Oceana, Inc. v. Pritzker
275 F. Supp. 3d 270
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Congress, via the Magnuson‑Stevens Act (MSA), requires regional Fishery Management Plans to “establish a standardized reporting methodology” (SBRM) to assess bycatch and prioritize minimizing bycatch and bycatch mortality.
- NMFS and the New England/Mid‑Atlantic Councils implemented SBRMs in prior rounds (Amendment 13, Amendment 10, 2008 Omnibus); courts remanded earlier SBRMs for failing to constrain agency discretion over observer allocation.
- In 2015 NMFS promulgated a revised Northeast Omnibus SBRM and final rule setting (1) a 30% coefficient of variation (CV) precision goal used to calculate observer days per fishing‑mode/species, (2) an "importance filter" to drop low‑impact mode/species combinations, and (3) a non‑discretionary prioritization formula tied to available funding lines to scale coverage when funds are insufficient.
- Oceana sued, arguing the 2015 SBRM violates MSA, APA, and NEPA because (a) funding discretion undermines a standardized methodology and prevents meeting the 30% CV universally; (b) NMFS failed to reconsider evidence (electronic monitoring, observer bias, non‑managed species); (c) 30% CV choice was arbitrary; (d) the EA unlawfully ignored indirect and cumulative environmental impacts.
- The District Court held for defendants: the 2015 SBRM constitutes a standardized methodology (the prioritization process is part of the methodology or, alternatively, the funding trigger and standard are adequately defined), NMFS reasonably considered and addressed evidence, the 30% CV choice was justified, and the EA permissibly declined to analyze speculative downstream management impacts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NMFS failed to "establish a standardized reporting methodology" under the MSA because funding can prevent achieving the 30% CV | Oceana: Allowing funding to determine coverage means NMFS did not establish a binding SBRM; funding effectively triggers a discretionary exception undermining the rule. | NMFS: The SBRM embeds a non‑discretionary funding‑adjustment method (importance filter + prioritization formula) and/or adequately defines the funding trigger (four specified funding lines), so the methodology is standardized. | Court: SBRM is standardized; prioritization is part of the methodology. Even if treated as a triggered exception, the trigger and standard are adequately defined. |
| Whether NMFS failed to reconsider important/new evidence (electronic monitoring, observer bias, non‑federally managed species) after remand | Oceana: New studies and issues required fresh consideration; NMFS ignored superior evidence and repeated prior errors. | NMFS: Considered available studies and commentary; electronic monitoring is not yet mature/cost‑effective; observer bias evidence does not show materially different discard rates; non‑managed species need not meet same precision because MSA scope and management purpose. | Court: NMFS did not ignore superior evidence; its technical judgments and explanations were reasonable and satisfy MSA/APA standards. |
| Whether selecting 30% CV was arbitrary (vs. 20–30% WG recommendation) | Oceana: NMFS failed to justify picking 30% (least precise) of the recommended range. | NMFS: The WG recommendation applied to aggregated discards; SBRM applies CV to many small mode/species cells so a 30% target was reasonable given sampling burden. | Court: NMFS provided a logical, deferable technical justification; choice was not arbitrary. |
| Whether NMFS violated NEPA by failing to analyze indirect/cumulative impacts (i.e., downstream management effects of changed data quality) | Oceana: Better/worse data will change management (ACLs, AMs), so NMFS had to analyze indirect and cumulative environmental effects. | NMFS: Downstream management effects are too remote/speculative to be reasonably foreseeable; the EA reasonably focused on procedural impacts of data collection. | Court: NMFS took a hard look and reasonably concluded downstream management impacts were not reasonably foreseeable; EA/FONSI adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (agency fund allocation from lump‑sum appropriations is generally unreviewable)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary and capricious standard; agency must show rational connection between facts and choice)
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (agency statutory interpretation reviewed under two‑step framework)
- Oceana, Inc. v. Locke, 670 F.3d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (remanding 2008 SBRM where agency reserved unconstrained discretion to depart from methodology)
- Kennecott Greens Creek Min. Co. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 476 F.3d 946 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (deference for agency technical sampling judgments)
- Cement Kiln Recycling Coal. v. EPA, 493 F.3d 207 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (upholding agency discretion when a multi‑factor test constrained triggering of exceptions)
- American Airlines, Inc. v. TSA, 665 F.3d 170 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (rejecting agency reserving unbounded discretion to depart from required prioritization)