Judge orders Coast Guard rescue helicopter back to Oregon coastal town
Monique Merrill
EUGENE, Ore. (CN) — A federal judge on Monday found the indefinite removal of a U.S. Coast Guard rescue helicopter from the coastal town of Newport, Oregon, likely violated federal law and ordered it to remain there.
“Plaintiffs have presented compelling evidence of a grave risk to the lives of the Newport fishermen in the coming Dungeness crab fishing season, as well as risks to State of Oregon employees who rely on AIRFAC Newport for helicopter rescue,” U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote in the 41-page preliminary injunction order.
The order comes two weeks after Aiken extended a temporary restraining order blocking the removal of the helicopter.
In 2016, Congress enacted a statute that requires the Coast Guard to submit a proposal to Congress before closing or significantly reducing personnel and use of any of its air facilities. That statute followed the passage of the 2013 Coble Act, which prohibited the Coast Guard from closing the Newport Air Facility after it had proposed doing so.
In May, the Coast Guard stopped deploying a rescue helicopter to the Newport, Oregon, Air Facility, though helicopters from the nearest air facility would use the Newport facility for short periods of time. In late October, the Coast Guard issued a memo extending the suspension of rescue helicopter operations indefinitely, stating that helicopter deployments would no longer take place at the Newport facility due to “staffing issues.”
Lincoln County, Oregon, and the Newport Fishermen’s Wives nonprofit accused the Coast Guard of blatantly violating a statute that prohibits the Coast Guard from closing or reducing operations at air facilities without notice, warning or public comment opportunities and congressional review. The state joined the lawsuit, claiming the Coast Guard’s relocation of the rescue helicopter constitutes a final agency action that is subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The government argued the plaintiffs were demanding that the status quo of 1987 — the year when the Newport facility opened — be restored, including through the restoration of outdated helicopters.
“The government’s framing of the requested injunction is palpably ridiculous, and no plaintiff has made any such request,” Aiken wrote.
Aiken clarified the plaintiffs clearly sought to preserve the status quo of deploying a rescue helicopter to provide search and rescue operations, especially during the Dungeness crab season.
Over 250 commercial fishing vessels operate out of Newport in the cold waters off the Oregon coast. Dungeness crab fishing is one of the largest sectors, and the season runs from December to March. It is considered both the most lucrative and dangerous season of the year for Newport fishermen.
According to a declaration from Leann Cyr, the executive director of the Alaska Marine Safety Education Association, the Dungeness crab fishery has a fatality rate of 463 deaths per 100,000 workers — a rate that tops the notoriously dangerous Bering Sea crab fishery in Alaska,
The government tried to argue the plaintiffs didn’t have standing as they couldn’t prove the decision had harmed them, but Aiken was not convinced.
“Plaintiffs’ allegations of harm in the present case do not require a speculative multi-link chain of inferences,” Aiken wrote. “The record establishes that the waters off the coast of Newport are dangerous and rescue response times are critical to the preservation of life in the event of a maritime disaster.”
Not only will the removal of a rescue helicopter endanger fishermen, but it will cause a substantial economic impact, Aiken found.
The government also argued the memo authorizing the removal of the helicopter didn’t count as a “final agency action” that could be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act.
However, the court disagreed.
“Here, the orders to cease deploying the rescue helicopter to AIRFAC Newport were clearly an ‘agency action,’” Aiken wrote.
Aiken pointed to the October memo as the decision “from which legal consequences flowed and which had a direct day-to-day effect on plaintiffs.”
If the court accepted the government’s arguments that the indefinite reassignment of the rescue helicopter was simply a reallocation of resources, the government would essentially be allowed to maintain air facilities that exist only on paper, Aiken wrote.
“Based on defendants’ admitted failure to comply with the procedural requirements of § 912(a), that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, or at the very least serious questions going to the merits, of their [Administrative Procedure Act] claims,” Aiken wrote.
The government must restore and maintain the deployment of a rescue helicopter at the Newport facility while the case plays out in court.
No parties responded to a request for comment before press time.