National Marine Fisheries Service

In this suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, Conservation Law Foundation challenges the failure of the Secretary of Commerce and the National Marine Fisheries Service to protect critically endangered North Atlantic right whales and their critical habitat by completing the legally-required Endangered Species Act “Section 7” consultation prior to approval of the Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment, in violation of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544, the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1884, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.

In this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, Conservation Law Foundation (“CLF” or “Plaintiff”) challenges the Secretary of Commerce and the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (collectively, “NMFS” or “Defendants”) ongoing authorization and management of the American lobster fishery and their failure to prevent jeopardy and unlawful takes of endangered North Atlantic right whales (“right whales”) in violation of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), Marine Mammal Protection Act (“MMPA”), and Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361-1389; 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.

Judge Koh ruled that NMFS failed to base their annual catch limit (25,000 mt), acceptable biological catch (25,000 mt), and overfishing limit (100,000 mt) for anchovy on the best available scientific information. At the time NMFS promulgated its Catch Rule, the best available science showed that the anchovy population was likely less than 32,000 mt and anchovy-dependent predators like the California brown pelican and California sea lion had already experienced multi-year starvation and breeding failures due to lack of food. Judge Koh also found that NMFS failed to demonstrate that the rule would prevent overfishing, as required by the Magnuson Act. Because she found it failed to prevent overfishing, she did not reach the claim that the rule also failed to achieve optimum yield by accounting for the food needs of marine predators. Finally, she held that our challenge to the previously established overfishing limit and acceptable biological catch (from which the annual catch limit is derived) was timely under the 9th Circuit Ore. Trollers decision.