## Facts

- The Pacific Coast groundfish fishery covers federal waters off California, Oregon, and Washington and includes numerous bottom-dwelling species.
- The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) governs federal fisheries through regional councils and national standards, including attention to impacts on fishing communities.
- In 2011, NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council adopted Amendments 20 and 21 to the groundfish fishery management plan for the trawl sector.
- The amendments implemented an individual fishing quota/catch share program intended to increase economic efficiency, reduce environmental impacts, and simplify future management.
- Catch share allocations and related harvest privileges were largely based on historical catch, which could consolidate the fleet and shift participation levels among fishing groups.
- NMFS reviewed socioeconomic conditions in fishing communities, incorporated community participation through the Council process, and adopted mitigation measures for adverse community effects.
- Plaintiffs, primarily non-trawl fishermen’s associations, challenged the amendments and implementing regulations under the MSA and NEPA, asserting unfair allocations and inadequate environmental review.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the federal defendants, and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether NMFS’s approval of Amendments 20 and 21 and implementing regulations violated the MSA’s national standards and community-related requirements, including fairness and equitable allocation of fishing privileges.
2. Whether NMFS’s Environmental Impact Statement and related NEPA review were arbitrary or capricious, including the scope of analysis and consideration of alternatives.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the federal defendants.
- The court held that the amendments and implementing regulations complied with the MSA and its national standards, including provisions concerning fishing communities.
- The court held that NMFS’s NEPA review, including its EIS and alternatives analysis, was adequate and not arbitrary or capricious.
- The catch share/trawl rationalization program remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Challenges to fishery management plan amendments are reviewed under the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard, with substantial deference to NMFS on technical scientific and economic judgments.
- Under the MSA, allocation measures may rely on historical catch and other rational criteria so long as they are fair and equitable within the statutory framework and not designed to unjustly favor particular groups.
- The MSA requires the agency to consider impacts on fishing communities and may be satisfied through socioeconomic assessment, participation opportunities in the council process, and mitigation measures addressing adverse effects.
- NEPA is procedural; an agency complies by taking a “hard look” at environmental consequences, considering a reasonable range of alternatives, and providing a rational explanation for its choice.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld NMFS’s trawl-sector catch share program for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery, concluding that NMFS reasonably allocated quota based on catch history, adequately considered and mitigated community impacts under the MSA, and performed an adequate NEPA environmental review.


Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Ass'ns v. Blank, 693 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2012)