## Facts

- The Secretary of Commerce, acting through NMFS/NOAA, approved and implemented Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies (groundfish) Fishery Management Plan under the Magnuson–Stevens Act (MSA).
- Oceana, a nonprofit environmental organization, challenged Amendment 13 and related implementing measures governing New England groundfish fisheries.
- Oceana alleged Amendment 13 failed to establish an adequate bycatch observation and reporting system (including observer coverage and methodology) and failed to minimize bycatch “to the extent practicable.”
- Oceana alleged Amendment 13 inadequately protected essential fish habitat (EFH), including bottom habitats important to juvenile cod, and insufficiently addressed the adverse effects of fishing gear on habitat.
- Oceana challenged the agency’s reliance on “framework adjustments” to defer important conservation and habitat-protection decisions to later processes.
- Oceana also alleged violations of NEPA for inadequate environmental analysis and insufficient consideration of habitat-protective alternatives, and alleged ESA deficiencies regarding protection of loggerhead sea turtles.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; Oceana also sought a permanent injunction, including fishery area closures during remand.

## Issues

1. Whether Amendment 13 provided an adequate, standardized system for observing and reporting bycatch and for minimizing bycatch and bycatch mortality as required by the MSA.
2. Whether Amendment 13 adequately minimized adverse effects of fishing on EFH, consistent with the MSA and the agency’s environmental analysis obligations.
3. Whether deferring key management measures to future “framework adjustments” complied with the MSA’s requirements for fishery management plans and amendments.
4. Whether the agency satisfied ESA duties concerning effects on loggerhead sea turtles.
5. Whether the NEPA analysis adequately evaluated impacts and reasonable alternatives, including more habitat-protective options.

## Decision

- The court granted Oceana’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part; it likewise denied in part the defendants’ positions on the merits.
- The court denied Oceana’s request for a broad permanent injunction closing the fishery during remand.
- The court remanded identified deficiencies to NMFS for correction by a court-imposed deadline while allowing much of the regulatory regime to remain in place.
- The court required specific corrective action related to habitat closures, including reinstatement of certain previously adopted scallop-related closures treated by the agency as not requiring re-promulgation.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA, fishery management approvals may be set aside if arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, including when the agency fails to connect its technical choices to statutory mandates.
- The MSA’s bycatch provisions require an adequate, standardized methodology for observing and reporting bycatch; an agency may not rely on data gaps or ad hoc approaches without reasoned support.
- The MSA requires measures to minimize adverse effects on EFH “to the extent practicable,” which entails consideration of habitat impacts and reasoned explanation for rejecting more protective alternatives.
- Framework procedures may be used under the MSA, but they cannot be used to postpone core conservation determinations in a way that evades required plan-level analysis and public review.
- NEPA requires a reasoned evaluation of environmental impacts and a reasonable range of alternatives; inadequate analysis or unexplained rejection of habitat-protective alternatives warrants remand.
- Denial of injunctive relief may be appropriate where legal defects can be addressed on remand without halting an ongoing fishery, particularly when tailored corrective measures are ordered.

## Conclusion

The court partially ruled for Oceana, holding that aspects of NMFS’s bycatch monitoring, EFH protections, and related environmental review were legally deficient, ordering remand for correction while denying a sweeping injunction and allowing most fishery operations to continue subject to specified corrective steps.


Oceana, Inc. v. Evans, No. 04-0811, 2005 WL 555416 (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 2005)