MAINE LOBSTERMEN'S ASSOCIATION v. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, 626 F.Supp.3d 46

Plaintiffs (Maine Lobstermen’s Association, Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association, Maine Lobstering Union, State of Maine DMR) challenged NMFS’s 2021 Biological Opinion (BiOp), Conservation Framework, and Final Rule implementing take-reduction measures for the endangered North Atlantic right whale.
NMFS estimated federal fisheries currently cause ~2.69 M/SI (mortality/serious injury) per year; PBR for the species is 0.8 M/SI/year. The Framework commits to reduce federal-fishery M/SI to 0.136/year by 2030.
Plaintiffs argued the BiOp overstates fisheries’ impacts (errors in U.S./Canada apportionment, gear-type allocation, cryptic mortality, failure to credit mitigation, and modeling choices) and that the Framework/Rule are therefore arbitrary and overbroad.
NMFS relied on peer-reviewed methods (Linden model, Decision Support Tool, Pace et al. cryptic-mortality approach) and a Center for Independent Experts review, asserting it used the best scientific and commercial data available and reasonably filled unavoidable gaps.
The court reviewed agency action under the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard, considered prior related litigation (CBD v. Raimondo), and addressed threshold issues (MLU standing; new-claim waiver).
Holding: the court denied Plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motions and granted Defendants’ — the BiOp, Conservation Framework, and Final Rule were not arbitrary and capricious as Plaintiffs challenged them.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
MLU threshold: standing and new claims	MLU lacks declarations for standing; raised new claims at summary judgment	MLU has self-evident organizational standing; new claims not pleaded	MLU has standing; court refused to consider new, unpled claims
Count I — BiOp validity	BiOp made multiple scientific errors (50/50 US/Canada split, assigning unknown gear M/SI to trap/pot, cryptic-mortality assumptions, not crediting mitigation, model choices) that overstate fisheries’ impact	NMFS used best available data, peer-reviewed models and methods, and reasonably resolved uncertainties	BiOp survives arbitrary-and-capricious review; agency explanation and peer review sufficient
Count II — Conservation Framework target (0.136/year)	Target arbitrary because it is below PBR (0.8/year) and agency didn’t justify going lower	PBR is total allowable from all human sources; Framework sets a fisheries-specific, peer-reviewed target and models show <0.136 avoids statistically significant harm	Framework is reviewable (part of the proposed action) and its 0.136 target is reasonable and not arbitrary
Count III — Final Rule reliance on BiOp	Rule invalid because it relies on an unlawful BiOp	APA review of agency reliance on a BiOp is appropriate; BiOp is lawful, so Rule reliance is lawful	Claim fails: Rule reliance is permissible and BiOp is lawful; other unpled Rule claims not considered

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing doctrine and injury-in-fact)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary-and-capricious standard for agency action)
District 4 Lodge v. Raimondo, 40 F.4th 36 (1st Cir.) (upholding 50/50 U.S./Canada apportionment as reasonable)
Building Indus. Ass’n of Superior Cal. v. Norton, 247 F.3d 1241 (D.C. Cir.) (best-available-data does not require perfection)
City of Tacoma v. FERC, 460 F.3d 53 (D.C. Cir.) (APA review available for challenges to agency reliance on a BiOp)
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (APA review principles for agency actions not exclusively channeled to statutory schemes)
Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (deference to agency predictions at the frontiers of science)