Federal judge upholds Bering Sea trawl fisheries managers' decisions amid salmon crisis
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.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference 2025 left unspoken what Alaskans truly value
The Canning River, seen here in 2018, flows from the Brooks Range into the Beaufort Sea along the western edge of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Photo by Lisa Hupp/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) At the conclusion of the 2025 Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference much attention was given to profitability of fossil fuels, while far less was said about the meaning of 'sustainability' itself. In fact, both Alaskans and the principles of sustainability were notably absent from the conference's central themes and many of its attendees. From the outset, the federal government's priority appeared to be reassuring foreign interests of the United States' continued ability to sell off Alaska piece by piece. Conference organizers, led by Gov. Mike Dunleavy appeared eager as regulatory protections continue to be rolled back by the Trump administration. Federal officials, including U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, expressed strong support for the further weakening of environmental safeguards to unilaterally advance long-contested development projects across Alaska. Many attendees represented corporate interests excited to profit from new extraction opportunities or potential buyers, watching to see if the administration follows through on promises to mine Alaska's oil, gas, and critical minerals. These companies appeared enthusiastic to exploit the land with minimal oversight and a lack of local consent. The audience was left with a misleading impression of Alaskan support. At the center of ongoing and proposed projects, such as Red Dog mine, Graphite One, and Ambler Road, was the largest item for sale: a natural gas reservoir on the North Slope. The proposed Alaska liquid natural gas pipeline, currently led by the Alaska Gasoline Development Corp. and New York-based Glenfarne Group LLC, would extract natural gas from subsurface carbon and transport it 800 miles south to Nikiski for export. The estimated almost $40 billion project promises only temporary jobs and infrastructure. Environmentally, natural gas poses risks similar to coal and oil. It is composed primarily of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Inevitable gas leaks during extraction and transportation can release up to 10% of methane before combustion, with the remainder ultimately emitted as carbon dioxide. These outcomes reflect outdated, combustion-based energy models. Regarding Alaska's wildlife and people, cabinet members seemed to dismiss concerns after brief visits, suggesting the animals are happy and that communities would benefit from further resource development despite evidence to the contrary. The 'resource curse' is a paradox that explains the economic dynamics of regions rich in natural resources, but limited in democratic representation. Extraction projects often introduce new workers, housing, and other infrastructure at great cost to local communities. Despite generating profits for corporate sponsors, these projects typically result in a net loss for the public. Workers are imported from out of state, while profits are exported. Local towns are then responsible for maintaining infrastructure without receiving corresponding benefits like revenue to support housing, health care or affordable energy. As finite resources are exhausted, companies maintain profit margins while community returns diminish. Once operations end, communities are often left with environmental damage and abandoned development, economically and socially worse off than before. Alaska's economy remains heavily reliant on oil and gas. As existing operations decrease in yield, public education and health care routinely face budgetary cuts. The natural gas reserve would only provide exports for a few decades, but its development would cause irreparable environmental damage, and leave Alaska facing another energy crisis within a generation. Why Gov. Dunleavy labeled this conference 'sustainable' remains unclear. It is unrealistic to claim the pipeline would benefit any of the roughly 190 communities beyond the Railbelt. While the state invests in LNG exports, rural towns reliant on diesel will face rising costs and health issues, including cancer risks. Regardless of one's stance on oil and gas, Chris Wright, the U.S. Secretary of Energy, himself stated: 'Energy… it's about people and math.' However, his equation solves for profit, while Alaska's equation for energy must begin and end with the voices and needs of the people. Scientists attending the summit this week in an official capacity were restricted to framing oil and gas as the primary development priority. This narrowed the conversation and sidelined discussions around advances in technology such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal energy. Still, a handful of sustainability advocates attended as guests, business owners, protesters, and speakers. One speaker, Lesil McGuire, senior advisor with New Energy Alaska, an advocacy coalition that promotes renewable energy noted, 'Solar arrays can be propped up in a number of weeks.' As of 2020 solar energy has become cheaper to install and maintain than fossil fuels. Alaska needs energy infrastructure tailored to its unique environment, focused on long-term self reliance through renewable sources. Current examples include solar installations in the Northwest Arctic Borough, microgrid cooperatives, and heat pump incentives in Southeast Alaska. A cursory glance shows Alaska's capacity for renewable energy that could be faster to build and more cost effective than the LNG pipeline. In reality the conference didn't need to be held in Alaska, as Alaskans themselves played a minimal role. Led by Gov. Dunleavy, the 'Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference 2025' resembled government-backed promotion of the oil and gas industry and signaled extraction projects could move forward without oversight and regardless of local stakeholder's needs or opposition. International representatives seemed to be promised fuel for import, and out-of-state corporations appeared to be invited to profit at the expense of Alaska's environment. Renewable energy has been viable for decades and continues to become more efficient. Given a voice and a seat at the table, many Alaskans and Americans would likely favor local, self-sufficient renewables for lower prices and long-term reliability. Natural gas in Alaska will run out in this lifetime, do nothing to reduce costs in the majority of Alaskan communities, and may cause permanent harm to the environment. The United States and Alaska are not in need of a technological revolution in fossil fuels, but an information revolution in renewable energy. It is vitally important that all Alaskan voices are heard. Alaska values pristine wilderness, supports true sustainability, and is not for sale.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Homeland Security accelerates border wall construction in New Mexico and Arizona
A stretch of the border wall near Columbus, New Mexico along State Road 9. (Photo by Patrick Lohmann / Source NM) The U.S. government this week set aside environmental protection laws in order to speed up border wall construction along approximately 20 miles of New Mexico's border with Mexico. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday signed a waiver of various federal laws to expedite border wall construction in southwestern New Mexico. She also signed two similar waivers for areas in neighboring Arizona on Tuesday and Thursday. Taken together, the waivers allow the federal government to speed up construction of physical barriers and roads along approximately 36 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, the agency said in a news release on Thursday. The waivers 'ensure the expeditious construction of physical barriers and roads, by minimizing the risk of administrative delays,' DHS said. The New Mexico waiver lifts the legal requirements of 24 separate federal statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, just to name a few. 'Trump is recklessly casting aside the foundational laws that protect endangered species and clean air and water to build a wildlife-killing wall through pristine wilderness,' Laiken Jordahl, Southwest conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Source NM on Friday. New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham told Source NM on Friday in a statement that she has serious concerns about the waivers, saying they bypass protections for endangered species, cultural heritage sites and Native American artifacts. 'New Mexico's archaeological resources and sensitive ecosystems could face permanent damage without proper environmental review,' Lujan Grisham said. 'While we understand border security concerns, the federal government should engage with state officials before waiving decades of established environmental protections.' The New Mexico waiver designates an area in southwestern New Mexico as 'an area of high illegal entry,' divided into three sections. The DHS news release states that the sections of the border where the laws have been waived total approximately 8.5 miles, but that figure is inaccurate, according to Jordahl, who has traveled to every part of the U.S.-Mexico border as part of his work. 'It is extremely frustrating how difficult they make these waivers to track,' he said. 'Instead of using simple [latitude and longitude] coordinates, they pick landmarks that are almost impossible for the public to map. I believe they may have made an error in their locations in the waiver.' One section starts at a point on the border just south of Antelope Wells in Hidalgo County and extends one-tenth of a mile east, according to International Boundary and Water Commission data. Jordahl told Source NM he found the same measurements using his own map of the border. This section is already walled off, and so DHS is likely adding another layer of wall, he said. Another section begins at a point on the border just south of Wamels Draw, a valley in Luna County, and extends approximately 7.5 miles east. This section of the border already has vehicle barriers, but is not walled off yet, Jordahl said. Building a border wall along this particular stretch would be the most environmentally damaging by far, Jordahl said, because it would threaten the movement and migration of Mexican gray wolves. 'We've seen Mexican gray wolves in this area; we've seen them cross the border,' he said. 'We've also seen them push up against the border wall in New Mexico, wander along it for days and then ultimately have to turn around, being unable to cross.' Jordahl said his organization's focus lies on Arizona's two waivers and potential wall construction, which would also threaten wildlife. 'Throwing taxpayer money away to wall off the Santa Cruz River and San Rafael Valley would be a death sentence for jaguars, ocelots and other wildlife in the Arizona-Sonora borderlands,' he said. 'This is happening while border crossings are at the lowest level in decades. We'll fight this disastrous project with everything we've got.' The third section starts at a point on the border west of Santa Teresa and extends approximately 12.4 miles, over Mount Cristo Rey, to the Rio Grande near El Paso. This section already has older mesh border walls, and DHS may be installing newer walls there, Jordahl said. The sections of the border described in the waiver lie in the same general area as the New Mexico National Defense Area, a newly created military buffer zone which the U.S. government is trying to use — along with novel criminal charges — to discourage people from crossing the border. Gov. Lujan Grisham, in the statement provided to Source, urged meaningful consultation with state and local officials before the federal government begins construction that 'could cause lasting harm to our communities and environment.' 'New Mexico's natural and cultural resources deserve consideration in this process,' she said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Interior Department approves modifying federal coal mining project in Montana
June 6 (UPI) -- The Department of the Interior on Friday announced approval of a mining plan modification for Bull Mountains coal mine in Montana. It authorizes Signal Peak Energy LLC to mine roughly 22.8 million tons of federal coal. It also permits the company to mine 34.5 million tons of adjacent non-federal coal. The mine is in Musselshell and Yellowstone counties and exports coal to Japan and South Korea. "By unlocking access to coal in America, we are not only fueling jobs here at home, but we are also standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies abroad," Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement. The Trump administration policy of increasing fossil fuel production stands in stark contrast to Biden administration policies. In October 2024 the Biden administration announced $428 million in funding for 14 federal energy projects in small towns historically known for coal production. The Trump administration is in the process of attempting to undo that clean energy approach while doubling down on coal, oil and gas production. For the Bulls Mountain coal mine, the Interior Department said Friday it is using emergency permitting procedures to disregard normal environmental review. The Interior Department said in an April statement that the procedures reduce what would normally be "a multi-year review process down to just 28 days at most." The department asserts that the procedures using the radically shortened review process still upholds environmental standards. "The Bull Mountains project is proof that we can meet urgent energy needs, work with local communities and uphold strong environmental standards," Acting Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Adam Suess in a statement. The Interior Department said it is using "alternative arrangements" for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the 1969 law requiring federal agencies to assess potential environmental effects of their decisions. According to the Interior Department, "These alternative arrangements apply both to actions not likely to have significant environmental impacts and to actions likely to have significant environmental impacts." The Trump administration is using a so-called national energy emergency declared by President Donald Trump on Jan. 20 to avoid fully complying with full environmental regulations agencies would normally have to follow. Under the alternative arrangements, companies would notify the department they want those alternative arrangements. The official responsible for reviewing the application would then "prepare a focused, concise, and timely environmental impact statement addressing the purpose and need for the proposed action, alternatives, and a brief description of environmental effects." According to the Interior Department, the Bull Mountains project is expected to generate "over $1 billion in combined local, state and county economic benefits, including wages, taxes and business activity."
