December 4, 2017 — ORLANDO, Fla. — The following was released by the Southeastern Fisheries Association:
Fishermen of Florida filed suit in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. over an emergency rule imposing a forty percent reduction in allowable golden tilefish harvests next year. The suit alleges that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) committed procedural and substantive violations of federal fisheries and administrative law.
The suit, filed on November 29, was brought by the Southeastern Fisheries Association’s East Coast Fisheries Section (SFA-ECFS). The SFA is an advocacy group for fishermen that has represented harvesters, dealers, and processors participating in Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic regional fisheries for more than 60 years.
The rule being challenged was requested by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council in June because it faced a looming 2018 deadline to end overfishing identified in a controversial 2016 golden tilefish assessment. Under federal law, fishery managers have two years from such a finding to adopt measures to end overfishing.
The suit alleges the 2016 assessment, which found overfishing and triggered the events leading up to the emergency rule, used flawed scientific methods that never should have been introduced. “This was supposed to be a simple update – adding new data to the stock assessment model that was thoroughly vetted and peer-reviewed,” said SFA-ECFS fisheries consultant Russell Hudson. “Instead, NMFS made major model changes behind closed doors without required scientific, industry expert, and public oversight required when such changes occur.” He also noted that the assessment runs using the original SEDAR 25 peer-reviewed model did not find overfishing.
According to the complaint, the use of emergency procedures to adopt the rule was also flawed. It alleges that NMFS failed to make a finding that there was “good cause” to waive the regular process of seeking public comment before making a rule final, a step skipped with the golden tilefish rule. It alleges that there was ample time between the Council’s June request for interim measures and the start of the 2018 golden tilefish fishing year to go through normal notice-and-comment rule making.
The 2016 “update” assessment that found overfishing has been subject to significant debate and criticism not only by the industry, but also by Council members and some of its scientific advisors. The biggest change it introduced was the use of a statistical methodology meant to account for potential bias. Since its use was accepted by the Council’s panel of experts on its Scientific and Statistical Committee, NMFS said that method had been superseded by another approach. The head of NMFS Beaufort Lab, which oversaw the assessment, Dr. Erik Williams, called this an “evolving” field of research.
In light of the questions raised about the 2016 update, the Council took the unusual step of asking for a revised update to the golden tilefish assessment to be conducted this year using the new “best” methodology identified by NMFS. That new assessment, conducted in October, failed to produce any scientifically useful results.
“While NMFS keeps focusing on this one issue it can’t seem to get right, the industry is concerned about a whole host of other changes that never should have been made in the 2016 assessment,” said Jimmy Hull, who heads SFA-ECFS. “An update is supposed to be a simple plug-and-play exercise. Instead, a small group of scientists incorporated a bunch of assumptions that don’t fit the real world. That wouldn’t have happened in a more thorough and open process.”
Shaun Gehan, an SFA attorney who brought the case, said that this is a matter that should be settled. “Both the industry and the Council believe there is no justification for the cuts made in the interim rule,” he said. “What should happen is that the SSC should be asked if the model runs that used the peer-reviewed model are the ‘best scientific information available.’ That would lift the overfishing finding and allow the Council to take measured steps without a legal hammer hanging over its head.”
Once the government is served with the suit, it has 45 days to answer or seek dismissal.
Learn more about the SFA by visiting their site here.