Opinion ID: 212487
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Issue 2: Mandate to Hold Public Meetings in All Geographic Areas

Text: The fishermen next argue that the District Court erred in concluding that the NEFMC complied at least minimally with the mandate that public meetings to discuss new management measures like Amendment 11 be held in appropriate locations in the geographical area concerned. The locations also include areas under the authority of another Council if the measures could affect fishermen of that area. 16 U.S.C. § 1852(h)(3). Following the publication of the November 1, 2004 ANPR, 35 public meetings were held over a span of 18 months in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Virginia. While it is true, as the fishermen complain, that most of the meetings were held in the New England region, that fact by itself is unsurprising, given that Georges Bank is the most sensitive of the environs of fishable Atlantic sea scallops. [19] Three public meetings were held outside of the jurisdiction of the NEFMC. Two of these were held in New Jersey. The first meeting in February of 2006 in Cape May attracted 150 participants. A second New Jersey meeting held in May of 2007 in Manahawkin drew another 30 fishermen. Later that month, a third meeting in Newport News, Virginia, attracted some 25 participants. We can find no authority that supports the fishermen's assertion that NMFS was required to hold at least one public meeting in every State comprising the New England and the Mid-Atlantic regions, including Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland and North Carolina. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that public meetings shall occur at appropriate times and in appropriate locations in the geographical area concerned, so as to allow all interested persons an opportunity to be heard in the development of fishery management plans and amendments to such plans,. . . . 16 U.S.C. § 1852(h)(3). Other than providing extraneous dictionary definitions explaining that shall is a word of affirmative command, the fishermen point to no statute or regulation that required the NEFMC to convene a meeting in every port of call on the Atlantic seaboard. More meetings might have been held, but that is not to say that the 35 that were held failed to satisfy § 1852(h)(3).