## Facts

- NMFS managed the South Atlantic Snapper–Grouper Fishery under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), including protections for speckled hind and warsaw grouper, two deep-water species listed as undergoing overfishing.
- In 2010, NMFS banned the catching and retention of speckled hind and warsaw grouper and also imposed a deep-water closure that prohibited targeting six other deep-water species in certain areas, based on an assumption that those species co-occurred and that fishing for them would cause bycatch of the overfished species.
- After further catch analyses, exempted fishing permits, and environmental review, NMFS concluded co-occurrence was low and the deep-water closure provided little or no conservation benefit while causing significant economic harm.
- NMFS adopted an amendment that lifted the deep-water closure for the six associated species but kept the direct ban on catching and retaining speckled hind and warsaw grouper.
- Environmental organizations sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the MSA, alleging the amendment unlawfully weakened conservation measures and improperly relied on economic concerns.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether NMFS’s amendment lifting the deep-water closure was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful under the APA.
2. Whether the amendment violated the MSA’s national standards, including preventing overfishing, using the best scientific information available, and achieving optimum yield.
3. Whether NMFS unlawfully gave controlling weight to economic impacts in reversing the closure.

## Decision

- The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross-motion.
- The court held NMFS reasonably explained its policy change and showed a rational connection between updated scientific findings (low co-occurrence and minimal conservation benefit) and lifting the closure.
- The court concluded NMFS complied with the MSA’s national standards by maintaining the direct ban on catching and retaining the two overfished species while removing an ineffective ancillary restriction.
- The court held that considering economic impacts was permissible under the MSA’s “optimum yield” framework, particularly after NMFS reasonably found the closure provided little conservation benefit.

## Legal Principles

- Under APA arbitrary-and-capricious review, a court upholds agency action if the agency considered relevant factors and gave a reasoned explanation supported by the administrative record.
- The MSA permits balancing conservation and utilization through “optimum yield,” which can include economic and social considerations alongside ecological factors.
- The MSA’s “best scientific information available” standard allows (and can require) an agency to revise management measures when improved data undermines earlier assumptions.
- When an agency changes position, it must acknowledge the change and provide good reasons for the new approach; reliance on updated data and a reasoned explanation can satisfy this requirement.

## Conclusion

The court upheld NMFS’s decision to lift a deep-water fishing closure for six species because NMFS reasonably relied on updated scientific information showing the closure did not meaningfully protect speckled hind and warsaw grouper, maintained direct protections for those overfished species, and permissibly considered economic impacts within the MSA’s optimum-yield framework.


Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 71 F. Supp. 3d 35 (D.D.C. 2014)