United Cook Inlet Drift Ass'n. V. NMFS, No. 14-35928 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseUnited Cook filed suit challenging Amendment 12, which removed three historic net fishing areas from the Salmon fishery management plan (FMP), and its implementing regulations as contrary to the Magnuson-Stevens Act's requirement that a Council prepare an FMP “for each fishery under its authority that requires conservation and management,” 16 U.S.C. 1852(h)(1). United Cook also alleged that Amendment 12 was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). At issue on appeal is whether NMFS can exempt a fishery under its authority that requires conservation and management from an FMP because the agency is content with State management. The court concluded that the Magnuson-Stevens Act unambiguously requires a Council to create an FMP for each fishery under its authority that requires conservation and management. The Act allows delegation to a state under an FMP, but does not excuse the obligation to adopt an FMP when a Council opts for state management. Therefore, the court concluded that Amendment 12 is contrary to law to the extent it removes Cook Inlet from the FMP. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions that judgment be entered in favor of United Cook.
Court Description: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and. Management Act The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the government in an action under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act brought by two groups of commercial fishermen urging the rejection of Amendment 12, which removed the historic net-fishing area of Cook Inlet from the Salmon Fishery Management Plan (“FMP”); and remanded with instructions that judgment be entered in favor of plaintiffs. The panel held that the National Marine Fisheries Service cannot exempt a fishery under its authority that required conservation and management from an FMP because the agency is content with State management. The panel held that the Magnuson-Stevens Act unambiguously
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.