The following is a summary of the motion filed by Mr. Lovgren's attorney on behalf of the additional plaintiffs in the Federal court case against Amendment 16.
The motion follows from an additional filing in the sut originally filed by the Cities of New Bedford and Gloucester and numerous fishing interests.
Summary
Plaintiff Lovgren and the other plaintiffs seek relief from a final rule promulgated by a federal agency.
Constitutional Violations, Due Process, and Takings without compensation
·Because of database errors a taking for public use exists. Spefically, it is the diminution of fishing harvest for some fishermen; i.e., individuals that are prohibited from harvesting quantities of fish that previously belonged to their vessel, or the transfer of their fishing harvest to the enrichment of other fishermen through the misallocation
·Amendment 16 violates the Regulatory Flexibility Act
·The NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator exceeded statutory authority.
·Amendment 16 violates National Environmental Policy Act
·Amendment 16 violates The Magnuson-Stevens Act
·Magnuson-Stevens says that the Secretary “shall,” but in this case failed to “ensure a fair and balanced apportionment…of the active participants (or their representatives) in the commercial and recreational fisheries.”
·The “rapid implementation of the groundfish catch share program [under Amendment 16] made capturing a full pre-implementation baseline virtually impossible.”
·The NE Multispecies groundfish advisory panel, which was selected by the NEFMC’s executive committee, did not fairly represent the affected fishermen because there was not a single representative from the Mid-Atlantic region.
·Amendment 16 does not minimize bycatch of winter flounder or other species and actually increases the mortality through regulatory discards by the New Jersey and New York fishing communities because they must discard the fish when caught in the Southern New England fishing area.
·The Mid-Atlantic region was not analyzed and even the sectors and catch shares were not considered. Further, Defendants later admitted that the “required information” to evaluate the impacts of catch shares on fishermen was not collected before implementing Amendment 16.
·Because the Mid-Atlantic fishermen were not represented on NE Multispecies advisory panel, Amendment 16 only represents the interest of the New England fishermen, a violation of National Standard 6.
·The NEFMC and the NE Multispecies advisory panel failed to conduct public hearings in the Mid-Atlantic geographical area of the affected fishermen, or to provide an opportunity to be heard in the development of fishery management plans and amendments.