Pacific herring are a major part of the economy, culture, and natural environment of the San Francisco Bay and Northern California Coast. They are integral to both commercial fishing and recreational fishing, as well as being a major part of the ecosystem. Stakeholders hold differing views on how to maintain the population of herring within the San Francisco Bay, and with the herring population trending downward, determining the correct path to conservation is increasingly important.
Tensions between two stakeholders, commercial herring fisheries and government regulators, boiled over when the National Park Service (NPS) began regulation of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) in 2007. In response to regulations, the San Francisco Herring Association (plaintiff) brought a suit against the U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS, and the Superintendent of the GGNRA (collectively, Park Service). The plaintiff, a nonprofit group of small-business commercial fishers, filed suit to prevent the Park Service from enforcing in the GGNRA the general commercial fishing prohibition applied across national park lands. However, the court held that the Park Service had authority to administer the waters within the boundary of the GGNRA.
Federal jurisdiction over these navigable waters is critical for effective land management and conservation of both the herring population and, more broadly, the ecosystem of the San Francisco Bay. The Ninth Circuit’s holding correctly reflects that federal regulation of the waters in the GGNRA is consistent with the goals of the GGNRA and Organic Acts for three reasons. First, the language and goals of the GGNRA Act are distinguishable from the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) which administers waters differently; second, any other reading of the statute would lead to impossible outcomes; and third, the federal government is better resourced and better able to support conservation interests.
