Opinion ID: 3033437
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The National Marine Fisheries Service, the

Text: Magnuson Act, Section 1854 and the National Standards Guidelines Congress enacted the Magnuson Act to “conserve and manage the fishery resources found off the coasts of the United States.” 16 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(1).1 The Agency is charged with developing and implementing rebuilding plans for overfished fish species. § 1854.2 In 1996, Congress amended the Act by passing the Sustainable Fisheries Act (“SFA”). Pub. L. No. 104-297, 110 Stat. 3559 (1996). The SFA added new requirements to the Act to accelerate the rebuilding of overfished species. The Act, as amended by the SFA, contains a provision the proper interpretation of which is the main subject of this 1 Hereinafter, all statutory citations are to 16 U.S.C. unless otherwise indicated. 2 The Act vests this responsibility with the Secretary of Commerce, but “[t]he Secretary carries out his management and conservation duties through the [Agency] and eight Regional Fishery Management Councils established by the [Act].” Yakutat, Inc. v. Gutierrez, 407 F.3d 1054, 1058 (9th Cir. 2005); see § 1852(a). 11414 NATURAL RESOURCES v. NAT’L MARINE FISHERIES appeal. Section 1854 of the Act provides in part that when any species is found to be overfished, the Agency must approve a rebuilding plan that: (A) specif[ies] a time period for ending overfishing and rebuilding the fishery that shall —
account the status and biology of any over- fished stock of fish, the needs of fishing communities, . . . and the interaction of the overfished stock of fish within the marine ecosystem; and
where the biology of the stock of fish, [or] other environmental conditions . . . dictate otherwise. § 1854(e)(4). The Act also sets forth a series of “national standards” with which any rebuilding plans must be “consistent,” and provides for the establishment of National Standards Guidelines (“NSGs”) that must be “based on the national standards” for use in “assist[ing] in the development of fishery management plans.” §§ 1851(a), (b). The Act provides that NSGs “shall not have the force and effect of law.” Id. There is some ambiguity to § 1854(e)(4). Section 1854(e)(4)(i) specifies that the rebuilding time period be as “short as possible,” but also directs that the Agency “tak[e] into account the status and biology of [the] . . . overfished stock” and “the needs of fishing communities.” Section 1854(e)(4)(ii) in turn plainly mandates that the rebuilding plan be no longer than 10 years, so long as biologically or environmentally possible.3 However, if it is not possible to rebuild 3 A separate provision allowing for a longer period if necessary to comply with the terms of an international agreement is not relevant here. See § 1854(e)(4)(A)(ii). NATURAL RESOURCES v. NAT’L MARINE FISHERIES 11415 within 10 years, the Act is not clear as to the exact limits on the length of the rebuilding period. Seeking to clarify the proper interpretation of § 1854(e)(4), the Agency in 1997 sought “comment on whether or not it is correct in its interpretation that the duration of rebuilding programs should not be unspecified and, if so, what factors should be considered in determining that duration.” See 62 Fed. Reg. 67,610 (Dec. 29, 1997). The Agency propounded two alternate interpretations for public comment: that whenever it would take longer than 10 years to rebuild an overfished species, either (1) all fishing of that species would be banned until the rebuilding was complete or (2) the Agency would set a ceiling on the rebuilding duration that would be reached by adding the shortest possible time to rebuild plus “one mean generation time . . . based on the species’ lifehistory characteristics.” Id. at 67,609-10. A “mean generation time” is a scientific term, not mentioned in the Act itself, measuring how long it will take for an average mature fish to be replaced by its offspring. After notice and comment, the Agency adopted the second interpretation in a NSG (“the 1998 NSG”). See 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(e)(4)(ii)(B). The Agency reasoned that: [f]or stocks that will take more than 10 years to rebuild, the guidelines [adopted] impose an outside limit that is objective, measurable, and linked to the biology of the particular species . . . . The guidelines strike a balance between the Congressional directive to rebuild stocks as quickly as possible, and the desire . . . to minimize adverse economic effects on fishing communities. For stocks that cannot be rebuilt within 10 years, the guideline allows flexibility in setting the rebuilding schedule beyond the nofishing mortality period, but places a reasonable, species-specific cap on that flexibility by limiting the extension to one mean generation time. 11416 NATURAL RESOURCES v. NAT’L MARINE FISHERIES 63 Fed. Reg. 24,217 (May 1, 1998).