise on
the Cook Inlet beluga were “insignificant.”151 Furthermore, despite Federal
Defendants’ assertion that Plaintiffs misconstrue recent studies on the harmful
effects of tug and other vessel noise by ignoring population distribution, Hilcorp will
be operating tugs through the beluga whale’s critical habitat and near where large
149 PR1_ESA 000175–76 (BiOp).
150 Docket 61 at 21; PR1_KeyRef 003211 (Recovery Plan); AKR3014211 (2019 study).
151 PR1_ESA 000178 (BiOp).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 38 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 39 of 52
numbers of belugas have been recently seen during months when Hilcorp will be
operating.152
NMFS’s BiOp did not provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to not
include tugboat noise when considering the effects of the ITR on beluga whales,
and that determination is not supported by the record As such, the agency’s direct
effects analysis was arbitrary and capricious.
B. Cumulative Effects
Plaintiffs assert that in determining that “noise and other impacts from
Hilcorp’s oil and gas activities would not jeopardize the species,” NMFS ignored
“the effects of the regulations when combined with the baseline, cumulative
impacts, and the grim status of the species.”153 Plaintiffs stress that “the Ninth
Circuit has repeatedly rejected jeopardy analyses that fail to consider the impacts
of the action under review when added to baseline conditions that have already
contributed to a species’ decline.”154 They maintain that “[s]uch failure is especially
arbitrary considering NMFS’s own Recovery Plan for Cook Inlet beluga whales
states that ‘[e]xposure to any given stressor at a sub-lethal level may predispose
individual belugas to greater susceptibility to mortality or long-term effects (for
example, reproductive failure) from other stressors . . . . [T]he additive effects of
152 PR1_ESA 000066, 000067 (BiOp); PR1_ESA 000068 (tug path), 000073 (critical habitat
map) 000071 (description of beluga critical habitat).
153 Docket 53-1 at 34 (emphasis in original).
154 Docket 53-1 at 32 (citing Turtle Island Restoration Network, 878 F.3d at 735).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 39 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 40 of 52
multiple noise sources, as well as the combination of noise and other stressors,
are of particular concern.’”155
Federal Defendants assert that “NMFS’ BiOp contains the required analysis”
because it “considered the cumulative effects, environmental baseline, the
proposed ITR, and Hilcorp’s proposed future oil and gas activities in light of the
status of the species all together in its ‘Integration and Synthesis’ section.”156
Federal Defendants contend that Plaintiffs misconstrue the jeopardy analysis
required by the ESA because the “ESA does not recognize a ‘baseline jeopardy’
status of a species such that additional take is impermissible”; instead, “[t]he focus
is whether the action itself is the cause of the appreciable reduction of a species’
likelihood of survival and recovery.”157 Federal Defendants assert that “NMFS
made its expert judgment here that any Level B harassment of belugas is unlikely
to reduce the fitness, reproduction, or survival of individual whales and thus
unlikely to have material consequences at the population level, even in the context
of an endangered population and cumulative effects.”158
Plaintiffs reply that they “are not arguing that NMFS was required to
determine that the baseline constitutes jeopardy . . . . Rather Plaintiffs maintain
155 Docket 53-1 at 34 (quoting PR1_KeyRef 003230).
156 Docket 61 at 34 (citing PR1_ESA 000213–25).
157 Docket 61 at 34–35 (citing Oceana, Inc. v. Pritzker, 125 F. Supp. 3d 232, 246 (D.D.C. 2015)
and Nat. Wildlife Fed’n, 524 F.3d at 930).
158 Docket 61 at 36.
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 40 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 41 of 52
NMFS failed to consider the total impacts from Hilcorp’s activities in light of the
baseline, cumulative effects, and status of the species.”159 Plaintiffs assert that
Defendants “admit[] that some whales would suffer behavior changes from
Hilcorp’s activities,” but “never considered the larger or compound impacts, such
as how this behavioral response could push belugas into other areas—where they
would also be subject to noise disturbance.”160
The parties seem to be in agreement that the requirement that a federal
action be considered in its broader context does not require that the action be
analyzed as if it “include[s] all independent or baseline harms to listed species.”161
However, in light of the Court’s finding that the BiOp failed to adequately consider
the potential effects of tugboat noise on Cook Inlet beluga whales, on remand
NMFS should include any such effects in considering the cumulative effects of the
action.
C. Reinitiation of Consultation
Because the Court finds that the BiOp is inadequate, the Court does not
reach the issue of whether NMFS is required to reinitiate consultation.
159 Docket 64 at 26.
160 Docket 64 at 26–27 (citing PR1_ESA 000164, 000168–69 (BiOp)).
161 Nat’l Wildlife Federation, 524 F.3d at 930 (“[T]he suffix ‘-ize’ in ‘jeopardize’ indicates some
active change of status: an agency may not ‘cause [a species] to be or to become’ in a state of
jeopardy or ‘subject [a species] to’ jeopardy.”).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 41 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 42 of 52
IV. NEPA
The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) established the Council on
Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) and created procedures that require “that federal
agencies take a ‘hard look’ at the environmental consequences of their actions.”162
NEPA requires that agencies prepare an environmental impact statement for all
“major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.”163 “[A]n agency may prepare an EA to decide whether the
environmental impact of a proposed action is significant enough to warrant
preparation of an EIS.”164 An EA is a “concise public document that briefly
provide[s] sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an
EIS . . . .”165 If the agency concludes in the EA that an EIS in not required, it issues
a finding of no significant impact (“FONSI”).166 An EA must “[b]riefly provide
sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an
environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact.”167 The EA
must also address the direct effects of an action, as well as its cumulative
162 California v. Norton, 311 F.3d 1162, 1175 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d
1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 2000)); 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4370m-12.
163 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). Accord Metcalf, 214 F.3d at 1142.
164 Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing
40 C.F.R. § 1508.9).
165 Id. (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9).
166 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(e).
167 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a)(1).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 42 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 43 of 52
effects.168 A court reviews whether an agency has “taken a ‘hard look’ at the
consequences of its actions, ‘based [its decision] on a consideration of the relevant
factors,’ and provided a ‘convincing statement of reasons to explain why a project’s
impacts are insignificant’” under the arbitrary and capricious standard.169
Here, Plaintiffs claim that NMFS violated NEPA in preparing the EA by: (1)
failing to properly consider the direct impacts of noise from tugboats and other
vessels on Cook Inlet belugas; and (2) failing to take a hard look at the cumulative
effects of the take authorization.
A. Direct Impacts
Plaintiffs maintain that NMFS “fail[ed] to comply with NEPA’s hard look
requirement” by “summarily claiming that any animals present in the project area
‘are likely habituated to the existing baseline of commercial ship traffic’ and there
are no ‘species-specific circumstances or other contextual factors that would
increase concern and the likelihood of take from towing of the drill rig.’”170 Plaintiffs
contend that the EA ignored the “‘species-specific circumstances’ . . . described at
168 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(b); Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone of Nev. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 608
F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Kern v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 284 F.3d 1062, 1076 (9th
Cir. 2002)) (“We also require that an EA fully address cumulative environmental effects or
“cumulative impacts.”).
169 Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Babbitt, 241 F.3d 722, 730 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting
Metcalf, 214 F.3d at 1142) (alteration in Babbitt), abrogated on other grounds by Monsanto Co.
v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010).
170 Docket 53-1 at 40 (quoting PR1_NEPA 000059–60 and citing Or. Nat. Res. Council Fund v.
Goodman, 505 F.3d 884, 892 (9th Cir. 2007)).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 43 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 44 of 52
length in . . . the agency’s own Recovery Plan” and “‘improperly minimize[d]
negative side effects’ to Cook Inlet beluga whales . . . .”171
In response, Federal Defendants assert that “NMFS specifically addressed
the impact of vessel traffic, including tugboats and other vessels, on noise levels
leaving from” several ports in Cook Inlet.172 Federal Defendants characterize
NMFS’s discussion of tugboat and other vessel noise not as “mere summary
statements,” but rather as “conclusions made on the science and studies before
NMFS.”173 Hilcorp adds that “both the EA and the FONSI specifically reference
the agency’s BiOp, which provides NMFS’s comprehensive analysis of vessel
noise and concludes that “the impact of vessel noise is very minor, and thus
adverse effects to Cook Inlet belugas will be immeasurably small.”174 For its part,
the State points to portions of the EA that describe the impacts of sound produced
by Hilcorp’s activities on marine mammals.175
Plaintiffs reply that NMFS merely listed “tugs or vessels” as an anticipated
noise source without describing or analyzing “the direct impacts of those
171 Docket 53-1 at 40–41 (quoting W. Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472, 491
(9th Cir. 2011)).
172 Docket 61 at 40 (citing PR1_NEPA 000094).
173 Docket 61 at 40–41 (citing PR1_NEPA 000053–74, 94, 95 (EA); PR1_ESA 000182–83
(BiOp)).
174 Docket 60 at 43 (citing PR1_ESA 000183 (BiOp); Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
451 F.3d 1005, 1012 (9th Cir. 2006); Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 647 F.
Supp. 2d 1221, 1247 (D. Or. 2009)).
175 Docket 62 at 36 (citing PR1_NEPA 000083–90 (EA)).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 44 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 45 of 52
vessels.”176 Plaintiffs contend that Federal Defendants’ citations to the Cumulative
Effects section of the EA mistakes “direct impacts” for actions likely to cause take;
they add that “the EA itself ‘contains virtually no references to any material in
support of or in opposition to its conclusion[]’” regarding the habituation of beluga
to vessel noise.177 Plaintiffs also maintain that a reference to the BiOp is
insufficient because “[a] ‘no jeopardy’ BiOp does not equate to a review under
NEPA.”178
Plaintiffs cite Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, in which the
Ninth Circuit invalidated regulations because the agency “failed to address
concerns raised by its own experts,” along with other state and federal agencies.179
In doing so, the agency “offered no reasoned analysis whatsoever in support of its
conclusion—which is in direct conflict with the conclusion of its own experts and
sister agency . . . —that there will be no environmental effect caused by” the federal
action.180 Plaintiffs also cite Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund v.
Goodman.181 The Ninth Circuit there determined that the agency violated NEPA
176 Docket 64 at 31 (citing PR1_NEPA 000055).
177 Docket 64 at 31–32 (quoting Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project, 161 F.3d at 1214).
178 Docket 64 at 32 (citing Makua v. Rumsfeld, 163 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1218 (D. Haw. 2001); Pac.
Rivers Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 668 F.3d 609, 628 (9th Cir. 2012)).
179 Docket 53-1 at 40–41 (citing 632 F.3d at 492).
180 Id.
181 Docket 53-1 at 40 (505 F.3d at 892).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 45 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 46 of 52
by failing to adequately discuss the impact of a federal action on the Pacific fisher
in its NEPA analysis; instead, its environmental impact statement “simply states
that ‘[n]o adverse cumulative effects are anticipated.’” The agency argued that “it
did not have to detail these projects’ impact on the fisher because the ski area
expansion is modest.”182 The Ninth Circuit rejected this approach, stating that “[w]e
have repeatedly explained that generalized, conclusory assertions from agency
experts are not sufficient; the agency must provide the underlying data supporting
the assertion in language intelligible to the public.”183
The same is true here. The portions of the EA cited by Defendants fail to
provide reasoned support for NMFS’s determination that Hilcorp’s tug operations
will not significantly impact the environment. For example, the portions cited by
Federal Defendants either repeat the conclusory statements the Court determined
were insufficient in the MMPA section of this order,184 list tugs as a potential source
of noise without explaining why the effects of that noise on Cook Inlet beluga
whales will be insignificant,185 or fail to mention tugs towing the drill rig or mitigation
measures that apply to tugs towing the drill rig while describing mitigation
182 Id. at 892–93.
183 Id. at 893 (citing Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 402 F.3d 846, 864 (9th Cir.
2005) and Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 387 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir.
2004)).
184 See supra at p. 21; PR1_NEPA 000059–60 (EA).
185 PR1_NEPA 000055–56 (EA).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 46 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 47 of 52
measures that apply to other activities.186 The portions of the EA cited by the State
similarly fail to discuss tugs towing the drill rig specifically and reference take
estimates the Court has determined were inadequate earlier in this order.187
Additionally, while an EA may rely on analysis in a corresponding BiOp, the
analysis in NMFS’s BiOp also failed to properly address the effects of tugs on Cook
Inlet beluga whales, as discussed earlier in this order.188
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the EA failed to take the
requisite hard look at the effects of Hilcorp’s tugs towing the drill rig on Cook Inlet
beluga whales.
B. Cumulative Impacts
Plaintiffs assert that “NMFS’s EA failed to take a hard look at the cumulative
impacts of the regulations” because its analysis of cumulative impacts “amounts
to nothing more than general descriptions of categories of activities and projects
that impact Cook Inlet beluga whales,” which while necessary, does not amount to
a “‘description of actual environmental effects.’”189 They assert that the “EA’s
Cumulative Effects section lists types of impacts and minimally describes some
186 PR1_NEPA 000094–95; PR1_NEPA 000065–67 (EA).
187 See supra p. 27; PR1_NEPA 000086–87; PR1_NEPA 000088–90 (EA).
188 See supra p. 28; see also Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr., 451 F.3d at 1012 (“Clearly, NEPA and the
ESA involve different standards, but this does not require USFS to disregard the findings made
by FWS in connection with formal consultation mandated by the ESA.”).
189 Docket 53-1 at 41 (quoting Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr., 387 F.3d at 995).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 47 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 48 of 52
projects in the area,” but “does not contain [] any analysis related to cumulative
impacts, in particular on Cook Inlet belugas.”190 Additionally, Plaintiffs maintain
that “[n]owhere does NMFS actually analyze the effects of “numerous other
projects in the Inlet that will overlap with Hilcorp’s activities” that NMFS has or may
authorize, as well as “impacts from other activities NMFS has not authorized, but
may be impacting the species.”191 Plaintiffs add that the EA’s “failure to report and
analyze the total estimated take of, and other impacts to, Cook Inlet beluga whales
stymies an assessment of the cumulative impacts to the whales from Hilcorp’s
activities.”192
Federal Defendants respond that “NMFS’s cumulative impacts analysis is
adequate because NEPA simply requires that an EA’s cumulative impacts analysis
contain ‘a sufficiently detailed catalogue of past, present, and future projects, and
provide[s] adequate analysis about how [those] projects[] and differences between’
them might impact the environment.”193 Federal Defendants assert that NMFS
“took into account the cumulative environmental impacts on Cook Inlet belugas”
by considering “the subsistence hunting of beluga by Alaska Native communities
190 Docket 64 at 33 (emphasis in original).
191 Docket 53-1 at 42 (citing 84 Fed. Reg. 30991 (June 28, 2019); 85 Fed. Reg 19294 (Apr. 6,
2020); PR1_KeyRef 003274; AKR3014188, 206.
192 Docket 53-1 at 42 (citing PR1_MMPA 001787 (Marine Mammal Commission Letter).
193 Docket 61 at 41 (alterations in original) (quoting Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019,
1028 (9th Cir. 2005); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 48 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 49 of 52
and the current long-term harvest limits based on population density”; “the Cook
Inlet beluga Recovery Plan”; “Hilcorp’s 2018 pipeline installation project and its
authorization for incidental Level B harassment of 40 Cook Inlet beluga whales”;
the status of “beluga whales as an ESA-listed species for which permits will be
issued to study in the future”; “the impact climate change may have on belugas”
feeding and prey; and “several other impacts on marine mammals general, like the
impact of acoustic sources from vessel traffic throughout Cook Inlet.”194 They
maintain that NMFS also considered activities for which authorization was pending,
as well as various activities that do not require authorization.195 Hilcorp asserts
that Plaintiffs’ argument was rejected in Native Village of Chickaloon, which
concerned the cumulative effects analysis in an EA that Hilcorp characterizes as
“remarkably similar” to the one at issue here.196
NEPA requires an agency to “‘consider’ cumulative effects, which ‘result[]
from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and
reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency . . . or person
undertakes such other actions.”197 An agency’s discussion of cumulative impacts
194 Docket 61 at 41–42 (citing PR1_NEPA 000097, 99, 100, 94–95; PR1_ESA 000182–83
(BiOp)).
195 Docket 61 at 43.
196 Docket 60 at 44–45; 947 F. Supp. 2d at 1073.
197 Ctr. for Envtl. Law & Policy v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 655 F.3d 1000, 1007 (9th Cir.
2011) (quoting Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 421 F.3d 797, 814 (9th Cir.
2005)).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 49 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 50 of 52
in an EA “‘must give a sufficiently detailed catalogue of past, present, and future
projects, and provide adequate analysis about how these projects, and differences
between the projects, are thought to have impacted the environment.’”198 “General
statements about ‘possible effects’ and ‘some risk’ do not constitute a ‘hard look’
absent a justification regarding why more definitive information could not be
provided.”199 However, “under NEPA [courts] defer to an agency’s determination
of the scope of its cumulative effects review.”200
The EA prepared by NMFS catalogues a wide variety of potential impacts,
including past, present, and future projects, as well as vessel noise, pollution,
subsistence hunting, and climate change.201 NMFS acknowledged the various
contributors to vessel traffic in Cook Inlet and noted that such effects are
accounted for in the ITR, which requires various mitigation measures.202 Plaintiffs
fail to identify any individual impact that NMFS ignored and instead urge the Court
to find that NMFS failed to analyze the impacts, but simply listed them. The Court
198 Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone of Nev. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 608 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.
2010) (quoting Lands Council, 395 F.3d at 1028).
199 Id. (quoting Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. U.S. Forest Serv., 137 F.3d 1372, 1380 (9th Cir.
1998)).
200 Selkirk Conservation All. v. Forsgren, 336 F.3d 944, 959 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Neighbors of
Cuddy Mountain v. Alexander, 303 F.3d 1059, 1071 (9th Cir. 2002)). See Salazar, 695 F.3d at
917 (holding agency’s failure to mention possibility of major oil spill not arbitrary and capricious
due to narrow scope of five-year take authorization).
201 PR1_NEPA 000092–100 (EA).
202 PR1_NEPA 000094–95 (EA); PR1_NEPA 000065–66 (EA) (summarizing mitigation
requirements).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 50 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 51 of 52
disagrees. NMFS provided a well-developed discussion of the various impacts.203
NFMS’s EA does not resemble the EA described in Klamath-Siskiyou Wildland
Center v. Bureau of Land Management, cited by Plaintiffs, in which “[a]
considerable portion of each [cumulative effects] section discusses only the direct
effects of the project at issue on its own minor watershed” and in which “[t]he
reader is not told what data the conclusion was based on, or why objective data
cannot be provided” regarding the other impacts mentioned.204 Here, NMFS
provided reasoned discussion of other impacts along with, where applicable,
references to studies, population estimates, and other information.205
However, due to the failure to consider the direct impacts on Cook Inlet
beluga whales of tugs towing the drill rig in the EA, the cumulative effects analysis
similarly lacks such consideration. On remand, NMFS should consider the
cumulative effects of Hilcorp’s tug operations in the context of past, present, and
future activities in Cook Inlet.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket
53 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court upholds the National
203 PR1_NEPA 000092–100 (EA).
204 Docket 53-1 at 41; Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr., 387 F.3d at 994–55.
205 See, e.g., PR1_NEPA 000099–100 (discussing the data and effects of climate change but
noting uncertainty in future government response and scientific models); PR1_NEPA 000093–
94 (describing the history of subsistence hunting in Cook Inlet and providing citations to various
studies).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 51 of 52

Case No. 3:19-cv-00238-SLG, Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. Raimondo, et al.
Order re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Page 52 of 52
Marine Fisheries Service’s mitigation and monitoring measures for seismic
surveying under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.206 But the Court finds that the
agency’s determination that noise from Hilcorp’s tugs towing the drill rig would not
cause any take by harassment of Cook Inlet beluga whales is arbitrary and
capricious for the reasons set forth herein, and the agency relied on this erroneous
determination in its issuance of the Incidental Take Regulations, the Biological
Opinion, and the Environmental Assessment. The State of Alaska’s Cross Motion
for Summary Judgment at Docket 63 is DENIED.
Federal Defendants’ request for supplemental briefing on the appropriate
remedy is GRANTED. Each party may file a brief addressing the appropriate
remedy that should occur in this matter within 14 days of the date of this order;
each party may file a response to the other parties’ remedies filing within 7 days
thereafter.
DATED this March 30, 2021, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
206 But see supra at p. 33 (holding that on remand, NMFS should consider whether any
additional mitigation measures for tugs are warranted).
Case 3:19-cv-00238-SLG Document 73 Filed 03/30/21 Page 52 of 52