## Facts

- The Secretary of Commerce issued a final fishery management plan regulating highly migratory species in Atlantic waters under the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
- The plan set Atlantic bluefin tuna (ABT) trip limits, restricting how many ABT a vessel could land per fishing trip, and it established annual catch quotas for pelagic sharks.
- The agency relied on then-available stock assessments and related research and explained that the measures were intended to prevent overfishing and to reduce incentives for fishers to target high-value species.
- Although certain shark species (including blue sharks and porbeagle sharks) were not classified as overfished at the time, the agency found that their biological characteristics (slow growth and reproduction) made them vulnerable to rapid depletion if fishing pressure increased.
- Blue Water Fisherman’s Association, representing commercial fishers, challenged the plan under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing that the plan did not satisfy several Magnuson–Stevens National Standards, including: National Standard 1 (optimum yield and conservation), National Standard 2 (best scientific information available), National Standard 8 (consideration of economic impacts on fishing communities), and National Standard 9 (bycatch minimization).
- The Secretary moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the ABT trip limits and pelagic shark quotas were consistent with Magnuson–Stevens National Standard 1’s requirement to prevent overfishing while achieving optimum yield.
2. Whether the agency complied with National Standard 2 by basing the trip limits and shark quotas on the best scientific information available, even if the data were incomplete or uncertain.
3. Whether the plan satisfied National Standard 8 by considering economic effects on fishing communities and minimizing adverse economic impacts to the extent practicable while still preventing overfishing.
4. Whether the plan satisfied National Standard 9 by taking practicable steps to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality.
5. Whether, under the APA, the Secretary’s adoption of the trip limits and shark quotas was arbitrary or capricious.

## Decision

- The court granted the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court upheld the ABT trip limits and the pelagic shark quotas as consistent with the Magnuson–Stevens National Standards invoked by the plaintiff.
- The court rejected the plaintiff’s APA challenge, concluding the agency reasonably explained its choices on the administrative record.
- Judgment was entered for the Secretary.

## Legal Principles

- Under APA review, a court asks whether the agency considered the relevant factors and explained a rational connection between the record evidence and the decision; the court does not reweigh policy choices.
- In fisheries management, courts give substantial deference to agency scientific judgments and predictive assessments when the agency gives a reasoned explanation.
- National Standard 1 allows the agency to set conservation-focused limits to prevent overfishing; “optimum yield” is constrained by conservation needs and is not a guarantee of maximizing short-term harvest.
- National Standard 2 requires use of the best scientific information available, not perfect information; the agency may act in the face of uncertainty so long as it uses available research and explains why it supports the chosen measures.
- National Standard 8 requires consideration of economic impacts and minimization of adverse effects to the extent practicable, but it does not bar measures that impose economic costs when needed for conservation.
- National Standard 9 requires bycatch and bycatch mortality reduction to the extent practicable; management tools that reduce incentives for targeting or that cap total catch can satisfy this requirement when supported by the record.
- The agency may take precautionary measures for species that are not yet overfished when the record supports a conclusion that the species is vulnerable to depletion and the measures are explained as risk-control steps.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the Secretary’s fishery management plan provisions setting Atlantic bluefin tuna trip limits and annual pelagic shark quotas, finding that the agency relied on available scientific research, considered conservation and economic factors within the statutory framework, and provided a reasoned explanation sufficient to survive APA review and the plaintiff’s National Standards challenges.


Blue Water Fisherman's Association v. Mineta, 122 F. Supp. 2d 150 (2000)