Six Atlantic States Oppose North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike Reduction Rule Consistency Determination

Washington, DC— Multiple states along the Atlantic Coast have expressed significant objections to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) proposed amendments to the North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike Reduction Rule. These objections are part of a review process under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which gives states a voice to weigh-in on federal regulations that may impact their coastal resources and communities.

The NOAA regulation would impose a 10-knot speed limit on boats 35-foot-and-larger across extensive areas of the Atlantic coast for nearly seven months each year. This approach poses significant safety risks for boaters; threatens coastal economies, and will ultimately fall short of effectively protecting the endangered the North Atlantic right whale (NARW). 

“Rather than a visionary look toward the ocean, NOAA had its head in the sand when they crafted this rule – completely ignoring advances in real-time whale detection systems,” said Jeff Angers, president of the Center for Sportfishing Policy. “Recreational fishermen support whale conservation and are ready to embrace whale avoidance technologies that offer a sustainable and collaborative solution. We need proactive technological tools, not a reactive ocean speed limit that compromises safe vessel operations.”

Earlier this year, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) sent a consistency determination to state agencies along the Atlantic, seeking input on the proposed rule. In this determination, NMFS concluded that the proposed amendments would not negatively impact recreational boating, fishing, coastal economies or navigation safety. However numerous states have pushed back in recent months, voicing concerns over the rule’s potential economic and safety consequences. 

State Responses:

• Florida: “The Florida Department of Transportation requests NOAA drop its proposed rule and take action to work closely with affected ports, maritime industry stakeholders and others to accurately determine the effect any proposed rule would have on ports and port communities.” 
• Virginia: “The proposed rule will negatively impact and underestimate the effect on the commercial and for-hire recreational fishing businesses at it directly impacts the economic value of their respective sectors.”
• Georgia: “…it is arbitrary and capricious to impose regulatory burdens on all vessels 35’ in length or greater, without scientific evidence that doing so will reduce the likelihood of mortality or serious injury to NARW from vessel strikes.”
• Massachusetts:  “…Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management  (CZM) affirms again its objection to the proposed rule because (1) NOAA has failed to supply sufficient information to support the implementation of the proposed rule and the claim that the proposed rule is consistent with the enforceable policies of the Massachusetts Coastal Management program; and (2) the proposed rule is inconsistent with the specific enforceable policies of CZM…”
• North Carolina: “[NC Division of Coastal Management] believes that the proposed amendment will have significant adverse impacts to the State’s commercial, recreational and sportfishing industries, as well as to tourism and recreation that are not justifiable based upon the information and analysis presented in this consistency determination.”
• South Carolina: “In review of the public comments received…with the submitted consistency determination… the proposed amendment reasonably foreseeable negative effects on large commercial and recreational vessel navigability, disproportionately impact recreational fishing in the Southeast with the inclusion of vessels larger than 35 feet which supports our local coastal community economies, effect the maneuverability of large commercial and pilot vessels which has the potential to negatively impact the movement of goods while also raises safety concerns for the transfer of the harbor pilots to those large commercial vessels in the port of Charleston and Savannah which effect the greater state-wide economy.”

These state objections highlight the broader concerns that NOAA has not fully accounted for the potential consequences of the proposed rule on local economies, marine safety and the rights of coastal communities. While NOAA’s consistency determination assumes that states would not object unless explicitly stated, formal written responses from Florida, Virginia, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Carolina and South Carolina demonstrate significant opposition to the proposal. However, state objections are not binding on the federal government.

NOAA’s proposed NARW Vessel Strike Reduction Rule is in the final stages of review in the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).  Final action is queued for November 2024.

###