## Facts

- NMFS determined tilefish were overfished, prompting development of a Tilefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) under the Magnuson–Stevens Act.
- Early draft materials assumed bottom-tending mobile gear (e.g., trawls and dredges) adversely affected tilefish essential fish habitat (EFH) by disturbing burrows.
- The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council convened a working group of fishermen, scientists, and other stakeholders, including a tilefish expert.
- Based on the administrative record, the Council concluded available science did not show an identifiable adverse effect of bottom-tending mobile gear on tilefish habitat at a population level.
- The final FMP did not ban bottom-tending mobile gear in EFH; it adopted a cooperative research program to study gear impacts and address data gaps.
- NMFS approved the FMP and issued an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzing the plan and alternatives.
- Environmental organizations sued, alleging the FMP and EIS violated the Magnuson Act, NEPA, and the APA, and sought declaratory relief.
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment; the government filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether NMFS’s approval of an FMP that declined to restrict bottom-tending mobile gear in tilefish EFH violated the Magnuson Act (including EFH duties and the “best scientific information available” requirement) and was arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
2. Whether the EIS violated NEPA, and thus was arbitrary and capricious under the APA, by failing to take a “hard look” at environmental effects and reasonable alternatives, including gear-restriction alternatives.

## Decision

- The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment.
- The court held NMFS’s approval of the FMP was not arbitrary and capricious and complied with the Magnuson Act’s EFH and scientific-information requirements.
- The court held the EIS satisfied NEPA because it adequately assessed impacts, disclosed uncertainty, and addressed reasonable alternatives.
- The FMP and EIS remained in effect; the court did not order gear restrictions.

## Legal Principles

- Under APA review, agency action is upheld if the agency examined relevant data, explained its decision, and drew a rational connection between the record and the choice made; courts do not substitute their judgment on technical matters.
- The Magnuson Act’s “best scientific information available” standard permits agency action based on incomplete science; it requires reasonable use of existing information, not definitive proof or resolution of scientific uncertainty.
- EFH provisions require measures to “minimize to the extent practicable” adverse effects from fishing; they do not mandate categorical prohibitions absent a supported finding of adverse effects and practicable mitigation.
- NEPA is procedural: an EIS must take a “hard look” at environmental consequences and consider reasonable alternatives, but it need not select the most environmentally protective alternative.
- An agency may change course during rulemaking and planning when responding to additional data and comments, so long as the final position is supported by the record and reasonably explained.

## Conclusion

The court upheld NMFS’s approval of the tilefish FMP and EIS, concluding that the agency reasonably relied on available science in declining to impose immediate gear restrictions, addressed uncertainty through a research program, and satisfied NEPA’s disclosure and alternatives-analysis requirements under deferential APA review.


Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Evans, 254 F. Supp. 2d 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)