Their filing is attached. I found the following points to be particularly compelling:
p.3: “Despite no evidence that an Oil and Gas Program vessel has ever struck a Rice’s whale, the 2025 BiOp projects that Oil and Gas Program vessels will lethally strike numerous Rice’s whales over the term of the 2025 BiOp. On that basis alone, the Service found that the Oil and Gas Program will jeopardize the continued existence of the Rice’s whale, and developed a multi-step reasonable and prudent alternative which it asserts will reduce projected vessel strikes to zero.“
p. 4: “The Rice’s whale is a rarely found animal that the Service first identified as a new species (separate from the non-endangered Bryde’s whale) in 2021. 86 Fed. Reg. 47,022 (Aug. 23, 2021). There is no evidence that an Oil and Gas Program vessel has ever struck a Rice’s whale (or a Bryde’s whale) despite continued operation in the Gulf over many decades.”
p. 5: “The 2025 BiOp disregards the Bureaus’ logical, fact-based conclusion. Instead, the Service’s 2025 BiOp engages in speculation and guess-work to surmise that Oil and Gas Program vessels could be striking and killing Rice’s whales on a regular basis. The Service ignores the best available data (i.e., showing no recorded observations of an oil and gas vessel striking a Rice’s whale) and instead presumes that forceable and lethal collisions between oil and gas service vessels and 60,000-pound whales are regularly occurring but somehow going unnoticed by the vessels and their crews and that the carcasses silently disappear into the water, never to be seen again.“
Section 7(a)(4) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to confer with NMFS on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
Section 7(b)(3) of the ESA requires that at the conclusion of consultation, NMFS provides an opinion stating whether the Federal agency’s action is likely to jeopardize ESA-listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
p. 598: The proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of sperm whale, Northwest Atlantic loggerhead sea turtle, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, North Atlantic DPS green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, or Gulf sturgeon.
The proposed action is not likely to destroy or adversely modify loggerhead or Gulf sturgeon designated critical habitat, or proposed critical habitat for green sea turtle North Atlantic DPS or Rice’s whale.
p. 599: The operation of oil and gas vessels in the Gulf of America, in an area where the endangered Rice’s whale occurs, is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the whale due to the risk of vessel strike.
According to NMFS, the reasonable and prudent alternative (see below) reduces or avoids the primary threat to Rice’s whales, the risk of injurious and lethal vessel strike interaction.The impacts of other stressors are more limited in space and time, diffuse, or not likely to result in adverse effects to Rice’s whale.
The reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) requires the following as it relates to vessel activity in the action area. More detail on p. 601:
Immediately begin to use technology to enable Rice’s whale vessel strike avoidance and monitoring of presence of Rice’s whale.
Establish an expert working group to support development and implementation of a Rice’s whale vessel strike avoidance technology plan (RW Tech Plan)
Improve understanding of Rice’s whale vessel strike risk associated with the proposed action
Develop a Rice’s whale vessel strike avoidance technology plan (RW Tech Plan)
Undertake independent peer review
Implement Rice’s whale vessel strike technology plan
Monitor Rice’s whales to ensure no likelihood of jeopardy during RPA implementation
Comment: Because the risk to the Rice’s whale in the central and northwestern GoA is highly speculative (see analysis by Darren Ireland), the RPA is arguably excessive. However, I like the RPA’s technological and management system focus.
Unsurprisingly, Earth Justice et al found the NMFS opinion inadequate and filed a suit (attached) in Maryland calling on the court to vacate the opinion and grant injunctive relief.
How can they sue in a Federal court in Maryland, far away from the Gulf? The venue was ostensibly chosen because NMFS headquarters are located in a Maryland suburb of DC. The Maryland court is also likely to favor the plaintiffs, which may have been a factor in the choice of venue. It’s a great country! 😉
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 