Guindon v. Pritzker
31 F. Supp. 3d 169
D.D.C.2014Background
- This case challenges three NMFS rules (May Final Rule, June Temporary Rule, September Final Rule) setting 2013 Gulf of Mexico red snapper quotas and recreational season lengths; commercial plaintiffs are Gulf commercial red snapper fishermen.
- The Gulf reef-fish FMP allocates quota 51% commercial / 49% recreational and red snapper is an overfished stock subject to a rebuilding plan.
- NMFS manages commercial fishing via IFQs (accurate, no recent overruns) but manages recreational fishing by season length, size/bag limits and in‑season closure only; recreational sector has repeated quota overages in recent years.
- In 2013 the SSC set an elevated ABC; the Council recommended an 11 million lb quota (below ABC) and a possible fall reopen contingent on June landings. MRIP (the recreational landings survey) produced June 2013 landings of ~6.13 million lbs—a ~2M lb overage—while NMFS nonetheless treated its earlier projection (4.145M lbs) as the “best scientific information available” and reopened a 14‑day fall season.
- Plaintiffs alleged NMFS violated MSA provisions (including §407(d), National Standards 1,2,4, and §303(a)(15)), the APA, and NEPA; the Court granted plaintiffs summary judgment and vacated the May, June and September rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NMFS violated §407(d) (must prohibit retention after quota reached) | NMFS set seasons based on flawed projections and reopened the fall season despite MRIP evidence that the recreational quota had been exceeded, thus failing to prohibit retention | NMFS argued it complied by setting projected season lengths and reasonably relied on projections and council recommendations | Court: NMFS violated §407(d); setting a 28‑day June season and reopening despite clear overage was arbitrary and capricious |
| Whether NMFS used the "best scientific information available" (National Standard 2) | NMFS ignored superior MRIP June 2013 landings (described as more accurate) in favor of an outdated projection, so it failed to use best science | NMFS claimed MRIP estimates were non‑comparable due to sampling changes and that projections were the best available science | Court: NMFS unlawfully disregarded superior/contrary data; decision violated National Standard 2 |
| Whether NMFS satisfied §303(a)(15) by adopting adequate accountability measures (AMs) | Given persistent recreational overages and higher management uncertainty in that sector, NMFS should have required sector‑specific AMs (buffers, payback, etc.); in‑season closure alone is insufficient | NMFS said in‑season closure is the AM and the Council controls FMP AMs; plaintiffs’ challenge is untimely or seeks agency action not judicially reviewable | Court: NMFS failed to require adequate AMs; approving rules without meaningful sector‑specific AMs was arbitrary and capricious |
| Whether NMFS’s actions produced a de facto reallocation in violation of FMP (§304(b)) and National Standard 4 | By allowing repeated recreational overages and reopening the season, NMFS effectively shifted catch from commercial to recreational fishers, undermining the 51/49 allocation and fairness | NMFS argued allocation remained on paper and measures taken (shortened seasons) rebut a de facto reallocation claim | Court: NMFS’s reopening and disregard of overage evidence produced results contrary to the FMP and not reasonably calculated to promote conservation; violated §304(b) and National Standard 4 |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (administrative decisions must show rational connection between facts found and choices made)
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87 (agency must articulate rational connection between facts and decision)
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895 (standing in administrative-review suits often self‑evident from record)
- United Bhd. of Carpenters v. Operative Plasterers', 721 F.3d 678 (capable‑of‑repetition‑yet‑evading‑review exception)
- Conyers v. Reagan, 765 F.2d 1124 (discussing evasion‑of‑review for short‑duration agency actions)