Association's members' desire to observe the diversity of the river is sufficient injury for standing. Future deterioration is redressible.
A claim that omits to specifically challenge certain regulations can be read to challenge them, given the context, the motion to consolidate, and the discussion of issues; additionally, no prejudice.
Agency opinion arbitrarily disregarded the degree to which degraded baseline conditions imperiled existing species.
A perfunctory provision authorizing subsequent reconsideration if the fishing take exceeded 100% of a given species was an unlawfully vague trigger point.
Agency hard look didn't sufficiently consider present and cumulative harms.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/8CE28752AC62F25A852582C200528B2B/$file/16-1195.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.