Salmon drying in Quinhagak, Alaska, in July 2023. (Photo by Alice Bailey/University of Alaska Fairbanks)
Federal fisheries managers did not mishandle trawl fishing rules amid Alaska’s ongoing salmon subsistence crisis, a federal judge in Anchorage has ruled.
In a 45-page order published Tuesday, Judge Sharon Gleason ruled against the Association of Village Council Presidents and the Tanana Chiefs Conference, which sued the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2023 over its management of Bering Sea trawl fisheries in the years since a marine heat wave.
“This suit arises from the apparent tension between federal defendants’ management of the fishery and the needs of Alaskan communities in times of significant change in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands region,” Gleason wrote.
The warming event harmed salmon and contributed to the ongoing shortage of fish in Alaska’s inland rivers. The two tribal groups argued in court that NMFS should have conducted a new environmental impact statement — the bedrock analysis behind federal fisheries decisions — before setting annual catch limits for the Bering Sea’s lucrative pollock and cod fisheries.
A new environmental impact statement could have resulted in additional restrictions on trawlers that occasionally catch salmon while pursuing pollock and cod, a process known as bycatch.
Salmon are critical for life in the predominantly Alaska Native communities along Alaska’s rural rivers, while trawl industry experts argue that their ships catch relatively few salmon, many of which aren’t destined for Alaska rivers.
“Salmon, in particular, provide a crucial source of food and culture,” Gleason wrote. “As changes to the marine ecosystem in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands region have depleted salmon stocks, salmon bycatch in the groundfish fishery has further diminished stocks and escapement, which is the number of salmon that ‘escape’ fisheries in the ocean and survive to return to freshwater streams to spawn.”
But while Gleason acknowledged the tribal groups’ need for salmon, she found that federal managers’ annual scientific updates, known as “Supplementary Information Reports,” or SIRs, adequately updated the situation and allowed managers to make reasoned decisions on fisheries.
Plaintiffs had to prove that fisheries managers acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” way in order to overturn their actions as a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act. Plaintiffs didn’t do that, Gleason concluded.
“By reviewing up-to-date information and considering whether the information indicated a substantial change … NMFS considered whether supplementation was necessary and articulated its conclusion that it was not, as NEPA requires. Its harvest specifications decisions are therefore not arbitrary and capricious on this basis,” she wrote.
Gleason later added, regarding the fishery services’ handling of updated information and the environmental impact statement, “NMFS’s conclusion — that the information is not of a scale or scope to place it outside what was considered in the Harvest Specifications EIS — is inherently a factual determination that NMFS makes based on its expertise.”
Plaintiffs, represented by the environmental law firm Earthjustice, could appeal Gleason’s decision but did not immediately say whether they would.
In a written statement, they said they were disappointed by the decision.
“The lack of salmon in our region has become a humanitarian crisis, the likes of which we have never before experienced. Despite this setback, we will continue to fight with all available tools and use all avenues to end the salmon crisis,” said AVCP CEO Vivian Korthuis.
Tanana Chiefs Conference Chairman Brian Ridley said that even in defeat, the case provided arguments to use in front of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, which sets harvest limits.
“We must correct how NMFS manages the natural resources it is responsible for protecting — because if they don’t believe climate change is the cause (of salmon declines), then that leaves only poor management decisions and bycatch as the obvious answers,” he said.
An official for the U.S. Justice Department, which represented NMFS in court, declined comment on the ruling.
The At-Sea Processors Association and United Catcher Boats, two industry groups that sided with the federal government during the lawsuit, issued a statement commending Gleason’s decision.
“This decision underscores the complexities of fisheries management and the critical need for science-driven decision-making,” said Andrea Keikkala, executive director of UCB. “Our fleet operates under strict federal guidelines, including 100% coverage by federal fisheries observers in the pollock fishery, and we remain committed to working with regulators, scientists, and stakeholders to ensure the long-term sustainability of the fishery.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.