# United Sta tes Court o f Appeals

F O R T H E D I S T R

I C T O F C O L U M B I A

C I R C U I T

Argued March 18, 2022 Decided June 7, 2022

No. 21-5120

O C E A N A , I N C ., A P P E L L A

N T

v.

G I N A R A I M O N D O , I N H E R O F F I C I A L C A P A C I T Y

A S S E C R

E T A R Y O F C O M M E R C E , E T

A L ., A P P E L L E E S

Appeal from the United States Distr ict Court for the Distri ct of Columbia (No. 1:17-cv-00829)

Andrea A. Treece was on the brief for appellant

. W ith her on the briefs were Stephen D. Mashuda and Brettny E. Hardy

.

Ariel Mou rrai n , Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees

. On the br ie f were Todd Kim
, Assistant Attorney General, an d Br ian C. Toth and Michael T. Gray , Attorneys.

Before: R O G E R S and R A O , Circuit Judges
, and R A N D O L P H , Senior Circuit

Judge

. Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circui t Judge2

R A N D O L P H

.

R A N D O L P H , Senior Circuit Judge : This appeal from th e judgment of the dist ri ct court (Cooper, J.) presents issues
reg ardi ng a federal agency’s amendm ents to its fisheries
managem ent plan for tuna, swordfish and sharks that migrate along the Atla ntic coast

.

I.

Oceana, In c., an organizat ion dedicated to protecti ng

oceans of the world, brought this action claiming th at the agency’s rulemaking failed to provid e sufficient protecti on for the dusky shark ( Carcharhinus obscurus ). Oceana’s standing is unchallenged a nd rests on affidavit s from its m embers.

The federal agency is the National Marine Fisheries Service, an agency in the Department of Com merce. The Fisheries Service is responsibl e for administering the Fish ery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-26 5, 90 Stat. 331, comm only known a s the Ma gnuson-Stevens Act. The Act is in te nd ed to “promote domestic comm ercial and
recreat ional fishing under sound conservati on and managem ent principl es,” 16 U.S.C § 1801(b)(3), in the “exclusive economic zone” of t he United Stat es , id

. § 1801(b)(1), an area extending 200 nauti cal miles seaward from each State’s coastli ne, see Procl amation No. 5030, 48 Fed. Reg. 10,605 (Mar. 10, 1983). W ithin each coastal State’s terri tor ia l sea, which generall y extends three geographic m iles from its coastline, the State has jurisdi ction to regulate fishing. See United States v. Maine
, 469 U.S. 504, 513 (1985).

There are eight regional Fishery Management Councils for the coastal fish eries in the Atlantic and Pacific. See Anglers Conservation Network v. Pritzker
, 809 F.3d 664, 667 (D.C. Cir.3
2016). W ith respect to “highly migratory specie s” that travel 1

across the Councils’ regional boundaries in the Atlant ic, the 2 Fi sh eri es Se rvi ce directl y undertakes m an ag em en t of the fi sh ery

. 16 U.S.C. § 1852(a)(3).

The dusky shark is such a “highly migratory species.” This shark inhabits temperate and tropical coastal seas throughout the world. Distinct dusky shark populations in the western Atlantic Ocean travel north in the spring as far as the coast of Massachuset ts and then, in the fall, southward as far as the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. Along the coast, these sharks are found in the surf and seaward as far as the Continent al Shelf.

Dusky sharks may grow as large as twelve feet in length and weigh as much as 400 pounds. The “biology of this species

. . . is ch ar acteri zed by very l ate age at first repr oduction (~ 20 years), high longevity (> 40 ye ar s)
, and very limited reproducti ve potential
, which result in low population growth rates and l ong generation times (30 years).” E. C O R T É S E T A L ., S T O C K A S S E S S M E

N T O F D U S K

Y S H A R K I N T H E U.S. A T L A

N T I C
A N D G U L F O F M E X I C O 49 (2006). The shark bears small litter s after a long gestation period, estimated to “be as long as 22–24 months.” 3

The Act defines “highly migrato ry species” as “tuna species, 1 marlin (Tetrapturus spp. and Makaira spp.), oceanic sharks, sailfishes (Istioph orus spp.), and swordfish (Xi phias gladius).” 16 U.S.C. § 18 02(21 ).

Th e bo un daries, that is, of the followin g: the New England 2 Council, Mid-Atlantic Council, South Atlantic Council, Gulf Council, and Caribb ean Coun cil. 16 U.S.C. § 185 2(a)(3).

Merry Cam hi et al., Dusky Shark
, in S H A R K S , R A Y S A N D 3 C H IMA E R

A S : T H E S T A T U S O F T H E C H O N D R IC H T H Y A N F IS H E S 298 (Fowler et al. eds. , 200 5) (citation omitted).4

To know this is to understand why comm ercial fishermen landing unlimited numbers of dusky shark s in the coastal Atlantic Ocean pose a thr eat to t he sp eci es i n that regi on. One might wonder why comm ercial fishermen would, as they had for decades, even bother to target dusky shark s. By all accounts shark meat is barely palatabl e. Fishermen ne verthele ss sought
out this species to satisfy the demand for shark-fin soup. This is a Chinese dish, for centurie s considered a delicacy, selling at 4

one time in fancy restaur ants in California and elsewhere for as much as $100 a bowl, most of which consisted of chicken stock. It apparentl y did not matter that shark fins, like those of the dusky shark, have no t aste and no nutr itional benefit.

Overfishing of the dusky sharks in the Atl an ti c regions thr eat en ed the sp ecies. See Endangered and Threatened W ild lif e and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding on Petitions to List the Northwest Atlanti c Population of the Dusky Shark as Threatened or Endangered Unde r the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 79 Fed. Reg. 74,684, 74,688 (Dec. 16, 2014). Congress and the Fisheries Service, over the years, have taken actions that have protecte d the Atlantic dusky shark population. In 1993, the Fisheries Service banned “shark finning” in the Atlantic fishery. Se e At lan tic Hi gh ly Mig rat ory Sp eci es (HMS) Fisher ies ; Fi sh ery Management Plan (FMP), Plan Am endment, and Consolidation of Regulations, 64 Fed. Reg. 29,090, 29,108 (May 28, 1999); see also 50 C.F.R. § 678.21(a) (1993). Seven years later, Congress passed the Shark Finning Prohibiti on Act, Pub. L. No. 106-557, 114 Stat. 2772 (2000), which amended the Magnuson -Stevens Act to prohibit the removal of “any of the fins of a shark

“The rapid expansion of the comm ercial shark fishery in the US 4 in the late 1980 s was fuelled in large part by the demand for shark fins in the markets of Asia. Duskies have one of the most sough t after fins for shark fin soup be cau se of their large size and high fin needle content (ceratotr ichia) . . . .” Id. at 299 (citations o mitted).5
(includi ng the tail) at sea.” 16 U.S.C. § 1857(1)(P)(i); see also Chinatown Neighborhood Ass’n v. Harris
, 794 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2015). 5

In 1999, the Fisheries Service amended the Atlantic Fisheries Management Plan for highly migratory species to prohibit vessel operators fr om retaini ng dusky sharks. See 50 C.F.R. § 635.22(c) (2000); 50 C.F.R. pt. 635, app. A (2000); Am endments to the Fi sher y Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks and the Fi shery Management Plan for Atlantic Billfish, 71 Fed. Reg. 58,058, 58,142 (Oct. 2, 2006); 64 Fed. Reg. at 29,108–09, 29,160. In other words, the annual catch limit for dusky sharks became zero. Se e Oc eana, Inc. v. Ra im on do (Oceana II)
, 530 F. Supp. 3d 16, 19, 21 (D.D.C. 2021). The prohibiti on on vessel operators ret ai ni ng, possessing, landing, sel ling, or purchasing dusky sharks remains in effect. 50 C.F.R. § 635.24(a)(5) ; 50 C.F.R. pt. 635, app. A (2016). In 2006, the Service took the added step of prohibiti ng fishing for and possessing san db ar sharks, “a doppelganger of the dusky whose ta rg eti ng had resulte d in sizable dusky shark bycatch.” Oceana II

, 530 F. Supp. 3d at 19

. The Service adopted this measure because most dusky-s hark bycatch was occurring in longline fishing, especial ly for sandbar sharks and

No fewer than sixteen states an d three territ ories impose some 5 prohi bition on shark finnin g or pos session of shark fins. See A M

. S A M O A C O D E AN

N

. § 24.0 961; C A L

. F IS H & G A M E C O D E §§ 2021
, 2021 .5, 7704 (c); D E L

. C O D E A N N

. tit. 7, § 928A; F L A

. S T A T

. AN N

. § 379. 2426 ; 5 G U

A M C O D E AN

N

. § 6311 4.1; H A W

. R E V

. S T A T

. § 188- 40.7 ; 515 I L L

. C O M P

. S T A T

. § 5/5-3 0; L A

. S T A T

. AN N § 56:32 6(E); M D

. C O D E A

N N

. N A T

. R E S

. § 4-747 ; M A S S

. G E N

. L A W S AN

N

. ch. 130, § 10 6; N E V

. R E V

. S T A T

. AN N

. § 597. 905(1 ); N.M. S T A T

. AN N

. §§ 17- 10-2(A), 17-10 -3(A); N.J. S T A T

. AN N

. § 23:2B-2 3; N.Y. E N V ’ T

. C O N S E R V

. L A W § 13-03 38; 2 N. M A R

. I. C O D E § 5651 ; O R

. R E V

. S T A T

. AN N

. § 509. 160; 20 R. I. G E N

. L A W S AN

N

. § 20-1-2 9; T E X

. P A R K S & W IL D

. C O D E AN

N

. § 66.2 161; W A S H

. R E V

. C O D E AN N

. § 77.1 5.77 0.6

other lar ge coastal sharks. 6

Also, in 2003, the Fisheries Service closed a large area in the mid-At lant ic off the coast of North Carolina to bottom longline fishing from January 1st through July 31st of each year “in part, because of high bycatch and mortali ty rates of dusky sharks on bott om lo ngli ne gear in that area.” Appellee Br. 9 (citi ng Atlantic Highly Migrator y Species; Atlantic Shark Management Measures, 68 F ed. Reg. 74,746, 74,760–63 (Dec. 24, 2003)).

Even so, pelagic (open ocean) longline fishing and bottom 7 longline fishing continued to pose a threat to the dusky shark. 8 This type of fishing in the Atlantic and adjacent regions
concent ra tes on tuna and swordfish. Fishermen determine where to fish by locating temperature fronts between cooler and
warmer water masses. Vessels deploy lines five to forty miles long across these fronts. The mainli ne is rigged with gangions—leade rs attached to the main line—conta ining baited hooks. If the intend ed catch is swordfish, the line will usually

Th e Act defines “by catch” as “fish which are harvested in a 6 fishery , but which are not sold or kept for personal use, and includes

eco nomic discards and regula tory discards. Such term does not inclu de fish released alive under a recreational catch and release fishery managem ent pro gram.” 16 U.S.C. § 18 02(2).

“Pelagic longl ine means a longl ine t hat i s susp ended by fl oa ts 7 in the water column and that is not fixed to or in contact wi th the ocean bott om.” 50 C.F.R. § 63 5.2.

“Bottom longl ine mea

ns a longl ine that is deploy ed with enoug h 8 weights and/or ancho rs to maintain contact with the ocean botto m.” Id.7

be put out at dusk and retri eved at dawn; if the target is tuna, 9 the line will be put out at dawn and picked up at dusk. See 1 0 Oceana, Inc. v. Gutierrez (Oceana I)
, 488 F.3d 1020, 102 1 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

Although dusk y sh ar ks can no longer be the target of longline fishermen, they remain a “bycatch.” Based on a 2016 up date d stock assessment, the Fisheries Service found that dusky shar k bycat ch mortalit y had to be reduced by t hi rt y- five percent of 2015 levels for the population to recover by 2107. See Atlantic Highly Migrator y Species; Atlantic Shark Management Measures; Final Am endment 5b, 82 Fed

. Reg. 16,478, 16,4 79 (A pr. 4, 2017). The 2016 study showed significant progress in reducing overfi sh ing of dusky sharks. Nonetheless, the study determined that a further twelve percentmedian reduction in mortality from 20 15 leve ls was needed to end overfishing.

In response, the Se rvi ce amended its 2006 Fisheries Management Plan for Atlantic highly migratory species. The amendm ents, collect ively called Amend ment 5b, reconfirmed the closure of the dusky-shark fishery and the annual catch limit of zero. Id. at 16,484. In addition, Amen dment 5b added greater training and certifica tion requirements for f ishermen to

Swordfish feed at night

. See Peter Ward et al., A Fish Lost at 9 Sea: The Effect of Soak Time on Pelagic Lo ng line Catches, 102 F IS H E R Y B U L L

. 179, 179, 182 (2005 ). Studies in the coastal Pacific Ocean found that a “soak time of 5 hours and 3500 hook s (if that were possible) would result in a total catch of about two swordfish.” Id. at 187.

Id. at 182

. 1 08
identify dusky sharks; new protocols for releasi ng hooked 1 1 sharks; a requirement to use circle hooks for bottom-longline fisheries ; and comm

unication protocols for fishermen to alert others to avoid areas where dusky sharks are encountered. Id. 1 2 at 16,479.

On circle hooks, “the point is t urned pe rpendicula rly back
to the shank to form a ge nerally circula r, or oval, shape.” 50 C.F.R. § 635.2. They are so designed to catch the lip of the fish and, unlike tradit ional J-hooks, circle hooks rarely result in guthooking. Circle hooks will therefore decrease post-rel ease mortality as compared to J- hooks. See 82 Fed. Reg. at 16,479–80; see also J.A. 687.

Circle hooks had already been mandated for pelagic longline fishing in the Atlantic in order to protect leather back

sea turtle s and facilitat e their release when they became entangled in the lines and foul-hooked. See Oceana I
, 488 F.3d at 1022–23. As a bycat ch mitigati on measure, Amendm ent 5b applied the same requirement to bottom longline fishing for tuna and swordfish.

See 82 Fed. Reg. at 16,4 79, 16,4 88; see also J.A. 58 0, 594. 1 1 Receiving the certification needed to retain non-p rohib ited sharks from recreational, vessel-based fish ing will in clude takin g a training

course focused on “shark identification and regulation .” 82 Fed. Reg. at 16,4 88; see also J.A. 580 , 694

.
Under the regulation s, vessels must relocate “at least one 1 2 nautical mile away from th e location” where a dusky shark is encountered

. Oceana II
, 53 0 F. Supp

. 3d at 51; see 50 C.F.R. § 635. 21(c)(6)(i i), (d)(2)(iii ). This is typ ical for regulation s regarding protected species. For instance, the Service requires vessels to move at least one nautical mile away from a location where sea turtles or

sma lltooth sawfish are caught. See 50 C.F .R. § 6 35.2 1(b)(3 ).9

The hooks for pelagic and bottom landline f ishing must be non-stainl ess steel and thus corrodibl e. This too is an important bycatch-mortalit y mitigation measure. Pursuant to Am endment 5b, each vessel must have on board dehooker devices so that dusky sharks (and other species) may be release d while they are still in the water. If the devices fail, the crew mem ber must free the shark by cutting the gangion—the leader attached to the main line—“so that less than three feet (91.4 cm) of line remains
at ta ched to the hook.” 50 C.F.R. § 635.21(c)(6) (i). The shar k will then swim away with a hook attached to its jaws and a short

run of line. The ho ok will then corrode quickly in saltwater
, thus “minimizing injuries t o release d sharks.” J.A. 602. 1 3

This brings us to the procedural setting of the case. District Judge Cooper issued two comprehensive opinions. In the first, “the Court questioned [the Fisheries Servi ce’s] exclusion of logbook data from its assessment of the magnitude of the dusky shark bycatch problem and found that these issues warra nted remand.” Oceana II

, 530 F. Supp. 3d at 23. On remand the 1 4 Service explained why there was “no scienti fically valid basis to extrapola te dusky shark bycatch data from logbo oks and other

sources to estimate the total amount of dusky sha rk bycatch.” Id. at 24.

Our discussion centers on the regulation s ap pli ed to longl ine 1 3

comm ercial fishermen. The Servi ce also regulates gill-nett in g (5 0 C.F.R. § 635. 21(g)) and recreational fishing. Rod-and -reel fishing for
non-p rohib ited sharks, for example, may be done only with “no noffset, corrodib le circle hook s,” 50 C.F.R. § 63 5. 22(c)(1), “except when fishing with flies or ar tificial lures.” Id. § 635. 21(f)(2 ). The

sam e requirements apply to handlin e fishing. Id. § 635. 21(k); see also id. § 63 5.22 (c)(1).

We have sustai ne d the Service’s reliance on logbo oks in 1 4 assessing by catch. See Oceana I , 488 F.3d at 102 4–25

.10

Oceana then renewed its challenge to Am endment 5b. The
court found the Service’s treatment of the data unproblematic. Judge Cooper also concluded that the Service did not violate the Magnuson-Stevens Ac t by failing to enact strict er regulati ons. Id. at 30–54.

II.

Oceana descri bes its appe al as rai sing two issues

.

A.

Oceana’s fir st issue is whether the Fisheries Service violated the Magnuson-Stevens Act “by failing to actuall y limit by cat ch of the overfished dusky shark or hold fisher ie s accountable to any level of dusky shark bycatch, despite the fact that bycatch is the cause of dusky shark overfishing and the sole impedim ent to rebui lding the popul ation? ”

Oceana’s arguments on this issue are muddled. For more than two decades, the “annual catch limit” for dusky sharks has been zero. In its opening brief, Oce an a complained that the Fisheries Service violated section 18 53 (a) (15) because it failed 1 5
to include bycatch within th e annual zero catch limit. In response, the Fisheries Se rv ic e’s brief pointed out that it did ind ee d include bycatch: “the annual catch limit of ze ro appl ies
not just to landing, retenti on, possess ion, and sale of dusky sharks, but also to bycatch of dusky sharks resulti ng in

Each fisheries managem ent plan must “establish a mec hanism 1 5 for specifyin g annual catch limi ts in the plan (includi ng a multiyear plan), implem enting regulation s, or ann ual specifications, at a level such that overfishin g does not occur in the fishery
, includin g mea sures to ensure accou ntability .” 16 U.S.C. § 1853 (a)(15).11
mortality.” Appellee Br. 30; see 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(f)(1)(i ).

1 6

In its reply brief, Oceana tr ie d to recover from its error. Oceana’s argument be ca me t hat although the Service included bycatch mortality in the annual catch limit, this di d not count. W hy? Bec au se “[i]f bycatch mortality is always above zero, then the catch lim it of zero does not act as a numerical limit on bycatch mortality.” In other words, if the speed limit is set at 60 m.p.h. and drivers exceed it , there re ally is no s peed limit.

W e sought clarifica tion at oral argument. Oceana’s counsel conceded that under the Act “catch” includes bycatch mortality, but not other bycatch ( e.g. , live dusky sharks that are release d by dehooking or cu tting the leader)

. See Oral Argument Recording, Oceana, Inc. v. Raimondo
, No. 21-5120, at 1:50–2:22 (Mar. 18, 2022).

So we move on to th e remainder of Oceana’s first issue—namely, whether the Fisheries Service has implem ented
any acc ou nt ab il ity measures to enforce t he zer o cat ch li mit for dusky sharks.

Oceana vi ews the new protocols in Amendm ent 5b—s uch

as the traini ng and circle -hook requirements—not as

“ a c co un ta bi li ty ” mea s u r e s , b u t a s “ c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d
managem ent” measures under 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a). It suggests

1 7 those measures cannot qualify as “accountabi lity” measures because they m ay not succeed in holding f isherman to the zero

See 50 C.F.R. § 600. 310(f) (1)(i) (“Catch includes fish that are 1 6

re tained for any purpo se, as well as mortality of fish that are discarded.”).

Oceana also cites 16 U.S.C. § 1853 (a)(1), which calls for 1 7 conservation -and-manageme nt measures.12

catch limit. That is, the measures do not hold fish er man “accountabl e” to the limit. This argument makes the same error

as Oceana’s “limit” argument. Ticketing speede rs is an accountabil ity measure even though drivers sometim es speed. So too with the mea su res in Am endment 5b, including closure of the dusky-sha rk fishery—i f fisherman are not permitted to fish for dusky sharks this will implem ent th e zer o catch limit. That at least is how the Fisheries Service views its actions. See 82 Fed. Reg. at 16,484. Further, Am endment 5b pr ovides additional measures to “reduce dusky shark mortality” through “bycatch reduction.” J.A. 701. These measures supplement the Fisheries Service’s preexist ing measures to curb the overfishing of dusky sharks by reduci ng bycatch. See, e.g. , J.A. 345.

It is important to keep in mind that the rules of the Fisheries Servic e un der this Act are directe d not at lawyers and bureaucrat s, but at captains of fishing ships and their crews. Those subject to the rules would find it difficult to see a material differe nc e in the ends sought by accountabil ity measures and those sought by conservati on-and-management measures. The Act’s overall aim is to prevent overfishing. See, e.g. , 16 U.S.C. § 1801(a); 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(b)(2)( ii)–(i ii). Sections 1851(a) and 1853(a)(15)
, for instance, each ca ll for measures to help prevent overfishing. Compare 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(1)
, with id. § 1853(a)( 15 ). Given this comm on goal, one would expect accountabil ity measures and conservati on-and-management

measures to overlap. The traini ng requi rements, for example, could be both a managem ent measure—seeking to li mit bycatch—and an accountabil ity measure—removing an excuse for thinking that a dusky shark is another species. In terms of preservi ng an d enhancing the dusky shark population in the
western Atlantic, nothing much—including the legalit y of Am endment 5b—turns on how on e protecti ve measure or another is pigeon-holed.13

B.

Oceana’s second issue is whether the Fish eri es Service violated the Magnuson-Stevens Act “when it failed to establi sh a reasonabl e likelihood that traini ng m easures, comm unication prot oc ol s, and minor gear changes would reduce dusky shark byc at ch by 35 percent, the minimum reduc tion needed t o meet the stat utory requi rement to rebuild t he population? ”

Relying on Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Daley
, 209 F.3d 747, 753–56 (D.C. Cir. 2000), Oceana argues that the Service had to show that Am endment 5b would result in
at least a fifty percent chance that the Atlantic dusky shark population would rebound. In Daley, the Service set a harvest quota for summer flounder that appeared too high to prevent overfishing. Id.

Daley does not control here. The Service is not attempting
to balance a catch quota with preventing overfishing. See id. at 754. Rather, the Service has closed the dusky-shark fishery and
set the lowest possibl e number of allowable catches: zero. 82 Fed. Reg. at 16,484. In short, unlike in Daley
, the Service here is not promoting an overly opti mistic sustainabi lity projecti on to justify a more liberal fishing quota.

Oceana also criti cizes the studies and eval uations the Service relied upon in adopting its Am endment 5b protocols. In what is an all-t oo-familiar mode of ap pell ate brief writing, Oceana wastes space plucking quotat io ns from our court’s op ini ons and stringi ng them together without analysis. Thu s, Oceana reminds us, as if we needed reminding, that our court does not “rubber -stamp” agency action, t hat we do not “acce pt bare conclusory allegat ions as fact,” and that we do not defer to “unsupported suppositions .” Appellant Br. 49–50 (inter nal quotation marks omitted).14

Oceana should be reas su re d, although assurances are not needed, that we have never used or even owned a rubber stamp, that we have never , ever conside red an all egation alone to be a fact, and that we have never credite d a “suppositi on” that was lacking in support. See Oceana, Inc. v. Ross
, 920 F.3d 855, 863 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

As to the regulati ons regarding hooks, the Service relied on evidence supporting its concl usion that circle -hook usage will decrease dusky-shark mortality. The Service found that twentyfive percent of bottom longline vessels did not use circle hooks. Oceana cites a st ud y finding no significant difference in mortality rates between the use of circle ho ok s and J-hooks to argue that the requirement will have no appreciabl e impact. See J.A. 464. But the Service cited multiple studies finding reduced
at-vesse l shark mortality when circle hooks were used instead of J-hooks. See 82 Fed. Reg. at 16,491; see also J.A. 376–77, 687. The Service’s relianc e on the cited stu dies
, J.A. 599, its acknowledgment of contrary evi dence, J.A. 687, and its stated

reasons for reaching its conclusions, J.A

. 59 9, 687, amount to decisionmaking based on reasoning having reliabl e evidentia ry support. Se e Shafer & Freeman Lakes Env’t Conservation Corp. v. FERC
, 992 F.3d 1071, 1093 (D.C. Cir. 2021). No more is requir ed.

Oceana also blames the Service for failing to show that Am endment 5b’s new traini ng requirements will be efficacious. The Service expla ined that the requirements should help
recreat ional fish er men identify and properly handle caught du sk y sh arks. 82 Fed. Reg. at 16,488; J.A. 595. The Servi ce recognized th at it could not “quantify the total mortality reduction” that this particul ar measure would bring. J.A. 68 2. But the Service cited two studies in concluding that “education
to fishermen can significantl y improve compliance rates, reduce mistaken/illega l landings, [and] reduce post-rel ease mortality15

rates

. . .. ” Id

. The Service therefore had solid grounds on wh i c h to co nc lu de th at th e t r a i n i n g

- a n d

- c e r t i fi c a t i o n requirements would reduce dusky-shark mortality. See Oceana I , 488 F.3d at 1025.

The judgment of the di strict court is af

firmed.