## Facts

- The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act governs federal fishery management, including the New England groundfish fishery managed through a Fishery Management Plan (FMP).
- Following the 2006 reauthorization (effective 2007) and a 2008 stock assessment indicating depleted stocks, the New England Fishery Management Council and NMFS faced statutory mandates and deadlines to prevent overfishing, including annual catch limits and accountability measures.
- The Council and NMFS adopted “sector” management (Amendment 16 and related rules), under which permit holders could voluntarily join sectors that received collective annual allocations derived from members’ historical catch.
- Sector participants operated under internal rules and monitoring obligations, with reduced effort controls compared to the “common pool,” but strict annual catch limits.
- Commercial fishing interests and fishing-dependent municipalities challenged the sector program, alleging unfair allocations, harmful consolidation effects, and multiple statutory and procedural violations.
- Plaintiffs sued in federal district court under the Magnuson–Stevens Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and NEPA; the district court granted summary judgment to the federal defendants and aligned intervenors, and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the sector allocation regime is a “Limited Access Privilege Program” or “individual fishing quota” under the Magnuson–Stevens Act, triggering special statutory procedures and limits.
2. Whether Amendment 16 and related regulations comply with the Magnuson–Stevens Act’s National Standards and other substantive requirements.
3. Whether NMFS’s adoption and implementation of the sector regime was arbitrary or capricious under the APA.
4. Whether the agencies satisfied NEPA’s environmental review requirements for the sector program.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the federal defendants and intervenors.
- The court held the sector program was not a LAPP/IFQ under the Magnuson–Stevens Act, so LAPP/IFQ-specific procedures did not apply.
- The court upheld the challenged rules as consistent with the Magnuson–Stevens Act and not arbitrary or capricious under the APA.
- The court rejected NEPA and related procedural challenges, concluding the agency conducted adequate environmental review.

## Legal Principles

- A fishery management allocation to a voluntary group that is not permanent, long-term, or individually transferable may fall outside the Magnuson–Stevens Act’s LAPP/IFQ provisions.
- Under the Magnuson–Stevens Act, allocation decisions are reviewed with substantial deference to the agency’s technical and policy judgments, particularly in complex fisheries management and conservation settings.
- Under APA arbitrary-and-capricious review, agency action is upheld when the agency considers relevant factors, examines the record, and provides a rational explanation connecting facts to choices.
- NEPA is satisfied when the agency takes a “hard look” at environmental effects, considers a reasonable range of alternatives, and adequately explains its analysis in the EIS and supporting materials.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld NMFS’s New England groundfish sector management rules, concluding the sector regime was not a Magnuson–Stevens LAPP/IFQ and that the agency’s conservation-driven choices complied with the Magnuson–Stevens Act, the APA, and NEPA.


Lovgren v. Locke, 701 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2012)