The Department of Environmental Management, on behalf of the State of Rhode Island, along with several other parties, including the states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, filed an 18-page Memorandum in U.S. District Court, in support of a motion that asks the Court to reconsider certain aspects of the Court’s recent ruling in a fisheries lawsuit.
On April 26, the Court ordered new restrictions on the New England commercial groundfish fishery, including drastic reductions in the number of days fishermen are allowed to fish each year. The measures were imposed as a remedy to a lawsuit won in December 2001 by several environmental organizations, including the Conservation Law Foundation, against the National Marine Fisheries Service for failing to prevent overfishing of groundfish in the region and failing to minimize associated bycatch.
Beyond Cash Donations: How New Forms of Giving Are Transforming Not-for-Profit Accounting
Evolving Funding Landscape for Not-for-Profits Not-for-profit organizations are being asked to do more with less,…
Learn More
Since December, DEM, at the request of Governor Lincoln Almond, has been playing an active role in formulating a proposed remedy that minimizes the economic impacts of the Court’s decision on the Rhode Island commercial fishing fleet, while upholding the fish stock restoration measures that are required under federal law. Along with other parties, DEM helped to craft a Joint Proposal that was presented to the Court in mid-April.
The April 26 Court Order incorporated most of the provisions offered in the Joint Proposal, which meant that the Judge, by and large, agreed to adopt the best of the bad alternatives that were up for consideration. However, the Judge utilized a “days-at-sea” calculation that was quite different, and far more onerous, than the approach. recommended in the Joint Proposal.
DEM and the other parties to the Joint Proposal had asked that the mandatory 20 percent reduction in the days-at-sea that each fishermen will be allowed to fish each year be calculated on the basis of each fishermen’s most active year of groundfishing over the 1996-2001 period. Instead, the Court ruled that the reduction is to be calculated on the basis of each fisherman’s yearly average over the five-year period.
The Motion For Reconsideration and the supporting Memorandum urge the Court to reconsider several aspects of the Court Order, but focuses primarily on the days-at-sea issue. Among the points that are offered:
The Court’s reliance on a days-at-sea calculation that utilizes an average over five years, rather than a highest or best year standard, will have a dramatic negative impact on a large percentage of the New England groundfish industry, including many Rhode Island fishermen. A total of 146 RI vessels have a federal multispecies permit, and are thus directly affected by the Order. The RI groundfish industry lands about $16 million worth of product annually, and those landings generate about $64 million in total economic activity in the state every year. The RI groundfish industry employs approximately 700 fishermen.
If the Order had utilized the highest number of days used by each RI vessel, the RI fleet would be allowed to fish for groundfish on 11,008 days per year, or about 79 days per vessel on average. Under the Judge’s ruling, the RI fleet will only be allowed to fish for groundfish on 4,003 days each year, or about 29 days per vessel on average. The Order impacts, quite unfairly, those fishermen who scaled back their effort over the past few years, at the encouragement of the National Marine Fisheries Service, in order to promote conservation.
Because Rhode Island has an aging fleet, the Order may also exacerbate safety concerns, as fishermen will forego boat maintenance and repairs due to reduced income. It is also likely that crewmen will be laid off, again translating into less safety.
And the Court Order will likely cause a shift in fishing effort away from groundfish and into alternative fisheries, such as lobster. The lobster fishery, valued at some $40 million annually in Rhode Island, is already overfished. Thus, any large infusion of additional effort into this fishery may prove devastating.
Having joined with the other parties in the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration yesterday, and the filing of the detailed Memorandum, in support of the Motion, today, DEM will now await a hearing on the matter. If the Judge were to deny the motion, DEM would likely join with the other parties in the filing of a formal appeal. The window for a notice of appeal runs through June 26, 2002. Beyond that, the next step would be an appeal to the Supreme Court.
