`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. ___________
`
`
`
`
`
`CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION
`62 Summer Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02110
`
`
`
`
`
`WILBUR ROSS, in his official capacity
`as Secretary of Commerce,
`United States Department of Commerce
`1401 Constitution Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20230
`
`NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
`ADMINISTRATION
`United States Department of Commerce
`Room 5128
`1401 Constitution Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20230
`
`
`CHRIS OLIVER, in his official capacity
`as Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
`National Marine Fisheries Service
`1315 East-West Highway
`Silver Spring, MD 20910
`
`NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
`United States Department of Commerce
`Room 14555
`1315 East-West Highway
`Silver Spring, MD 20910
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 2 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Conservation Law Foundation (“CLF”) on behalf of its
`
`
`
`
`
`adversely affected members hereby challenges the unlawful decision of the National
`
`Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) to approve and implement Framework 59 to the
`
`Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, because, among other things, it
`
`failed to establish measures necessary to rebuild Atlantic cod stocks to healthy
`
`levels as mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
`
`Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1884 (“Magnuson-Stevens Act” or “the Act”),
`
`and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (“APA”). CLF
`
`requests this Court to remand Framework 59 and require NMFS to establish new
`
`management measures that conform to the Magnuson-Stevens Act as expeditiously
`
`as possible and by a date certain.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`2.
`
`Massive shoals of Atlantic cod once inhabited the coastal waters off the
`
`northeastern United States and Canada. Their abundance was legendary;
`
`historical accounts describe being able to catch cod simply by dipping a basket in
`
`the water.
`
`3.
`
`For centuries, cod was a major driver of the regional economy in New
`
`England and Eastern Canada, and the stocks seemed limitless. Even as fishing
`
`pressure increased through the 1800s, Thomas Huxley, a prominent fisheries
`
`scientist famously declared the cod population to be “inexhaustible.”
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 3 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Ecologically, Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) is a high level predatory fish
`
`
`
`
`
`native to cold-water marine ecosystems in the North Atlantic. Atlantic cod was a
`
`foundational species in North Atlantic coastal ecosystems for millennia, constituting
`
`a substantial portion of the total biomass and playing a primary role in transferring
`
`energy up the food chain.
`
`5.
`
`Today, the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank cod stocks—the two stocks
`
`of Atlantic cod under U.S. jurisdiction and management—are severely depleted and
`
`persist at only a fraction of their former sizes, due primarily to unsustainable
`
`fishing pressure.
`
`6.
`
`Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS has a mandatory duty to
`
`rebuild fisheries in a time period that is “as short as possible” taking into account
`
`various factors and “not [to] exceed 10 years,” except where the biology of the stock,
`
`environmental conditions or an international agreement dictate otherwise. 16
`
`U.S.C. § 1854(e)(4)(A).
`
`7.
`
`Federal scientists for decades have found that both Atlantic cod stocks
`
`are subject to overfishing (meaning the rate of removals is too high) and are
`
`overfished (meaning the population abundance is at an excessively low level). Yet
`
`NMFS has continued to approve actions that end up failing to stop overfishing and
`
`failing to rebuild cod stocks as required by law. These failures have resulted in
`
`continued harm to the species.
`
`8.
`
`Framework 59 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management
`
`Plan is the most recent action by NMFS to set conservation and management
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 4 of 46
`
`
`
`
`measures for Atlantic cod and implement the stocks’ rebuilding plans. See 85 Fed.
`
`
`
`
`
`Reg. 45,794 (July 30, 2020) (final rule); New England Fishery Management Council,
`
`Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan Framework Adjustment 59 (Apr.
`
`10, 2020) (“Framework 59”).
`
`9.
`
`Framework 59 provides an extraordinarily clear example of how
`
`NMFS has implemented the rebuilding requirement in the Northeast region so as to
`
`read it entirely out of the Act. Atlantic cod stocks have been under formal
`
`rebuilding plans for decades, yet in Framework 59 NMFS authorized conservation
`
`and management measures that undisputedly cannot rebuild Gulf of Maine cod by
`
`the deadline of 2024. And for Georges Bank cod, there is nothing in the record and
`
`no rational basis to support the conclusion that this stock will rebuild by its 2026
`
`deadline if managed under the Framework 59 conservation and management
`
`measures.
`
`10. Framework 59, moreover, rests on arbitrary and capricious decision-
`
`making that fails to comply with other requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
`
`and the relevant regulatory framework.
`
`11. These violations of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the APA harm CLF
`
`and its members’ interests in healthy Atlantic cod populations and in protecting and
`
`restoring the species’ role in the marine ecosystem. This harm will continue in the
`
`absence of action by this Court.
`
`12. Plaintiffs request that this matter be advanced for hearing at the
`
`earliest opportunity, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1855(f)(4).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 5 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`13. The Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the Magnuson-
`
`Stevens Act, which provides that the “district courts of the United States shall have
`
`exclusive jurisdiction over any case or controversy arising under” the Act, 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1861(d), and explicitly anticipates judicial review of regulations and fishery
`
`management actions, id. § 1855(f).
`
`14. The Court also has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the APA,
`
`which allows courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . found to be
`
`arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the
`
`law,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld,” id.
`
`§ 706(1).
`
`15. The Court further has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1331, which grants the district courts “original jurisdiction of all civil
`
`actions arising under the . . . laws . . . of the United States.”
`
`16. The Court has authority to grant the requested relief pursuant to the
`
`Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1855(f), 1861(d), and the APA, 5 U.S.C.
`
`§ 706(1)-(2), as well as the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 (providing for
`
`declaratory and injunctive relief).
`
`17. The Court has authority to award costs and attorneys’ fees under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 2412.
`
`18. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(A)-(B),
`
`and 5 U.S.C. § 703, because Defendants reside in this judicial district, and because
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 6 of 46
`
`
`
`
`a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in
`
`
`
`
`
`the District of Columbia.
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`19. Plaintiff CLF is a non-profit membership organization dedicated to,
`
`among other things, protecting marine wildlife and their habitats as well as other
`
`coastal and ocean resources in New England.
`
`20. To further these goals, CLF undertakes litigation and other advocacy
`
`on behalf of its members’ interests; educates its members on conservation issues
`
`and on threats, challenges, and solutions for New England’s oceans so that they can
`
`exercise their rights and protect their interests in those resources; promotes public
`
`awareness, education, and citizen involvement in the conservation of marine
`
`wildlife and resources; and supports programs for the conservation of marine
`
`wildlife and their habitats.
`
`21. On behalf of its members, CLF has worked to prevent overfishing of
`
`Atlantic cod stocks for more than 30 years, and it has advocated extensively on
`
`behalf of its members for sustainable management of the species. CLF has
`
`repeatedly and continuously urged NMFS to fulfill its statutory duty to sustainably
`
`manage and rebuild overfished Atlantic cod stocks.
`
`22. CLF first challenged NMFS’s failure to prevent overfishing and rebuild
`
`several overfished groundfish stocks—including Atlantic cod—in 1991. See
`
`Conservation Law Found. v. Mosbacher, 1991 WL 501640 (D. Mass. 1991), aff’d sub
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 7 of 46
`
`
`
`
`nom. Conservation Law Found. v. Franklin, 989 F.2d 54 (1st Cir. 1993). CLF also
`
`
`
`
`
`successfully challenged NMFS’s failure to implement the 1996 amendments to the
`
`Magnuson-Stevens Act in Conservation Law Found. v. Evans, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1
`
`(D.D.C. 2001), requiring the agency to give proper effect to the new legal mandates
`
`for bycatch and rebuilding. More recently, CLF challenged certain catch limits for
`
`Gulf of Maine cod, with the court again holding NMFS’s action violated the
`
`Magnuson-Stevens Act. See Conservation Law Found. v. Pritzker, 37 F. Supp. 3d
`
`254 (D.D.C. 2014).
`
`23. CLF’s members use and enjoy the ocean for fishing, wildlife
`
`observation, boating, research, and study. CLF’s members value and depend on
`
`healthy Atlantic cod stocks for these activities. CLF’s members also consume
`
`seafood, including Atlantic cod. CLF’s members are directly affected by
`
`environmental injury caused by overfishing and unsustainable fishing of Atlantic
`
`cod. Injuries to CLF’s members include injuries to their consumption and
`
`recreational and commercial use of Atlantic cod populations.
`
`24. For example, Gilbert Chase is a resident of Northborough,
`
`Massachusetts. In his career, Mr. Chase worked as a fishery research biologist for
`
`the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (now NMFS), as a biological
`
`oceanographer for the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office, as a marine biologist and
`
`division diving officer for the New England Division of the U.S. Army Corps of
`
`Engineers, and as an advisor on the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
`
`Advisory Board. As a member of CLF, Mr. Chase is particularly concerned with the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 8 of 46
`
`
`
`
`protection of our oceans and marine resources. As a former fishery research
`
`
`
`
`
`biologist, environmental advocate, consumer of seafood products and citizen of the
`
`United States it matters greatly to Mr. Chase how our trust resources are protected
`
`and managed. He stands to be particularly injured if provisions of Framework 59
`
`are allowed to proceed as those provisions will further deplete the already
`
`overexploited Atlantic cod stocks. This harm can only be addressed by remanding
`
`Framework 59 and ordering Defendants to stop directing fishing for Atlantic cod
`
`and take action to rebuild this iconic species.
`
`25. Captain William Redington Tower, III is the son of a commercial
`
`fisherman and has been the Captain of a commercial fishing vessel and a
`
`recreational fisherman for decades. Currently a resident of Ogunquit, Maine,
`
`Captain Tower has worked as a marine biologist and consultant for NMFS and with
`
`the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution studying fish migratory patterns. A
`
`member of CLF since 2013, Captain Tower has been an active supporter of the
`
`organization’s oceans advocacy, particularly its recent efforts to stop the illegal and
`
`unsound management actions being taken with Atlantic cod in Framework 59. For
`
`at least forty years, Captain Tower has owned and operated a charter boat fishing
`
`business that commercially fishes for tuna, lobster, and groundfish, including
`
`Atlantic cod. Captain Tower’s continuing economic and recreational interests in
`
`Atlantic cod stand to be particularly injured by the provisions of Framework 59 as
`
`they will further deplete the already overexploited cod stocks in the Gulf of Maine
`
`and on Georges Bank. Only through this Court vacating and remanding these
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 9 of 46
`
`
`
`
`provisions of Framework 59 and directing Defendants to set annual catch limits to
`
`
`
`
`
`rebuild these stocks, will Captain Tower’s injuries be redressed.
`
`26. Peter Shelley is Senior Counsel and a Vice President at CLF. He has
`
`been a member of the organization since 1983. As an attorney he has worked to
`
`protect New England groundfish stocks, including Atlantic cod for more than 30
`
`years. Mr. Shelley resides in Marblehead, Massachusetts and has been an active
`
`recreational fisherman for decades, fishing in the Gulf of Maine and southern New
`
`England at least five to six times a year. Due to NMFS’s failure to effectively
`
`control the overexploitation of Atlantic cod, the quality and quantity of his saltwater
`
`fishing has decreased. Mr. Shelley’s interest in healthy populations of Atlantic cod
`
`so that he and his grandchildren can continue to fish for Atlantic cod is injured by
`
`Framework 59 because the action will not rebuild the population in as short a time
`
`period as possible. If this Court vacates and remands those portions of Framework
`
`59 that apply to the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank cod stocks, and orders
`
`Defendants to set catch limits consistent with established mechanisms to rebuild
`
`these stocks, Mr. Shelley will be able to fish for and catch a healthier and more
`
`bountiful supply of Atlantic cod when they are rebuilt.
`
`27. The aesthetic, conservation, recreational, commercial, cultural,
`
`scientific, educational, and other interests of CLF and its members have been, are
`
`being, and, unless the relief prayed for in this Complaint is granted, will continue to
`
`be adversely affected and irreparably injured by Defendants’ failure to comply with
`
`the law in its management of Atlantic cod. These injuries are actual and concrete
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 10 of 46
`
`
`
`
`and would be redressed by the relief CLF seeks here. CLF has no adequate remedy
`
`
`
`
`
`at law.
`
`28. Defendant Wilbur Ross, United States Secretary of Commerce, is the
`
`highest-ranking official within the Department of Commerce and, in that capacity,
`
`has formal responsibility for the administration and implementation of the
`
`Magnuson-Stevens Act, as well as for compliance with all other federal laws
`
`applicable to the Department of Commerce. He is sued in his official capacity.
`
`29. Defendant NOAA is an agency of the United States Department of
`
`Commerce with supervisory responsibility for NMFS. The Secretary of Commerce
`
`has delegated responsibility to implement and enforce compliance with the
`
`Magnuson-Stevens Act to NOAA, which in turn has sub-delegated that
`
`responsibility to NMFS.
`
`30. Defendant Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, is the
`
`highest-ranking official within NMFS and, in that capacity, has direct responsibility
`
`for the administration and implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act with
`
`regard to Atlantic cod, and for compliance with all other federal laws applicable to
`
`the agency. He is sued in his official capacity.
`
`31. Defendant NMFS is a federal agency within NOAA, in the U.S.
`
`Department of Commerce, with the responsibility of protecting and managing the
`
`fish, marine mammals, and other marine resources of the United States. NMFS
`
`has been delegated authority by the Secretary of Commerce to implement and
`
`enforce the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including approving fishery management plans
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 11 of 46
`
`
`
`
`and amendments to those plans, and promulgating implementing regulations.
`
`
`
`
`
`NMFS is the government agency primarily responsible for ensuring the
`
`requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are followed and enforced, including the
`
`requirements to determine the status of managed stocks, identify and rebuild
`
`overfished populations of fish, and set annual catch limits to end and prevent
`
`overfishing.
`
`
`
`The Magnuson-Stevens Act
`
`LEGAL BACKGROUND
`
`32. Congress enacted the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1976, in order “to
`
`conserve and manage the fishery resources found off the coasts of the United
`
`States.” 16 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(1).
`
`33. The Magnuson-Stevens Act establishes eight Regional Fishery
`
`Management Councils, including the New England Fishery Management Council
`
`(“New England Council”), and tasks them with preparing fishery management
`
`plans and recommending regulations to implement the plans. Id. § 1852.
`
`34. The Secretary of Commerce, acting through NMFS, reviews all
`
`submitted plans, plan amendments, and regulations, id. § 1854(a)-(b), and upon
`
`approval, promulgates regulations and otherwise implements the plans and plan
`
`amendments, id. §§ 1854(b)(3), 1855(d).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 12 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`35. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also provides authority for NMFS to enact
`
`
`
`
`
`emergency regulations, independent of the regular fishery management plan
`
`process. Id. § 1855(c).
`
`36. The Act requires that all fishery management plans, plan
`
`amendments, and implementing regulations must be consistent with ten “National
`
`Standards” for fishery conservation and management. Id. § 1851(a).
`
`37. National Standard 1 requires that “[c]onservation and management
`
`measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the
`
`optimum yield from each fishery . . . .” Id. § 1851(a)(1). Optimum yield in turn is
`
`defined by the Act as the amount of fish that, “in the case of an overfished fishery,
`
`provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the maximum
`
`sustainable yield in such fishery.” Id. § 1802(33)(C).
`
`38. The Act defines the terms “overfishing” and “overfished” to mean “a
`
`rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce
`
`the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis.” Id. § 1802(34). Regulatory
`
`guidelines clarify that “overfishing” refers to the rate of removals from a stock (i.e.,
`
`the act of fishing at an unsustainable rate), whereas “overfished” refers to a stock
`
`having a biomass below which it can produce maximum sustainable yield on a
`
`continuing basis. See 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(e)(2)(i).
`
`39. National Standard 2 requires that “[c]onservation and management
`
`measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.” 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1851(a)(2). Other National Standards address coordination, equity, efficiency,
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 13 of 46
`
`
`
`
`contingency planning, costs, fishing communities, bycatch, and safety of human life
`
`
`
`
`
`at sea. Id. § 1851(a)(3)-(10).
`
`40.
`
`In addition to the National Standards, the Magnuson-Stevens Act
`
`provides direct requirements for fishery management plans. The first and central
`
`requirement is that fishery management plans must “contain the conservation and
`
`management measures . . . necessary . . . to prevent overfishing and rebuild
`
`overfished stocks, and to protect, restore, and promote the long-term health and
`
`stability of the fishery.” Id. § 1853(a)(1)(A). Fishery management plans also must
`
`“specify objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the fishery to which
`
`the plan applies is overfished (with an analysis of how the criteria were determined
`
`and the relationship of the criteria to the reproductive potential of stocks of fish in
`
`that fishery).” Id. § 1853(a)(10).
`
`41.
`
` The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires the Secretary to take specific
`
`actions to rebuild overfished stocks. NMFS must identify fish stocks that are
`
`overfished and notify the respective council, as well as publish an annual report
`
`listing stocks with an overfished status. Id. § 1854(e)(1)-(2). Upon notification,
`
`NMFS becomes subject to a mandatory duty to “end overfishing immediately in the
`
`fishery and to rebuild affected stocks of fish,” which is to be achieved by “prepar[ing]
`
`and implement[ing] a fishery management plan, plan amendment, or proposed
`
`regulations for the fishery.” Id. § 1854(e)(3).
`
`42. Rebuilding, in turn, must take place within a time period that is “as
`
`short as possible,” generally not exceeding ten years. Id. § 1854(e)(4). When
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 14 of 46
`
`
`
`
`rebuilding is underway, NMFS must review progress “at routine intervals that may
`
`
`
`
`
`not exceed two years,” to determine whether rebuilding is progressing adequately.
`
`Id. § 1854(e)(7).
`
`43. The Act’s requirements for fishery management plans reflect the
`
`rebuilding mandate, stating that for overfished stocks, plans must “contain
`
`conservation and management measures to prevent overfishing or end overfishing
`
`and rebuild the fishery.” Id. § 1853(a)(10).
`
`44.
`
`In 2006, Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act to require all
`
`fishery management plans to “establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch
`
`limits . . . at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, including
`
`measures to ensure accountability.” Pub. L. No. 109-479, § 104(a)(10), 120 Stat.
`
`3575, 3584 (Jan. 12, 2007); 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(15).
`
`45.
`
`In regulatory guidelines promulgated under the Act, see 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1851(b), NMFS reiterates that mechanisms for specifying annual catch limits
`
`must use an “ABC control rule,” which is a defined “policy for establishing a limit or
`
`target catch level that is based on the best scientific information available,” 50
`
`C.F.R. § 600.310(f)(1)(iv). See also id. § 600.310(f)(2) (“The ABC control rule must
`
`articulate how ABC [acceptable biological catch] will be set compared to the OFL
`
`[overfishing limit] based on the scientific knowledge about the stock or stock
`
`complex and taking into account scientific uncertainty.”). The resulting ABC value
`
`must account for scientific uncertainty. See id. § 600.310(f)(ii). Because of their
`
`essential purpose, control rules should yield more conservative catch limits as
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 15 of 46
`
`
`
`
`biomass estimates, or other proxies, for a stock or stock complex decline and as
`
`
`
`
`
`scientific and management uncertainty increase. 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(f)(1).
`
`46. NMFS’s regulatory guidelines also elaborate on the statutory
`
`requirement for fishery management plans to include objective and measurable
`
`status determination criteria. Id. § 600.310(e)(2). Annual catch limits and
`
`accountability measures, in turn, “must prevent overfishing” when measured
`
`against the stock’s status determination criteria. Id. § 600.310(f)(4)(i). More
`
`broadly, the agency states that “[t]he system of [annual catch limits] and
`
`[accountability measures] designed must be effective in protecting the stock or stock
`
`complex as a whole.” Id. § 600.310(f)(4)(ii).
`
`
`The Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan
`
`47. The fishery management plan governing the two U.S. stocks of
`
`Atlantic cod is the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. See New
`
`England Fishery Management Council: Management Plans: Northeast
`
`Multispecies, https://www.nefmc.org/management-plans/northeast-multispecies.
`
`48. The Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan was first
`
`promulgated in 1986 and it has been amended twenty-one times since its adoption.
`
`See id. Plan amendments are generally integrated with environmental review
`
`documentation (environmental impact statements or environmental assessments)
`
`and are posted on the New England Council’s website. Id.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 16 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`49. The New England Council takes certain types of actions through
`
`
`
`
`
`“framework adjustments,” rather than full plan amendments. Sixty framework
`
`adjustments to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan have been
`
`made by the Council, including Framework 59, the subject of this lawsuit. See id.
`
`50. After the plan, plan amendments, and framework adjustments are
`
`approved by NMFS, the agency promulgates implementing regulations via the
`
`Federal Register. Implementing regulations for the Northeast Multispecies Fishery
`
`Management Plan are codified at 50 C.F.R. Part 648, Subpart F.
`
`51. The Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, its
`
`amendments and framework adjustments, and the regulations in the Code of
`
`Federal Regulations, together create the regulatory structure for management of
`
`Atlantic cod and the other groundfish off New England.
`
`
`The Administrative Procedure Act
`
`52. The APA sets forth basic requirements for federal rulemaking
`
`processes, including public notice and opportunity to comment on a proposed rule
`
`and required timelines for making a final rule effective. See 5 U.S.C. § 553.
`
`53. The APA grants the right of judicial review to “[a] person suffering
`
`legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency
`
`action.” Id. § 702. Under the APA, a court must “hold unlawful and set aside
`
`agency action . . . found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
`
`otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id. § 706(2)(A).
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 17 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`54. An agency action is arbitrary and capricious under the APA “if the
`
`
`
`
`
`agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely
`
`failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its
`
`decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible
`
`that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency
`
`expertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S.
`
`29, 43 (1983).
`
`55. The APA also instructs courts to “hold unlawful and set aside” any
`
`agency action that is taken “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or
`
`limitations, or short of statutory right.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).
`
`56. The APA further states that courts shall “compel agency action
`
`unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” Id. § 706(1).
`
`
`
`
`History of the Cod Fishery
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`57. Humans have fished for Atlantic cod for millennia. Cod are believed to
`
`have driven the expansion of European colonial settlement around the North
`
`Atlantic, eventually leading to the Massachusetts Bay Colony and, subsequently,
`
`the states of New England. See, e.g., Mark Kurlansky, Cod: A Biography of a Fish
`
`that Changed the World, at 19-29 (1997).
`
`58. Atlantic cod was a major driver of the regional economy in New
`
`England and Eastern Canada. Early colonial economies depended heavily on cod
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 18 of 46
`
`
`
`
`exports, with important trade routes to Europe and the Caribbean. See, e.g.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Kurlansky, supra, at 63-89.
`
`59.
`
`In addition to economic value, the cod fishery has been an enduring
`
`source of cultural and historical identity in New England. Atlantic cod was so
`
`important that some of the newly-independent colonies featured cod imagery on
`
`their state seals and currencies; a carved wooden cod effigy has hung in the
`
`Massachusetts State House for over two centuries.
`
`60. Atlantic cod also played a key role in the marine ecosystems of the
`
`North Atlantic, as a wide-ranging generalist predator. Present in tremendous
`
`numbers, cod provided a major vector for energy transfer from lower to upper
`
`trophic levels in benthic ecosystems. Cf. Jason S. Link et al., Trophic Role of
`
`Atlantic Cod in the Ecosystem, 9 Fish & Fisheries 1 (2008).
`
`61. The fishery for Atlantic cod off North America has been prosecuted
`
`over the centuries with a variety of fishing technologies—from simple sailing
`
`vessels with baited hooks dangling over the sides, to modern steel-hulled and diesel-
`
`powered fishing boats that drag large nets across the ocean and use modern
`
`electronic technologies to find fish. See, e.g., W.H. Lear, History of Fisheries in the
`
`Northwest Atlantic: The 500-Year Perspective, 23 J. Nw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 41, 44-63
`
`(1998).
`
`62. Annual removals of Northwest Atlantic groundfish were relatively
`
`stable for approximately three centuries, then started increasing toward the late
`
`1800s. Industrialization of the fleet in the early 20th Century led to a sharp
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 19 of 46
`
`
`
`
`increase in catches, which became even steeper in the late 1950s with the advent of
`
`
`
`
`
`foreign distant-water fleets. These large factory ships were capable of catching,
`
`processing, and freezing at sea tremendous amounts of fish, and they operated just
`
`a few miles off the U.S. coastline. At the peak of foreign fishing in the 1960s,
`
`Northwest Atlantic groundfish removals reached around 2.5 million metric tons per
`
`year, much of which was Atlantic cod. See Lear, supra, at 62-67.
`
`
`Passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
`
`63. After several years of debate and draft legislation, Congress passed the
`
`Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (later renamed the Magnuson-Stevens
`
`Act) in 1976. See Pub. L. No. 94-265, 90 Stat. 331 (Apr. 13, 1976).
`
`64. The law, among other things, declared the United States’ sovereignty
`
`over a 200-mile offshore zone, and established management authority over all
`
`fishery resources within that area. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1811-1812. In combination
`
`with this jurisdictional expansion, the law contained a regulatory structure
`
`designed to push out foreign fishing vessels. See id. §§ 1821-1825.
`
`65. To manage domestic fisheries within the newly-established 200-mile
`
`zone, the law established a regional regulatory structure, in which eight regional
`
`fishery management councils act as the first movers for management actions, and
`
`the Secretary of Commerce (in the form of NMFS) reviews, approves, and
`
`implements the actions. See id. §§ 1852, 1854.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 20 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`66. The New England Council is one of the eight regional councils and was
`
`
`
`
`
`given responsibility for managing fish stocks in federal waters off Connecticut,
`
`Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine. Id. § 1852(a)(1). This
`
`management responsibility includes the two U.S. stocks of Atlantic cod at issue in
`
`this matter.
`
`
`Atlantic Cod Collapse
`
`67. Following passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1976, domestic
`
`investment in fishing fleets increased, and U.S. fishing capacity skyrocketed. The
`
`domestic fleet, eager to exercise its new capacity, effectively picked up where the
`
`foreign fleets left off. Fishing pressure on Atlantic cod and other groundfish stocks
`
`resumed at high levels, and cod landings in New England reached all-time highs in
`
`the late 1970s and early 1980s. See, e.g., Vaughn C. Anthony, The New England
`
`Groundfish Fishery after 10 Years under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
`
`Management Act, 10 N. Am. J. Fish. Mgmt. 175 (1990) (noting a doubling of fishing
`
`effort between 1976 and 1983).
`
`68. The first stock assessment of Atlantic cod under the Magnuson-
`
`Stevens Act took place in 1977. It determined that both the Gulf of Maine and
`
`Georges Bank cod stocks already were subject to overfishing. See Fredric M.
`
`Serchuk, Analysis of the Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine Cod Stocks, Woods Hole
`
`Lab. Ref. No. 77-24 (Dec. 1977).
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02415-TSC Document 1 Filed 08/28/20 Page 21 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`69. NMFS briefly adopted an Interim Groundfish Management Plan for
`
`
`
`
`
`Atlantic cod and other species in 1982, which was replaced by the permanent
`
`Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan in 1986. See 51 Fed. Reg. 29,642
`
`(Aug. 20, 1986).
`
`70. Management efforts for Atlantic cod in the 1970s and 1980s were
`
`ineffective in the face of a burgeoning U.S. fishing fleet, with their new electronic