## Facts

- Environmental organizations challenged the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) final rule setting the 1999 summer flounder total allowable landings (TAL) quota.
- The quota implemented a fishery management plan (FMP) designed to rebuild the summer flounder stock by controlling fishing mortality through annual TAL limits.
- The fishery was subject to statutory requirements to prevent overfishing while achieving optimum yield and, consistent with conservation, to minimize adverse economic impacts on fishing communities.
- The relevant stock assessments and quota choices involved scientific uncertainty and predictive modeling regarding fishing mortality.
- NMFS adopted a TAL different from the Mid-Atlantic Council’s proposed TAL, concluding NMFS’s alternative better reduced overfishing risk while considering socioeconomic effects.
- NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing quota alternatives and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), deciding that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was unnecessary.
- Plaintiffs sought review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and challenged both the quota decision and the adequacy of the EA/FONSI under NEPA.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether NMFS’s 1999 TAL violated Magnuson-Stevens National Standard 1 by failing to “prevent overfishing” given the asserted probability of missing the FMP’s fishing-mortality target.
2. Whether NMFS unlawfully weighted short-term socioeconomic considerations in setting the quota, contrary to National Standard 8 and the conservation mandate.
3. Whether NMFS violated NEPA by issuing an EA and FONSI instead of preparing an EIS, and by allegedly failing to adequately analyze impacts or alternatives.
4. Whether NMFS’s actions were arbitrary and capricious under the APA.

## Decision

- Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was denied.
- Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment was granted.
- The court held NMFS’s quota selection complied with Magnuson-Stevens, including National Standards 1 and 8.
- The court held NMFS’s decisions were not arbitrary or capricious under the APA, emphasizing deference to technical and predictive agency judgments in fisheries management.
- The court held NMFS’s EA and FONSI satisfied NEPA, and NMFS reasonably declined to prepare an EIS.

## Legal Principles

- Under APA review, courts uphold agency action if the agency examined relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the record and its choice; courts generally defer to technical and scientific judgments.
- Magnuson-Stevens National Standard 1 requires measures designed to prevent overfishing, but does not require a specific numerical probability threshold for achieving fishery mortality targets in the face of scientific uncertainty.
- Magnuson-Stevens National Standard 8 permits consideration of community economic impacts so long as conservation requirements are satisfied; economic effects may inform selection among biologically acceptable alternatives.
- NEPA is procedural; an EA and FONSI are sufficient if the agency takes a “hard look” at environmental consequences and reasonably supports a finding of no significant impact, making an EIS unnecessary.

## Conclusion

The court upheld NMFS’s 1999 summer flounder quota and its NEPA documentation, concluding that NMFS reasonably exercised its scientific judgment, appropriately balanced conservation with socioeconomic effects within statutory limits, and adequately analyzed environmental consequences through an EA and FONSI.


Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Daley, 62 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D.D.C. 1999)