Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations v. Blank
2013 A.M.C. 1157, 42 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20186, 693 F.3d 1084 (2012)
Rule of Law:
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires federal agencies to consider the importance of fishing communities in limited access programs and ensure that substantially participating individuals are eligible for privileges, but it does not mandate specific allocations to communities or restrict privileges solely to substantial participants. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an agency complies with its procedural duties by preparing a reasonably thorough environmental impact statement that considers a sufficient range of alternatives, adequately evaluates potential impacts, and discusses flexible mitigation measures, even if those measures are not fully detailed or legally enforceable at the time of adoption.
Facts:
- The Pacific groundfish fishery, extending 200 miles off California, Oregon, and Washington, encompasses over 90 species, with trawl nets being the dominant gear type.
- Prior to the amendments, the Pacific Council primarily enforced catch limits through trip limits, gear restrictions, and seasonal/area closures, which proved ineffective at comprehensively measuring or limiting bycatch of non-targeted species.
- Between 1999 and 2002, seven groundfish species were designated as overfished, leading to low catch limits that constrained harvests of healthy species.
- In 2003, the Pacific Council initiated development of a new management program for the groundfish fishery, aiming to increase economic efficiency, reduce environmental impacts, simplify decision-making, and achieve individual accountability of catch and bycatch.
- In August 2010, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) approved Amendments 20 ("Trawl Rationalization") and 21 ("Intersector Allocation") to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan.
- Amendment 20 divides the trawl fishery into sectors and assigns discrete fishing privileges (initially based on catch history and becoming transferable), while Amendment 21 fixes allocations of 19 groundfish stocks among various trawl and non-trawl sectors.
- Amendments 20 and 21 were implemented on January 1, 2011, and were expected to lead to economic efficiency and bycatch reductions but also potential consolidation of privileges, potentially affecting local fishing communities.
- The plaintiffs, primarily non-trawl fishermen’s associations and groups, anticipated that their longtime participation in the fishery might shrink under the new amendments.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs-Appellants Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, et al. (primarily non-trawl fishermen’s associations) filed suit against Rebecca M. Blank (Acting Secretary of Commerce), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in October 2010.
- The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in January 2011, alleging that Amendment 20 and 21 violated the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
- The District Court granted the plaintiffs’ request to expedite the case and, after a hearing, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims, holding that NMFS met its statutory obligations.
- The plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and their unopposed motion to expedite the appeal was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1) Does the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) violate the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) by failing to develop criteria for allocating fishing privileges to fishing communities or by failing to restrict such privileges to only those who "substantially participate" in the fishery? 2) Does NMFS violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by preparing separate environmental impact statements (EISs) for related amendments, failing to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives, inadequately evaluating potential environmental effects, or adopting insufficient mitigation measures?
Opinions:
Majority - Consuelo M. Callahan
No, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) did not violate the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Regarding the MSA claims, the court held that while the MSA requires NMFS to "consider" fishing communities in fashioning a limited access program and initial allocation procedures, it does not mandate that communities receive a specific allocation of quota shares or be made eligible to do so. The plain language of § 1853a(c)(5) requires only "consideration of" specific factors, and Congress did not use language strong enough to mandate a particular outcome or guarantee. Legislative history also supports a permissive interpretation. NMFS fulfilled its obligation by surveying fishing communities, discussing the effects of quota programs, and adopting mitigation measures such as an adaptive management program, a two-year moratorium on share transfers, accumulation limits, and a five-year review with a community advisory committee. The court also rejected the argument that quota shares must be restricted to those who "substantially participate" in the fishery. NMFS's interpretation that substantial participants must be among those eligible, but are not the only eligible persons, was reasonable. This interpretation is supported by statutory construction principles: the absence of the word "only" or "solely" in § 1853a(c)(5)(E), the specific language for exclusions in § 1853a(c)(1)(D) which differs from the substantial participation clause, and the conflict a restrictive interpretation would create with provisions allowing for security interests or assistance to "entry-level" participants. The court deferred to NMFS's reasonable interpretation under Chevron. Regarding the NEPA claims, the court found that NMFS complied with its procedural obligations. It determined that Amendments 20 and 21 were not "connected actions" requiring a single EIS under 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(1) because they had independent utility and overlapping, but not co-extensive, goals. NMFS's preparation of separate, lengthy EISs for each amendment, which thoroughly studied individual and combined effects, addressed the concern of "divide and conquer" segmentation. The court also concluded that NMFS studied a reasonable range of alternatives, applying the "rule of reason" standard. For Amendment 20, seven detailed alternatives, including a "no action" alternative and various quota system designs, were considered. For Amendment 21, six alternatives based on different allocation methodologies were analyzed. NMFS was not required to consider every conceivable alternative, only those necessary for a reasoned choice and consistent with project objectives. Additionally, the court found that NMFS adequately evaluated the amendments' impacts on fish habitat and non-trawl communities. While socioeconomic impacts received more detailed discussion, NEPA only requires discussion of impacts in proportion to their significance. NMFS's analysis, supported by modeling and references, was deemed sufficient, and the amendments were designed to promote conservation. Finally, the court held that NMFS adequately considered mitigation measures. Amendment 20 included an adaptive management program and a quadrennial review process. NEPA does not require mitigation plans to be legally enforceable, fully funded, or in final form, only discussed in sufficient detail to ensure a fair evaluation of environmental consequences. NMFS's flexible, adaptive measures were found to be appropriate.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the broad deference afforded to federal agencies in their interpretation and implementation of complex statutes like the MSA and NEPA, particularly when Congress leaves statutory gaps. It clarifies that while agencies must consider various factors—such as the impact on fishing communities—they are not necessarily mandated to achieve a specific outcome or adopt particular policies. For NEPA challenges, the ruling underscores that courts will apply a 'rule of reason' to the range of alternatives considered and a 'hard look' standard to impact evaluations, meaning agencies need not explore every single option or provide exhaustive detail on every possible impact, so long as their analysis is reasonable and responsive to comments. This approach makes it challenging for challengers to overturn agency decisions based on policy disagreements, as long as the agency can demonstrate a rational decision-making process within its delegated authority.
