Federal fisheries managers have until May 13 to decide whether to urge new protections for Gulf of Alaska chinook salmon stocks by listing them as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. 

A U.S. District Court judge set the May 13 deadline on Friday by approving a settlement between the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Wild Fish Conservancy, the Washington-based nonprofit that petitioned NMFS in January 2024 to list Alaska chinook stocks under the ESA. 

WFC’s 2024 petition stated that Gulf of Alaska chinook stocks, including the king salmon that originate in Southeast Alaska, are threatened due to habitat destruction, commercial over-utilization and other factors.

In May of 2024 NMFS accepted the conservancy’s petition by issuing a “90-day finding” that determined the proposed ESA listings “may be warranted.”

In general, federal regulations prohibit harvest of fish stocks listed under the Endangered Species Act, as well as actions that would degrade their critical habitat.

If any Alaska chinook stocks were listed under the ESA, federal fisheries managers would be entitled to take over management control of those stocks from the State of Alaska.

The positive “90-day-finding” in 2024 triggered a pubic comment period on listing Gulf of Alaska chinook as threatened or endangered under the ESA.

Many Alaskans — as well as Alaska municipal governments, federally-recognized tribal governments and the State of Alaska — commented in strong opposition to the idea.

Tribal citizens and supporters of the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska said in a letter that “the listing of king salmon as an endangered or threatened species could create several unintended consequences, including economic impacts to fisheries and communities, food security, cultural implications, and the complexity of species management.

“These potential consequences would have significant and disproportionate negative impact on tribal citizens, our coastal communities, and Indigenous ways of life.

“The focus of NOAA’s investigation should be related to the primary threats to the king salmon’s survival, which are the commercial trawling industry and subsequent bycatch, as well as ocean conditions, and freshwater habitat destruction,” stated the letter, which gleaned signatures from about 630 individuals.

After making the 90-day finding, NMFS scientists had until January of 2025 to conduct a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, and make a final finding on whether listing is warranted for one or more Gulf of Alaska chinook stocks.

NMFS did not meet the January 2025 deadline, and in May 2025 the conservancy filed suit against the federal agency. The parties have been litigating the case since then.

On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Trevor N. McFadden approved a settlement agreement between WFC and NMFS. The agreement asks the court to dismiss conservancy’s case against NMFS, on the condition that NMFS issues its final decision on the ESA petition on or before May 13 this year.

As part of the settlement, NMFS said that it will provide WFC with notice before it publishes its 12-month finding in the Federal Register. 

The settlement states that WFC has 90 days, beginning Feb. 27, to submit any request for reimbursement of its attorneys’ fees and costs by the federal government, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Last November WFC was awarded $1.6 million in attorney’s fees in a separate case, the 2020 lawsuit that WFC filed against NMFS seeking closure of the Southeast Alaska chinook troll fishery to preserve migratory chinook as prey for the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales that feed in waters near Puget Sound.

As a result of that lawsuit, NMFS re-wrote the documentation that it uses to authorize the Alaska hook-and-line troll fishery to open in summer and winter months, and fishing continued as usual throughout that litigation.

In its award of attorney fees to WFC in that case, the court cited the 1980 Equal Justice Act which Congress enacted with the intent of allowing veterans, social security beneficiaries, and other plaintiffs with limited income to seek attorney fees in a public interest lawsuit against the federal government, regardless of whether they were the prevailing party in the lawsuit.

This story was originally published by the Daily Sitka Sentinel.