The complaint alleges that decision was not based on the best science available is based on antiquated and unfounded stock assessment methods.
WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — December 10, 2013 — The states of New Hampshire and Rhode Island have joined a Massachusetts lawsuit that seeks to reverse a regulation by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) imposing a 77 percent reduction of ground fish allotments across the region. The complaint alleges that decision was not based on the best science available and that the criteria used to assess the ground fish stock is based on antiquated and unfounded methods.
New Hampshire joined a motion for summary judgment recently filed in US District Court by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley against the Commerce Department. In its initial filing, Massachusetts claimed that the regulations, issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, are "unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious." New Hampshire is further challenging the law on the grounds that it violates National Standards 1 and 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
In Rhode Island, Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin filed an amicus brief in United Sates District Court in Massachusetts in support of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts lawsuit. "As a state, we recognize the importance of protecting and managing the marine fishery resources. We also recognize that we must adopt principles and policies that will ensure the protection, preservation and enhancement of our natural resources so that present and future generations may enjoy them. Although, there are numerous provisions of state and federal rules and regulations in place to protect Rhode Island's broad interest in its fisheries, it is more important than ever for the federal government to craft regulations that balance the need to conserve fishery resources with the well being of the fishing communities that it will impact," said Attorney General Kilmartin.
National Standard 1 requires that fisheries be managed to both prevent overfishing and also to obtain optimal yield, which is defined by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as the fishing level that "will provide the greatest overall benefit to the nation" while preventing overfishing. According to New Hampshire's filing, NMFS' method for determining catch levels did not include any social and economic factors among its considerations, and the new restrictions on the cod fishery prevent fishermen from being able to successfully catch other healthy species, like haddock.
National Standard 8 requires that any regulations "take into account fishing communities," as well as attempt to "minimize the adverse economic impacts." New Hampshire argues that this standard was violated in part because, when issuing the regulations, NMFS admitted that there was "limited quantitative socio-economic data upon which to evaluate the community specific importance of the multispecies fishery." The state also claims that, as a result of the new regulations, "groundfish revenues in New Hampshire are expected to plunge," and that no attempt was made by NMFS to minimize the negative impacts of the regulations.
At stake for New Hampshire is a groundfish fishery that caught 3.2 million pounds of fish last year, valued at $3.9 million. Hundreds are currently employed in the state's fishing and fish processing industries, which the state says will be threatened if the new regulations go into effect.
Read the filing from the state of New Hampshire here
Read a press release from the Rhode Island Attorney General here