Alaskan tribal groups ask federal court to demand review on annual catch limits

(CN) —  Two Alaskan tribal nonprofit groups are asking a federal judge to block the National Marine Fisheries Service’s adoption of annual catch limits for groundfish fisheries, arguing the agency violated federal environmental regulations by omitting analysis on the environmental effects of that decision.

Katherine Glover, an Earthjustice attorney representing the Tanana Chiefs Conference and the Association of Village Presidents, told U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason that the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands ecosystem has declined since the service adopted its 2004 and 2007 environmental regulations.

“Since at least 2014, the Bering Sea has been in a period of turmoil,” Glover told the court at an oral hearing in Anchorage on Thursday.

The National Marine Fisheries Service manages groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and the Aleutian Islands. The tribal groups argue the agency hasn’t taken disruptions like climate change into account in deciding groundfish harvest specifications.

In a lawsuit filed last October, the tribal groups accused the service of relying on outdated environmental impact statements for harvest specifications and groundfish fisheries management. In doing so, the groups argue, the agency did not satisfy its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act.

The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statements or environmental assessments before taking actions that may significantly affect the environment.

The tribal groups accuse the service of foregoing that requirement, instead relying on an environmental impact statement from 2007. They say that 2007 snapshot no longer applies to current environmental conditions in the region.

Under the fishery management plan for the region, the optimum yield range for groundfish like pollock and Pacific cod is between 1.4 and 2 million metric tons.

To catch their intended species, groundfish trawling operations drag a large net through the ocean. But such nets also scoop up nonintended stock like Chinook salmon or shellfish, which is referred to as bycatch.

The service argues that the rate of bycatch has been minimized through amendments to the management plan. It argues the issue is separate from the harvest specifications process.

Each year, the service releases a decision on annual harvest specifications. But the tribal groups argue that while the service was required to complete an environmental impact statement for its 2023 harvest specifications, it instead completed a supplementary information report concluding that no further analysis was needed.

Jennifer Sundook, a Justice Department attorney representing the federal defendants, told the court that while the environmental impact statements are from 2004 and 2007, changes to the environment and ecosystem are still within their scope.

“There is nothing that the National Marine Fisheries Service did not consider,” Sundook said.

Pushing back on this, the tribal groups point to rising sea-surface and sea-bottom temperatures over the last two decades. They say the changes have transformed the ecosystem, collapsing some fish stocks and impacting Alaska Native communities that rely on harvested salmon.

The service denies those claims. It asserts that annual harvest specifications consider current conditions and that changes the groups describe are significant relative to the impact of the harvest strategy. It also says climate change was a consideration during the development of the 2007 environmental impact statement.

“There is ample support that the environment has not changed significantly,” said Sundook, the Justice Department attorney.

Gleason, a Barack Obama appointee, asked the tribal groups what their intended outcome was for the case.

“In your mind, would that mean there would be no fishing?” Gleason asked.

Glover clarified that the tribal groups aren’t seeking a blanket ban on fishing. Rather, she said, they want the service to complete an updated environmental impact statement accounting for the current conditions.

Still, the National Marine Fisheries Service points to its process for developing annual harvest specifications, which it says incorporated the best scientific information available.

“This conclusion that supplementation was not required was not arbitrary because was supported by a wealth of data,” Sundook told the court.

Gleason did not indicate at the hearing Thursday when she might rule.