Saving Seafood

Federal court strikes down biological opinion by National Marine Fisheries Service

August 21, 2024 — A 2020 biological opinion on the impact of oil and gas extraction on protected marine life in the Gulf of Mexico has been struck down by a federal court.

The National Marine Fisheries Service, an office of NOAA, produced the opinion. The court ruled the opinion is in violation of the Environmental Species Act and Administrative Procedure Act.

In 2021, five environmental organizations challenged the opinion. Earthjustice filed a lawsuit on behalf of those five organizations. Now those organizations are claiming a victory.

Joanie Steinhaus is the Ocean Program Director for the Turtle Island Restoration Network, which is one of the organizations involved in the suit. She says this has been in the works for years.

Read the full article at NBC 15

Industry’s challenge to seafood import monitoring program rejected

August 29, 2017 — A legal challenge to the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) – a set of regulations requiring increased traceability for seafood imports – was rejected on Monday, 28 August.

The lawsuit was filed earlier this year by the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) and a large group of U.S. seafood companies, including Trident Seafoods, Fortune Fish and Gourmet, Handy Seafood, and Alfa International Seafood. The industry representatives argued that the program violated federal law and that their businesses would be harmed as a result of its implementation.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled against the plaintiffs, finding that the Commerce Department’s implementation of the program was not done inappropriately. Specifically, Mehta found that SIMP was issued under rules allowed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Administrative Procedure Act, and that the department properly completed a regulatory flexibility analysis to determine SIMP’s impact on small businesses.

“The court finds that the rule’s issuance did not run afoul of the MSA, and the current Secretary of Commerce validly ratified the rule, thereby curing any alleged constitutional defect in the rule’s promulgation,” Mehta wrote.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Oceana Loses Court Battle on Mid-Atlantic & New England Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology

August 28, 2017 — WASHINGTON — As part of its efforts to prevent overfishing, Congress has directed the National Marine Fisheries Service and regional councils to establish methodologies for collecting and reporting data on fish that are caught but subsequently discarded. Such discards are known as bycatch. In response to the congressional directive, the Northeast region adopted its Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology in 2015. Oceana, Inc., a nonprofit organization focused on protecting the oceans, filed suit, claiming that the adoption of this methodology violates the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

In March 2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service approved a new version of the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology, which is set forth in Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology: An Omnibus Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the Mid-Atlantic and New England Regional Fishery Management Councils, AR 6438-7511. NMFS then promulgated a final rule implementing the amendment in June 2015. United States District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle has ruled that Oceana has not identified any feature of the 2015 SBRM that violates the MSA, APA, or NEPA.

The following is excerpted from an article published Friday by Courthouse News Service:

Federal regulators ducked a conservation-minded challenge Thursday concerning rules meant to minimize fishing bycatch.

The National Marine Fisheries Service adopted the rules in question two years ago, with approval from the D.C. Circuit.

Though the rules requires fishing vessels to occasionally have a biologist document the amount of fish caught and discarded, the group Oceana complained in a federal complaint that the infrequency of such observation undermines its efficacy as a serious check on fishing abuses.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle sided with the agency Thursday at summary judgment, saying the issue comes down to how the Fisheries Service allocates its funding for NMFS, short for standardized bycatch reporting methodology.

“There is no funding trigger that needs to be adequately defined, nor a discretionary procedure for which the agency must set out an identifiable standard,” the ruling states. “Since there is no impermissibly vague funding trigger, the agency’s funding allocations to the SBRM are not reviewable.”

Read the full story at Courthouse News Service

Trump versus EDF in battle over Gulf red snapper season reopening

July 18, 2017 — A month after the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump reopened the red snapper fishing season in the Gulf of Mexico for 39 days, two environmental nonprofits have challenged the decision by filing a lawsuit.

A 14 June agreement struck between The U.S. Department of Commerce and the five U.S. states on the Gulf of Mexico aligned the 2017 federal and states red snapper season for recreational anglers, opening federal waters to private anglers for an additional 39 weekend days and holidays. The agreement made no change to the quota or season length for the charter or commercial sectors of the fishery.

On Monday, 17 July, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Ocean Conservancy filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., arguing the decision was made without scientific analysis and puts into jeopardy the ongoing recovery of the red snapper population in the Gulf, in violation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The lawsuit also complains the season was extended without adequate notice or time for public comment, claiming that violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

“In order to prevent overfishing and allow the Gulf of Mexico red snapper population to rebuilt, the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires the Fisheries Service to comply with the annual catch limit and accountability measures established in the fishery management plan for the red snapper fishery,” the suit states. “Yet, in the temporary rule, the Fisheries Service has extended the fishing season of red snapper for private anglers in a manner that conflicts with the FMP and implementing regulations.”

In a statement emailed to SeafoodSource, EDF said publicly available data and conservative assumptions show the extended season will result in private anglers catching three times their science-based limit in 2017. However, the lawsuit does not seek changes to the length of the 2017 fishing season, but rather, it aims to prohibit the Commerce Department from taking similar actions in the future.

In its federal notice reopening the red snapper season, the Commerce Department acknowledged the additional fishing days “will necessarily mean that the private recreational sector will substantially exceed its annual catch limit,” resulting in a  delay of the goal year for rebuilding the red snapper fishery from 2032 to 2038. In 17 of the past 22 years, the recreational sector has exceeded its annual catch limit for red snapper, resulting in shorter federal seasons as one year’s overages are subtracted from the next year’s quota. However, Gulf states have responded by lengthening their own red snapper seasons, resulting in a patchwork of regulations that scientific and environmental groups assert impedes recovery of the species.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Oceana Files Legal Challenge to Northern Anchovy Catch Limit

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — November 29, 2016 — Last week, environmental group Oceana filed a lawsuit alleging that a recent National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) specification rule allows commercial fishing for northern anchovy at levels that threaten the anchovy population and the marine ecosystem. The complaint was filed against the NMFS, Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the District Court of Northern California.

The specification rule in question, announced October 26, 2016 under the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan, set an annual catch limit (ACL) of 25,000 metric tons for the central subpopulation of anchovy. In its lawsuit, Oceana claims that the NMFS did not articulate the scientific basis for this ACL, did not base the ACL and related management measures on best available science, and did not explain how it would prevent overfishing and protect the West Coast marine ecosystem’s food web.

In doing so, Oceana claims that the rule violates the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint claims that the northern anchovy population has severely declined since 2009, and that northern anchovy are “one of the most important forage species” in the California marine ecosystem.

“The Fisheries Service’s actions and failures to act have harmed Oceana’s members’ interest in rebuilding and maintaining a healthy and sustainable population of northern anchovy and a healthy ocean ecosystem,” said the lawsuit, which was filed by lawyers from Earthjustice on Oceana’s behalf. “This harm will continue in the absence of action by the Court.”

Read the full legal complaint as a PDF