Anglers Conservation Network v. Pritzker
139 F. Supp. 3d 102
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs (Anglers Conservation Network and individual/club members) challenged NMFS/DO C rule adopting Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan under the MSA, NEPA, and APA.
- Amendment 14 adopted by NMFS established a herring/shad mortality cap, reporting and pre-trip/landing notification, expanded observer-sampling rules, and other bycatch-reduction measures, but declined to: (a) add four anadromous species (alewife, blueback herring, American shad, hickory shad) as stocks in the MSB fishery; and (b) require the Council-proposed 100% observer coverage funded by industry.
- The record showed mixed and incomplete data on stock status: some river herring and shad stocks depleted, others stable or increasing; NMFS found listing river herring under the ESA was not warranted in 2013.
- Plaintiffs argued NMFS unlawfully (1) failed to add those river herring/shad stocks to the MSB fishery, (2) rejected adequate observer/monitoring measures necessary to prevent overfishing, and (3) failed to take a NEPA "hard look" at environmental impacts of not immediately adding the stocks.
- The Court reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment on the administrative record and applied the APA's arbitrary-and-capricious standard and NEPA hard-look requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NMFS had to add river herring and shad as stocks in the MSB fishery | Plaintiffs: best available science shows these stocks are caught and need conservation/management under MSA, so NMFS must add them | NMFS: councils set proposals; record did not show the stocks unequivocally required FMP measures; NMFS reasonably deferred further action to Amendment 15 and future study | Court: NMFS did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in declining to add stocks given uncertain/mixed data and a rational explanation in the record |
| Whether NMFS unlawfully rejected the Council's 100% observer-coverage (cost‑sharing) proposal | Plaintiffs: 100% observers required to produce reliable bycatch data and meet MSA mandates | NMFS: proposal would impose unfunded obligations and legal conflicts (Anti‑Deficiency Act, miscellaneous receipts, payments statutes); Council underestimated costs | Court: NMFS reasonably rejected 100% coverage; disapproval not arbitrary or unlawful |
| Whether NMFS violated MSA by failing to ensure sufficient observer coverage / SBRM issues | Plaintiffs: adopted measures leave insufficient observer coverage to satisfy National Standard 2 and bycatch-reporting requirements | NMFS: MSA/regs require use of best available data, not perfect data; SBRM is subject to separate appellate remand | Court: Plaintiffs' SBRM and coverage claims largely precluded by pending remand; NMFS not shown arbitrary for coverage decisions based on available data |
| Whether NMFS violated NEPA by failing to take a "hard look" and analyze the alternative of immediately adding the stocks | Plaintiffs: EIS failed to include a reasonable alternative analyzing environmental impacts of not adding stocks now; agency deferred analysis to future amendment | NMFS: considered alternatives and documented rationale; decision to study further was reasonable | Court: NMFS violated NEPA — EIS did not take a sufficient "hard look" or analyze the reasonable alternative of immediate inclusion with temporary measures; NEPA/APA violation sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Ass'n, 463 U.S. 29 (agency must examine relevant data and provide rational connection between facts and choice)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (scope of judicial review of administrative action)
- Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (1973) (review limited to administrative record)
- Flaherty v. Bryson, 850 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2012) (MSA requires NMFS assess whether stocks requiring conservation should be placed under an FMP)
- Oceana, Inc. v. Locke, 670 F.3d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (SBRM issues and limitations of judicial relief where method remanded)
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87 (1983) (NEPA requires agencies take a "hard look" at environmental consequences)