Oceana, Inc. v. Locke
831 F. Supp. 2d 95
D.D.C.2011Background
- MSA created eight Regional Fishery Management Councils and required FMPs with ACLs and AMs to prevent overfishing, approved by NMFS acting for the Secretary of Commerce.
- Amendment 16 to the NEFMC Northeast Multispecies FMP aimed to implement ACLs and AMs, including bycatch monitoring, to comply with the MSA and 2007 amendments.
- SBRM Amendment previously established standardized bycatch reporting; NMFS and NEFMC’s actions on SBRM were preliminarily challenged and remanded, affecting bycatch methodology oversight.
- Oceana filed May 7, 2010 suit challenging Amendment 16 under the APA and NEPA, alleging inadequate bycatch monitoring, missing AMs for five species, and NEPA failures regarding alternatives.
- The court granted summary judgment to Defendants on all MSA/NEPA issues except for the five-species AM shortcoming, which it remanded for amendment to satisfy §1853(a)(15).
- The decision applied Chevron/APA standards, reviewed the administrative record, and deferred to NMFS/NEFMC expertise on technical fishery-management questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bycatch monitoring adequacy under §1853(a)(15) and reporting under §1853(a)(11). | Oceana contends Amendment 16 fails to establish a bycatch-reporting methodology and sufficient monitoring. | NMFS argues §1853(a)(15) and §1853(a)(11) are distinct; bycatch monitoring can satisfy §1853(a)(15) without embedding §1853(a)(11) methodology in the FMP. | Amendment 16 satisfies §1853(a)(15) for bycatch monitoring; the §1853(a)(11) challenge is not reached in this action. |
| Accountability measures for five groundfish species (AMs for sector sub-ACLs). | Oceana argues Amendment 16 lacks sector sub-AMs for five species, failing §1853(a)(15). | NMFS contends overall AMs suffice or will be addressed in future rulemaking; sector sub-AMs are not required for all stocks. | Amendment 16 lacks adequate sector sub-AMs for the five species; remanded to NMFS/NEFMC to amend the FMP. |
| Yellowtail flounder in scallop fishery—mootness. | Oceana argued ongoing insufficiency of AMs for yellowtail flounder in Scallop FMP. | NMFS argued Amendment 15 to Scallop FMP provides needed AMs; mootness. | Amendment 15 mooted the claim; this aspect dismissed as no live controversy. |
| NEPA hard look and alternatives regarding ABC Rule. | Oceana contends FEIS failed to consider reasonable alternatives to ABC Control Rule and to reevaluate stock status. | Council adequately analyzed alternatives and NEPA’s rule-of-reason supports its approach. | NEPA challenges rejected; summary judgment for Defendants on these challenges. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes receive deference)
- Baltimore Gas and Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1983) (judicial review of agency action under APA—arbitrary and capricious standard)
- Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (NEPA review is deferential and tailored to agency objectives)
- Tongass Conservation Society v. Cheney, 924 F.2d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (NEPA alternatives and reasonableness under the rule of reason)
- Oceana, Inc. v. Evans, 384 F. Supp. 2d 203 (D.D.C. 2005) (district court on bycatch methodology and MSA regulatory challenges (non-WL citation))