Case 1:21-cv-00112-APM Document 19 Filed 02/04/22 Page 1 of 41
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`
`WHALE AND DOLPHIN CONSERVATION;
`DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE; CONSERVATION Civ. No. 1:21-cv-00112-APM
`LAW FOUNDATION; CENTER FOR
`
`
`
` ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,
`
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
` v.
`
`NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE;
`GINA RAIMONDO, in her official capacity as
`Secretary of Commerce,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) and Local Civil Rule 7(h), Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, Conservation Law Foundation, and
`
`Center for Biological Diversity (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) hereby move for summary judgment.
`
`
`
`Defendants have unreasonably delayed taking final action on Plaintiffs’ August 2020
`
`rulemaking petition to expand the Final Rule to Implement Speed Restrictions to Reduce the
`
`Threat of Ship Collisions With North Atlantic Right Whales, 73 Fed. Reg. 60,173 (Oct. 10,
`
`2008) (codified at 50 C.F.R. § 224.105), in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
`
`U.S.C. §§ 555(b), 706(1).
`
`Plaintiffs have standing to challenge Defendants’ inaction. This Court has
`
`subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiffs’
`
`civil claim asserts a federal question arising under the Administrative Procedure Act.
`
`Summary judgment is warranted because “there is no genuine dispute as to any
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00112-APM Document 19 Filed 02/04/22 Page 2 of 41
`
`material fact” and, as described in the Memorandum in Support of this Motion included below
`
`pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a), Plaintiffs “are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). As required by Local Civil
`
`Rule 7(h)(1), Plaintiffs attach a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts.
`
`The Court should grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and order declaratory
`
`and other relief as described in the Memorandum and in the Proposed Order submitted pursuant
`
`to Local Civil Rule 7(c).
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted this 4th day of February, 2022,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kristen Monsell
`Kristen Monsell, DC Bar No. CA00060
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
`1212 Broadway, Ste. 800
`Oakland, CA 94612
`(510) 844-7137 (tel)
`kmonsell@biologicaldiversity.org
`
`/s/ Jane P. Davenport
`Jane P. Davenport, DC Bar No. 474585
`DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
`1130 17th St NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 682-9400 x174 (tel)
`jdavenport@defenders.org
`
`/s/ Erica A. Fuller
`Erica A. Fuller, DC Bar No. MA0001
`CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION
`62 Summer St
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 850-1727 (tel)
`efuller@clf.org
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00112-APM Document 19 Filed 02/04/22 Page 3 of 41
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`
`WHALE AND DOLPHIN CONSERVATION;
`DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE; CONSERVATION Civ. No. 1:21-cv-00112-APM
`LAW FOUNDATION; CENTER FOR
`
`
`
` ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,
`
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
` v.
`
`NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE;
`GINA RAIMONDO, in her official capacity as
`Secretary of Commerce,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00112-APM Document 19 Filed 02/04/22 Page 4 of 41
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................iii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1
`
`STATUTORY FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................2
`
`Marine Mammal Protection Act ................................................................................4
`
`III.
`
`Administrative Procedure Act....................................................................................6
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................7
`
`I.
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Vessel Strikes Are an Existential Threat to the Critically Endangered
`Right Whale ...............................................................................................................7
`
`NMFS’s 2008 Vessel Speed Rule and Plaintiffs’ Rulemaking Petitions ..................11
`
`A.
`
`
`B.
`
`
`C.
`
`
`D.
`
`
`1999–2008: NMFS’s Nearly Decade-Long Rulemaking, Two Petitions,
`and Two Lawsuits ..........................................................................................11
`
`2008–2003: Vessel Speed Rule, Plaintiffs’ 2012 Petition, and
`Rulemaking to Eliminate Five-Year Sunset Clause .......................................12
`
`2013–2020: Continuing Vessel Strikes, Unusual Mortality Event, and
`Plaintiffs’ 2020 Petition .................................................................................15
`
`2021–present: More Vessel Strikes and Vessel Speed Rule
`Assessment Report .........................................................................................17
`
`STANDING ...........................................................................................................................19
`
`SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................22
`
`ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................24
`
`NMFS’S 18-Month (and Counting) Delay on the 2020 Petition is Unreasonable ....24
`
`The Agency’s Delay Undermines Congress’ Intent in Enacting the MMPA
`and ESA .....................................................................................................................26
`
`The Consequences of Delay Are Severe Because the Right Whale is Spiraling
`Toward Extinction .....................................................................................................28
`
`i
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`III.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00112-APM Document 19 Filed 02/04/22 Page 5 of 41
`
`
`
`Conserving the Critically Endangered Right Whale Is and Must Be
`IV.
`an Agency Priority .....................................................................................................29
`
`
`
`REMEDY ...............................................................................................................................30
`
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00112-APM Document 19 Filed 02/04/22 Page 6 of 41
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Alaska Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Jewell,
`815 F.3d 544 (9th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................27
`
`*In re Am. Rivers & Idaho Rivers United,
`372 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or.,
`515 U.S. 687 (1995) .................................................................................................................27
`
`*Biodiversity Legal Found. v. Norton,
`285 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2003) .................................................................................25, 27, 30
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................................................22
`
`*Cobell v. Norton,
`240 F.3d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................... passim
`
`In re Core Commc’ns, Inc.,
`531 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................28
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA,
`861 F.3d 174 (D.C. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................21
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Evans,
`No. C 04-04496 WHA, 2005 WL 1514102 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2005)...................................26
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne,
`607 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (D. Ariz. 2009) .......................................................................................4
`
`*Cutler v. Hayes,
`818 F.2d 879 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`Defenders of Wildlife v. Gutierrez,
`484 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2007), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 532 F.3d
`913 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................................12
`
`Defenders of Wildlife v. Gutierrez,
`No. 1:08-cv-01107-PLF (D.D.C. June 26, 2008) ....................................................................12
`
`Dist. 4 Lodge of the Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aero. Workers Local Lodge 207
`v. Raimondo,
`18 F.4th 38 (1st Cir. 2021) .......................................................................................................28
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00112-APM Document 19 Filed 02/04/22 Page 7 of 41
`
`Earth Island Inst. v. Brown,
`865 F. Supp. 1364 (N.D. Cal. 1994) ........................................................................................27
`
`Forest Guardians v. Babbitt,
`174 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 1999) ...............................................................................................23
`
`Forest Guardians v. Johanns,
`450 F.3d 455 (9th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................................31
`
`Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck,
`222 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................23
`
`Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs.,
`528 U.S. 167 (2000) .................................................................................................................19
`
`Gona v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.,
`No. 1:20-cv-3680-RCL, 2021 WL 1226748 (D.D.C. Apr. 1, 2021) .......................................23
`
`Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n,
`432 U.S. 333 (1977) .................................................................................................................21
`
`In re Int’l Chem. Workers Union,
`958 F. 2d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................23, 24
`
`Kokechik Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Sec’y of Comm.,
`839 F.2d 795 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................................4
`
`Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) ...........................................................................................................19, 20
`
`Massachusetts v. EPA,
`504 U.S. 497 (2007) ...........................................................................................................19, 20
`
`Midwest Gas Users Ass’n v. FERC,
`833 F.2d 341 (D.C. Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................24
`
`Nader v. FCC,
`520 F.2d 182 (D.C. Cir. 1975) .................................................................................................22
`
`Nat’l Law Ctr. on Homelessness & Poverty v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs,
`842 F. Supp. 2d 127 (D.D.C. 2012) .........................................................................................22
`
`Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Brock,
`823 F.2d 626 (D.C. Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................25
`
`Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Comm’r, Food & Drug Admin.,
`724 F. Supp. 1013 (D.D.C. 1989) ............................................................................................31
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00112-APM Document 19 Filed 02/04/22 Page 8 of 41
`
`In re Public Emples.,
`957 F.3d 267 (D.C. Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................24
`
`*Telecomm. Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC,
`750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill,
`437 U.S. 153 (1978) .........................................................................................................2, 3, 27
`
`WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell,
`738 F.3d 298 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ...........................................................................................20, 21
`
`Statutes
`
`Administrative Procedure Act
`
`5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559 ........................................................................................................................6
`
`5 U.S.C. § 555(b) .......................................................................................................................6, 22
`
`5 U.S.C. § 555(e) .......................................................................................................................6, 31
`
`5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706 ........................................................................................................................6
`
`Marine Mammal Protection Act
`
`16 U.S.C. §§ 1361–1389 ..................................................................................................................4
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1361(1) .........................................................................................................................4
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1361(1) .......................................................................................................................26
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1361(6) .......................................................................................................................26
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1361(2) ...................................................................................................................4, 27
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1361(6) ...................................................................................................................4, 29
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1362(20) .....................................................................................................................11
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1382(a) .........................................................................................................................5
`
`16 U.S.C. §§ 1401–02 ....................................................................................................................18
`
`Endangered Species Act
`
`16 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1544 ..................................................................................................................2
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1531(b) .......................................................................................................................27
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00112-APM Document 19 Filed 02/04/22 Page 9 of 41
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1531(b), (c) .................................................................................................................27
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1532(3) ...................................................................................................................3, 27
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1532(19) .......................................................................................................................3
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1533(f)(1) .....................................................................................................................4
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B) ...............................................................................................................3
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(C) ...............................................................................................................3
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1540(f) ..........................................................................................................................4
`
`Other Authorities
`
`50 C.F.R. § 216.3 .............................................................................................................................5
`
`50 C.F.R. § 222.102 .........................................................................................................................3
`
`50 C.F.R. § 224.105(a)...................................................................................................................13
`
`50 C.F.R. § 224.105(a)...................................................................................................................13
`
`50 C.F.R. § 224.105(a)(1) ..............................................................................................................13
`
`50 C.F.R. § 224.105(a)(2) ..............................................................................................................13
`
`50 C.F.R. § 224.105(a)(3) ..............................................................................................................13
`
`50 C.F.R. § 224.105(d) ............................................................................................................15, 17
`
`50 C.F.R. § 229.2 .........................................................................................................................5, 7
`
`69 Fed. Reg. 30,857 (June 1, 2004) ...............................................................................................11
`
`70 Fed. Reg. 56,884 (Sept. 29, 2005) ............................................................................................11
`
`71 Fed. Reg. 36,299 (June 26, 2006) .......................................................................................11, 12
`
`73 Fed. Reg. 60,173 (Oct. 10, 2008) ..............................................................................9, 10, 13, 15
`
`78 Fed. Reg. 34,024 (June 6, 2013) ...............................................................................................14
`
`78 Fed. Reg. 73,726 (Dec. 9, 2013) .........................................................................................14, 17
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ......................................................................................................................22
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 92-107 (1972), reprinted in 1972 U.S.S.C.A.N. 4144 ...................................5, 6, 27
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00112-APM Document 19 Filed 02/04/22 Page 10 of 41
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`North Atlantic right whales face two primary threats to their existence—fishing gear
`
`entanglements and vessel strikes. In the last decade, the right whale population has plummeted
`
`from a peak of 481 individuals in 2011 to an estimated 336 surviving animals in January 2020.
`
`The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has determined that even one death a year risks
`
`the species’ very survival.
`
`Yet right whales are struck, injured, and killed by vessels each year. After years of delay
`
`and multiple rounds of litigation, NMFS promulgated a rule in 2008 to provide limited
`
`protections for right whales in certain areas at certain times of year (called Seasonal Management
`
`Areas) by setting mandatory speed limits for vessels 65 feet and longer (“2008 Vessel Speed
`
`Rule”). The rule also established temporary speed limit areas (called Dynamic Management
`
`Areas) triggered by the detection of an aggregation of three or more whales. Compliance with
`
`speed limits in these dynamic areas is strictly voluntary.
`
`Since 2008, NMFS has failed to take a single concrete step to expand the rule’s
`
`mandatory measures despite a rapidly declining whale population, multiple right whales injured
`
`or killed by vessels outside Seasonal Management Areas, repeated vessel strikes of mother-calf
`
`pairs, and substantial data demonstrating that vessels under 65 feet in length also kill whales.
`
`Although NMFS has repeatedly recognized the right whale’s dire status and has
`
`acknowledged that the 2008 Vessel Speed Rule does not sufficiently protect the species, the
`
`agency failed to enact new measures or take final action on Plaintiffs’ 2012 and 2020 petitions
`
`urging it to expand the rule. In January 2021, Plaintiffs filed this case under section 706(1) of the
`
`Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), challenging NMFS’s unreasonable delay.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00112-APM Document 19 Filed 02/04/22 Page 11 of 41
`
`After more than eight and a half years of radio silence, NMFS took exactly one action in
`
`response to the 2012 Petition. Two months after Plaintiffs filed suit, the agency denied it by letter
`
`of March 8, 2021. As this Court ruled, this mooted Plaintiffs’ First Claim. Mem. Op. and Order,
`
`ECF No. 14 at 7. However, as the Court also ruled, this letter did not moot Plaintiffs’ Second
`
`Claim challenging NMFS’s unreasonable delay in acting on the 2020 Petition. That petition has
`
`been pending for nearly 18 months as of today’s date with no final response.
`
`This delay is patently unreasonable. By dragging its feet, NMFS is undermining the
`
`purposes of the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act by failing to fulfill
`
`its statutory duties to protect and recover the right whale. NMFS’s delay has had real-world
`
`consequences. Six months after the August 2020 Petition and one month after Plaintiffs filed
`
`suit, in February 2021, a vessel strike in the southeast calving grounds off St. Augustine, Florida,
`
`mortally wounded a first-time right whale mother and killed her month-old calf outright—
`
`pushing the species closer to extinction.
`
`Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment and ask this Court to enter an order requiring
`
`NMFS to take final action on the 2020 Petition by a date certain.
`
`STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Endangered Species Act
`
`In 1973, recognizing that certain species “have been so depleted in numbers that they are
`
`in danger of or threatened with extinction,” Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act
`
`(ESA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1544, “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which
`
`endangered and threatened species depend may be conserved, [and] to provide a program for the
`
`conservation of such . . . species.” Id. § 1531(a)(2), (b). Considered “the most comprehensive
`
`legislation for the preservation of endangered species ever enacted by any nation,” Tennessee
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00112-APM Document 19 Filed 02/04/22 Page 12 of 41
`
`Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 176 (1978), the ESA embodies Congress’ “plain intent” to
`
`“halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost.” Id. at 184.
`
`
`
`The ESA defines conservation as “to use and the use of all methods and procedures
`
`which are necessary to bring any [listed species] to the point at which the measures provided
`
`pursuant to [the statute] are no longer necessary.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(3). The ESA’s explicit goal
`
`is not simply to prevent endangered and threatened species from becoming extinct but to recover
`
`them to the point where they no longer require the statute’s protections.
`
`To that end, the ESA expresses that it is the “policy of Congress that all Federal
`
`departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and
`
`shall utilize their authorities in furtherance” of the statute’s purposes. Id. § 1531(c)(1). The ESA
`
`directs that the Secretary of Interior or Commerce1 “shall review other programs administered by
`
`him and utilize such programs in furtherance” of the statute’s purposes, while “[a]ll other Federal
`
`agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their
`
`authorities” to further these purposes “by carrying out programs for the conservation” of listed
`
`species. Id. § 1536(a)(1).
`
`The ESA generally prohibits any person, including federal agencies, from “tak[ing]” any
`
`individual member of an endangered species, 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B), (C), or to cause others
`
`to violate the take prohibition. Id. § 1538(g). “Take” means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
`
`wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 U.S.C. §
`
`1532(19); see also 50 C.F.R. § 222.102 (NMFS regulatory definition of “harm”).
`
`
`1 The Secretary of the Interior, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, administers the ESA
`for terrestrial species, freshwater fish, and a few species of marine mammals, while the Secretary
`of Commerce, through NMFS, administers the statute for most marine species, including right
`whales.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00112-APM Document 19 Filed 02/04/22 Page 13 of 41
`
`The ESA also requires the Secretary to develop and implement recovery plans for listed
`
`species. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(f)(1). These plans provide the “basic road map to recovery, i.e., the
`
`process that stops or reverses the decline of a species and neutralizes threats to its existence.”
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, 607 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1088 (D. Ariz. 2009).
`
`The ESA authorizes the Secretary to promulgate regulations as appropriate to enforce the
`
`statute. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(f). It is unlawful for any person to violate any such regulation
`
`pertaining to a listed species. Id. § 1538(a)(1)(G).
`
`II. Marine Mammal Protection Act
`
`
`
`In the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361–1389,
`
`Congress declared that “marine mammals have proven themselves to be resources of great
`
`international significance, esthetic and recreational as well as economic” and “that they should
`
`be protected and encouraged to develop to the greatest extent feasible commensurate with sound
`
`policies of resource management and that the primary objective of their management should be
`
`to maintain the health and stability of the marine ecosystem.” Id. § 1361(6). The D.C. Circuit has
`
`stated that the MMPA’s “primary goal” is to “protect[] marine mammals” and that “[t]he interest
`
`in maintaining healthy populations of marine mammals comes first” under the statute. Kokechik
`
`Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Sec’y of Comm., 839 F.2d 795, 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
`
`In enacting the MMPA, Congress recognized that “certain species and population stocks
`
`of marine mammals are, or may be, in danger of extinction or depletion as a result of man’s
`
`activities.” 16 U.S.C. § 1361(1). It determined that “such species and population stocks should
`
`not be permitted to diminish beyond the point at which they cease to be a significant functioning
`
`element in the ecosystem of which they are a part” and that “they should not be permitted to
`
`diminish below their optimum sustainable population.” Id. § 1361(2). The statute defines
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00112-APM Document 19 Filed 02/04/22 Page 14 of 41
`
`“optimum sustainable population” to mean “the number of animals which will result in the
`
`maximum productivity of the population or species, keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the
`
`habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element.” Id. § 1362(9).
`
`To accomplish these objectives, the MMPA establishes a complete moratorium on the
`
`“taking” of marine mammals, id. § 1371(a), and expressly prohibits the unpermitted “take” of a
`
`marine mammal by any person. Id. § 1372(a)(1), (2); see also id. § 1362(8) (defining
`
`“moratorium” as “the complete cessation of the taking of marine mammals . . . except as
`
`provided in this chapter”). Prohibited takes include actions that harass, capture, or kill marine
`
`mammals as well any act that “has the potential to injure a marine mammal” or disrupt
`
`behavioral patterns, including migration, breathing, breeding, or feeding. Id. § 1362(13)
`
`(defining take), (18)(A) (defining harassment); see also 50 C.F.R. § 216.3 (further defining
`
`“take” to include “the restraint or detention of a marine mammal, no matter how temporary” and
`
`any act “which results in disturbing or molesting a marine mammal”). The take prohibitions
`
`apply not only to intentional takes but also to incidental take, any “non-intentional or accidental
`
`act that results from, but is not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful action.” Id. §
`
`229.2. The MMPA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to prescribe such regulations as are
`
`necessary and appropriate to carry out the statute’s purposes. 16 U.S.C. § 1382(a).
`
`Congress specifically recognized that the statute would provide much-needed authority to
`
`regulate vessels that may harass, harm, or kill marine mammals. The House Report from the
`
`Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries stated that “[s]till another problem to which
`
`marine mammals may be inadvertently exposed is the operation of high-speed boats. Manatees
`
`and sea otters have been crippled and killed by motorboats and at present the Federal
`
`government is essentially powerless to force these boats to slow down or to curtail their
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00112-APM Document 19 Filed 02/04/22 Page 15 of 41
`
`operations.” See 1972 H.R. Rep. No. 92-107 (1972) reprinted in 1972 U.S.S.C.A.N. 4144, 4147;
`
`see also id. at 4150 (identifying a principal hazard to manatees as “the operation of powerboats
`
`in areas where the manatees are found” and stating that the MMPA “would provide the Secretary
`
`of the Interior with adequate authority to regulate or even forbid the use of [such] powerboats[.]”
`
`Id. at 4150.
`
`III. Administrative Procedure Act
`
`
`
`The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) establishes general rules governing the
`
`issuance of proposed and final regulations by federal agencies. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559. It defines a
`
`“rule making” as the “process for formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” Id. § 551(5).
`
`Absent narrow circumstances, a federal agency must publish a notice of and allow public
`
`comment on any proposed “rule making.” Id. § 553(b), (c).
`
`
`
`The statute establishes that “[e]ach agency shall give an interested person the right to
`
`petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.” Id. § 553(e). It also requires that,
`
`“within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it.” Id. §
`
`555(b). Further, the agency must give “prompt notice” of the “denial in whole or in part” of a
`
`written petition, together with a “brief statement of the grounds for denial.” Id. § 555(e).
`
`
`
`The APA’s judicial review provisions, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706, apply to all agency actions
`
`unless a statute precludes judicial review or an action is committed to agency discretion by law.
`
`Id. § 701(a). “Agency action” is defined to include “the whole or a part of an agency rule, order,
`
`license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act.” Id. § 551(13)
`
`(emphasis added). A reviewing court shall “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or
`
`unreasonably delayed[.]” Id. § 706(1).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00112-APM Document 19 Filed 02/04/22 Page 16 of 41
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Vessel Strikes Are an Existential Threat to the Critically Endangered Right Whale
`
`With fewer than 340 surviving North Atlantic right whales, the species is near the brink
`
`I.
`
`
`of extinction. See Ex. 2 at 3–4 (estimate of 336 right whales in 2020).2 After centuries of
`
`whaling, the right whale had been nearly extirpated by the early twentieth century. 2020_PET
`
`002126.3 Despite some population gains since whaling ceased, the species’ future is again in
`
`doubt because humans are killing right whales faster than they can reproduce. Id. Vessel strikes
`
`and entanglement in fishing gear are the primary human-caused impacts inhibiting the species’
`
`recovery and threatening its survival. Id. Right whales do not live long enough to die of old age
`
`because they are killed by vessel collisions and entanglements. Ex. 3.
`
`The right whale has been protected under federal law for more than fifty years. Up until
`
`2010, these protections had resulted in a slow but steady recovery trajectory. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 3
`
`(Fig. 1). Since 2010, however, the right whale population has declined every year. Calving rates
`
`have significantly decreased. NMFS reports that there have been 50 observed right whale
`
`mortalities and serious injuries4 since 2017, constituting an Unusual Mortality Event. 2020_PET
`
`002126; Ex. 4 at 2 (agency statement that these dead and seriously injured whales “are a
`
`
`2 As ex