## Facts

- Environmental organizations challenged the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) approval of Amendment 13 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan.
- The Magnuson–Stevens Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act, required (1) a standardized reporting method to assess bycatch and (2) measures to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable.
- Amendment 13 stated the Pacific Fishery Management Council “may establish an observer program” and “may implement” bycatch-reduction techniques, without requiring either.
- NMFS acknowledged that an observer program was necessary to generate reliable bycatch data, but approved an amendment that did not mandate one and did not set a timetable or implementation standards.
- Observer-dependent management tools (e.g., discard caps or incentive programs tied to observed bycatch) were not adopted because no observer program existed.
- Plaintiffs alleged NMFS approved Amendment 13 without conducting or documenting an analysis of whether a mandatory observer program and stronger controls were practicable.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and remand under the Magnuson–Stevens Act, NEPA, and the APA.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether NMFS violated the Magnuson–Stevens Act by approving Amendment 13 without an adequate standardized bycatch reporting methodology and without required measures to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable.
2. Whether NMFS violated NEPA by failing to take a hard look at environmental effects and by failing to adequately evaluate reasonable alternatives.
3. Whether NMFS’s approval was arbitrary and capricious under the APA due to a lack of reasoned explanation and supporting analysis.

## Decision

- Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was granted; defendants’ cross-motion was denied.
- The court held Amendment 13 did not comply with the Magnuson–Stevens Act’s bycatch provisions because it lacked a concrete standardized reporting methodology and lacked required bycatch-minimization measures.
- The court held NMFS’s NEPA review was inadequate because the Environmental Assessment did not sufficiently analyze impacts and did not adequately consider reasonable alternatives.
- The court held NMFS acted arbitrarily and capriciously by approving a discretionary framework despite acknowledging the need for observers and by failing to perform or document a practicability analysis.
- The court remanded Amendment 13 to NMFS for reconsideration consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A fishery management plan must include an actual, standardized methodology to assess bycatch; a purely discretionary authorization with no implementation commitments is insufficient when the agency recognizes an observer program is necessary for reliable data.
- The duty to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality “to the extent practicable” requires a documented assessment weighing conservation benefits against relevant economic and operational considerations; unexplained nonadoption of measures is unlawful.
- Under NEPA, an agency must take a hard look at environmental consequences and reasonably assess alternatives; an Environmental Assessment must support any finding of no significant impact with adequate analysis.
- Under the APA, agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency fails to provide a rational connection between the facts and its choice, including where the record lacks a reasoned explanation for choosing nonmandatory measures.

## Conclusion

The court set aside NMFS’s approval of Amendment 13 as inconsistent with statutory bycatch mandates and deficient under NEPA and the APA, and remanded for a revised approach that provides a concrete bycatch reporting method and a reasoned practicability analysis supporting bycatch-reduction measures.


Pac. Marine Conservation Council, Inc. v. Evans, 200 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (N.D. Cal. 2002)