Natural Resources Defense Council v. Evans

After the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (defendant) declared that tilefish were overfished, the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (Mid-Atlantic FMC) started drafting a fishery management plan (FMP) to protect the tilefish habitat. Tilefish were bottom-dwelling fish that lived in sand burrows. Based on information from other fish habitats, the initial draft FMP assumed that bottom-tending mobile fishing gear, such as trawlers, adversely affected the tilefish habitat because it was dragged along the ocean floor, directly over the tilefish burrows. However, after Mid-Atlantic FMC hosted a working group about the tilefish FMP with marine scientists and fishermen, Mid-Atlantic FMC determined that there was no concrete scientific evidence that bottom-tending mobile gear had adverse effects on tilefish habitats. Although marks from trawls were found on tilefish burrows, there was no evidence available that the sediment knocked into the burrows by the trawls harmed the tilefish or that it was difficult for the tilefish to clear the sediment. Therefore, in the final FMP, the Mid-Atlantic Council did not ban the use of bottom-tending mobile gear in tilefish habitats. Instead, the Mid-Atlantic Council, together with NMFS, started a cooperative research program to investigate the impact of bottom-tending mobile gear on tilefish. The NMFS approved the final FMP. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (plaintiff), a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, sued NMFS to invalidate the tilefish FMP, arguing that NMFS’s determination that bottom-tending mobile gear did not adversely affect tilefish habitats was arbitrary. NFMS moved for summary judgment, arguing that the decision not to ban bottom-tending mobile gear was appropriate because there was no definitive proof that the gear adversely affected tilefish essential habitats.