Oceana, Inc. v. Ross

Background

Oceana, Inc. sued Wilbur L. Ross in his official capacity, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. California Wetfish Producers Association and Monterey Fish Company Inc. intervened as defendants.

The dispute concerned the 2019 Catch Rule for the central subpopulation of northern anchovy. The rule set an overfishing limit of 94,290 metric tons, an acceptable biological catch of 23,573 metric tons, and an annual catch limit of 23,573 metric tons. The National Marine Fisheries Service calculated those figures using average anchovy-abundance estimates from 2016 through 2018 and set the limits for an indefinite period under Amendment 13 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan.

Oceana argued that the 2019 Catch Rule violated two statutory requirements: that fishery-management measures use the best scientific information available and that they prevent overfishing. Oceana also directly challenged Amendment 13 and challenged it as applied through the 2019 Catch Rule.

Rulings on Amendment 13

The court held that Oceana’s direct challenge to Amendment 13 was timely because the challenge was brought within 30 days of the 2019 Catch Rule, which implemented the earlier amendment. The court explained that a timely challenge to a later agency action may also challenge the regulation underlying that action.

The court nevertheless held that the relevant administrative record for the direct challenge was the record compiled when the agency adopted Amendment 13 in 2011. Because Oceana’s direct challenge relied entirely on evidence gathered after 2011, the challenge failed. The court therefore granted Intervenor-Defendants’ and Government Defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to the direct challenge to Amendment 13.

The court clarified that Oceana could still challenge Amendment 13 as applied in the 2019 Catch Rule and could use the administrative record from that later rulemaking for that challenge.

2019 Catch Rule: Best Available Science

The court ruled that the 2019 Catch Rule violated the requirement that fishery-management measures be based on the best scientific information available. The court identified two peer-reviewed studies, MacCall (2016) and Thayer et al. (2017), as the best available scientific information regarding recent anchovy abundance and population fluctuations.

Those studies analyzed abundance from 1951 through 2015 and showed sharp population declines, including drops of 77 percent in one year, 90 percent over two years, and 99 percent over four years. The court found that the agency did not adequately explain why it disregarded or failed to address that information. Merely stating that the studies had been considered, or noting that their long-term averages were similar to the agency’s three-year average, was not enough.

The court concluded that the overfishing limit, acceptable biological catch, and annual catch limit in the 2019 Catch Rule were arbitrary and capricious—meaning the agency’s explanation was inconsistent with the evidence before it and lacked a rational connection between the facts and its conclusions.

2019 Catch Rule: Preventing Overfishing

The court also ruled that the 2019 Catch Rule violated the requirement to prevent overfishing. The agency had based the limits on three years of relatively high and rapidly increasing anchovy abundance, set the annual catch limit indefinitely, and provided no mechanism to respond to major changes in abundance.

The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that recent population increases showed the rule would prevent overfishing, that an analysis by Dr. Andre E. Punt supported the indefinite limits, and that environmental conditions rather than fishing caused the population fluctuations. The court found that the Punt analysis used different, lower maximum-sustainable-yield values and therefore did not establish that the values in the 2019 Catch Rule would prevent overfishing. The court also found that environmental causes did not relieve the agency of its responsibility to consider environmental conditions and evidence that fishing could worsen population declines.

The court therefore granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied Intervenor-Defendants’ and Government Defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment as to the challenge to the 2019 Catch Rule. The court did not reach Oceana’s claim that the rule failed to account for the needs of anchovy predators.

Disposition and Remedy

The court’s conclusion states that it granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and Intervenor-Defendants’ and Government Defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment. More specifically, the court granted the defendants’ cross-motions and denied Oceana’s motion on the direct Amendment 13 challenge, while granting Oceana’s motion and denying the defendants’ cross-motions on the 2019 Catch Rule challenge.

The court vacated the 2019 Catch Rule and remanded it for further action consistent with the order. It declined to require any particular substance for a new catch rule. The defendants were ordered to promulgate a new rule complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Administrative Procedure Act within 120 days. The parties were also ordered to meet and confer and file a proposed schedule.