Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Raimondo

1

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., Plaintiff, v. GINA M. RAIMONDO, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Commerce et al., Defendants, and AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Intervenor.

Civil Action No. 23-982 (BAH)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

September 5, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BERYL A. HOWELL, United States District Judge.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (“MSA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. establishes “[a] national program for the conservation and management of the fishery resources of the United States,” id. § 1801(a)(6), and is administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”), with help from eight regional fishery management councils. To regulate American fisheries, NMFS and councils prepare and implement fishery management plans (“FMPs”) that will “achieve and maintain on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery.” Id. § 1801(b)(4). FMPs must conform to the “national standards for fishery conservation and management” (“National Standards”), id. § 1851(a), and must contain certain provisions, including, as relevant here “a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits in the plan (including a multiyear plan), implementing regulations or annual specifications, at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, including measures to ensure accountability,” id. § 1853(a)(15).

This case concerns Framework 17, which, in relevant part, modified the process of determining whether recreational management measures, such as season length, minimum fish size, and bag limits, need to be adjusted for a given year, by adopting the recreational harvest control rule (“HCR”) for the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (the “Mid-Atlantic Council”) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP. See Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Framework Adjustment 17 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan, and Framework Adjustment 6 to the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (“Framework 17 Final Rule”), 88 Fed.Reg. 14,499, 14,499 (Mar. 9, 2023).^[1] Plaintiff Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. brought this action against defendant Gina M. Raimondo, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Commerce; Janet Coit, in her official capacity as Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and NMFS, arguing that Framework 17 violates the MSA and Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. The American Sportfishing Association, which represents recreational anglers, was granted permission to intervene. See Min. Order (July 27, 2023).

During the pendency of this action, the 2023, 2024, and 2025 recreational management measures were finalized. See Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Recreational Management Measures for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Fishing Year 2023 (“2023 Recreational Management Measures Final Rule”), 88 Fed.Reg. 55,411 (Aug. 15, 2023); Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; 2024 and 2025 Summer Flounder and Scup, and 2024 Black Sea Bass Recreational Management Measures (“2024-2025 Recreational Management Measures Final Rule”), 89 Fed.Reg. 32,374 (Apr. 26, 2024). Promulgation of these management measures prompted plaintiff twice to amend the complaint to add claims that use of Framework 17's HCR to generate the 2023, 2024, and 2025 recreational management measures violated the MSA and APA. See Am. Compl., ECF No. 22; 2d Am. Compl., ECF No. 38. Plaintiff seeks vacatur of Framework 17, and the 2023, 2024, and 2025 recreational management measures.

Now pending before the Court are two sets of cross-motions for summary judgment.^[2]The first set concerns claims that Framework 17 and its use to set the 2023 recreational management measures violate the MSA and APA. See Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 25; Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pl.'s Mem.”), ECF No. 25-1; Int.'s Opp'n Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. & Cross-Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 27; Int.'s Mem. Supp. Opp'n Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. & Cross-Mot. Summ. J. (“Int.'s Opp'n”), ECF No. 27-1; Defs.' Opp'n Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. & Cross-Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 30; Defs.' Mem. Supp. Opp'n Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. & Cross-Mot. Summ. J. (“Defs.' Opp'n”), ECF No. 30-1; Pl.'s Reply Supp. Mot. Summ. J. & Opp'n Defs.' & Int.'s Cross-Mots. Summ. J. (“Pl.'s Reply”), ECF No. 31; Int.'s Reply Supp. Cross-Mot. Summ. J. (“Int.'s Reply”), ECF No. 33; Defs.' Reply Supp. Cross-Mot. Summ. J. (“Defs.' Reply”), ECF No. 34. The second set considers whether claims regarding the 2023 recreational management measures are moot now that the 2023 fishing season is over, as well as the claims that use of the HCR to set the 2024 and 2025 recreational management measures violate the MSA and APA. See Pl.'s Suppl. Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 42; Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Suppl. Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pl.'s Suppl. Mem.”), ECF No. 42-1; Int.'s Opp'n Pl.'s Suppl. Mot. Summ. J. & Suppl. Cross-Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 43; Int.'s Mem. Supp. Opp'n Pl.'s Suppl. Mot. Summ. J. & Suppl. Cross-Mot. Summ. J. (“Int.'s Suppl. Opp'n”), ECF No. 43-1; Defs.' Opp'n Pl.'s Suppl. Mot. Summ. J. & Suppl. Cross-Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 46; Defs.' Mem. Supp. Opp'n Pl.'s Suppl. Mot. Summ. J. & Suppl. Cross-Mot. Summ. J. (“Defs.' Suppl. Opp'n”), ECF No. 46-1; Pl.'s Reply Supp. Suppl. Mot. Summ. J. & Opp'n Defs.' & Int.'s Suppl. Cross-Mots. Summ. J. (“Pl.'s Suppl. Reply”), ECF No. 48; Defs.' Reply Supp. Suppl. Cross-Mot. Summ. J. (“Defs.' Suppl. Reply”), ECF No. 49.

For the reasons set forth below, defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment are GRANTED, plaintiff's motions for summary judgment are DENIED, and intervenor's crossmotions for summary judgment are DENIED AS MOOT.

I. BACKGROUND

The relevant statutory and regulatory framework, as well as the facts from which this litigation arises, are presented below. At the outset, the alphabet soup of acronyms used in this litigation facilitates expeditious description but also may be confusing, and thus reminders of what the acronyms mean are repeated in different sections to help the reader.

A. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Enacted in 1976, the MSA establishes “[a] national program for the conservation and management of the fishery resources of the United States,” 16 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(6), granting the federal government “exclusive fishery management authority over all fish” within the “exclusive economic zone,” id. § 1811(a), “an area extending 200 nautical miles seaward from each state's coastline,” Anglers Conservation Network v. Pritzker, 809 F.3d 664, 667 (D.C. Cir. 2016); See also 16 U.S.C. § 1802(11); Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 144 S.Ct. 2244, 2254 (2024).^[3]The purposes of the MSA include “to conserve and manage the fishery resources . . . of the United States” and “to promote domestic commercial and recreational fishing under sound conservation and management principles.” 16 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(1), (b)(3).

NMFS, acting under authority delegated from the Secretary of Commerce, administers the MSA, with help from regional fishery management councils. See Loper Bright Enters., 144 S.Ct. at 2254; A.P. Bell Fish Co. v. Raimondo, 94 F.4th 60, 62 (D.C. Cir. 2024); see also 16 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(5) (declaring that a purpose of the MSA is “to establish Regional Fishery Management Councils to exercise sound judgment in the stewardship of fishery resources”); id. § 1852(a) (establishing the eight regional fishery management councils). Each council has authority over a specific geographic region within the exclusive economic zone and is comprised of “members who represent the interests of the states included in that region,” C & W Fish Co. v. Fox, 931 F.2d 1556, 1557-58 (D.C. Cir. 1991), such as representatives from the coastal states, the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors, and NMFS, See 16 U.S.C. § 1852(b); see also N.C. Fisheries Ass'n v. Gutierrez, 550 F.3d 16, 17 (D.C. Cir. 2008). To assist in “the development, collection, evaluation, and peer review” of any “scientific information” relevant to its activity, and to provide “ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions,” each council is required to establish a scientific and statistical committee (“SSC”), comprised of members with “strong scientific or technical credentials and expertise.” 16 U.S.C. § 1852(g)(1).

1. Fishery Management Plans

The primary tool for the regulation of fisheries is the creation and implementation of fishery management plans, or FMPs. Each council is tasked with preparing and submitting, for fisheries under their authority, FMPs that will “achieve and maintain, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield [(“OY”)] from each fishery.” Id. § 1801(b)(4); see also id. § 1852(h)(1) (providing that councils “shall” submit FMPs); id. § 1801(b)(5) (declaring that a purpose of the MSA is to establish councils who “steward[] . . . fishery resources through the preparation, monitoring, and revision” of FMPs). Under the MSA, FMPs must include certain provisions, such as “the conservation and management measures” “necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery, to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks, and to protect, restore, and promote the long-term health and stability of the fishery”; an assessment of “the present and probable future condition of, and the maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield from, the fishery”; and “objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the fishery to which the plan applies is overfished.” Id. § 1853(a).^[4]

...