Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations v. Blank
693 F.3d 1084
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Amendments 20 and 21 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP were adopted to increase economic efficiency, reduce environmental impacts, and aid decisionmaking.
- Plaintiffs challenge NMFS and the Council under the MSA and NEPA, asserting procedural and substantive flaws.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants; on appeal, the court affirms the district court’s MSA and NEPA rulings.
- NMFS and the Council allegedly failed to protect fishing communities and to limit privileges to those who substantially participate; NMFS also faced NEPA challenges regarding EISs and mitigation.
- NMFS complied with MSA by considering fishing communities, and with NEPA by preparing separate EISs for Amendments 20 and 21, evaluating alternatives, and adopting mitigation measures.
- The court notes the plaintiffs dispute NMFS’s balance of objectives but finds no excess of statutory authority or NEPA violation; the district court’s judgment is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSA compliance for fishing communities | Pl. argue NMFS failed to protect fishing communities. | NMFS considered communities but need not guarantee initial allocations. | NMFS complied with the MSA; no requirement to guarantee allocations. |
| Eligibility and participation in quotas | NMFS must restrict privileges to substantially participating fishers. | MSA ties eligibility to program rules, not exclusive restriction to substantial participants. | NMFS not required to restrict to substantial participants; linkage suffices under the statute. |
| NEPA EIS structure for Amendments 20 and 21 | A single EIS should have covered both amendments. | Separate EISs were appropriate; actions have independent utility. | Two separate EISs were proper; no NEPA violation for not combining them. |
| Range of alternatives under NEPA | NMFS failed to consider non-quota and other viable alternatives. | NMFS studied a reasonable range of alternatives including non-quota options. | Reasonable alternatives were studied; no NEPA defect in the alternatives analysis. |
| Mitigation measures under NEPA | Mitigation measures are vague and uncertain. | Mitigation discussed to a sufficient degree under NEPA; adaptive management and reviews contemplated. | Mitigation discussion adequate under NEPA; not required to be final or fully enforceable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (NEPA procedural, requires hard look and rational analysis)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (NEPA procedural—need not be substantive outcomes)
- Neigh-bors of Cuddy Mountain v. Alexander, 303 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2002) (NEPA scope and hard look standards)
- City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 1997) (NEPA alternatives and scope; reasonableness standard)
- Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. BLM, 606 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2009) (purpose and need reasonableness; deference to agency planning)
- NW Envtl. Advocates v. NMFS, 460 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2006) (NEPA hard look and habitat impacts in fisheries context)