Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Association of Village Council Presidents v. National Marine Fisheries Service

Association of Village Council Presidents v. National Marine Fisheries Service 

3:23-cv-00074United States District Court for the District of Alaska (D. Alaska)2 entries
Filing Date
Document
Type
03/11/2025
Claims dismissed with prejudice.
The federal district court for the District of Alaska rejected claims that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) did not adequately consider the current environmental context when it adopted 2023–2024 and 2024–2025 groundfish harvest specifications in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands region. The court found that the annual harvest specifications were within the scope of a 2007 environmental impact statement (EIS) and that NMFS had explained its conclusion that supplementation of the EIS was not necessary to address new information, changed circumstances, or proposed changes to harvest strategy. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that new information, including an “unprecedented” warming period in the Eastern Bering Sea from 2014 to 2021, necessitated preparation of a supplemental EIS. The court found that “NMFS’s conclusion—that the new information is not of a scale or scope to place it outside what was considered in the [2007] EIS—is inherently a factual determination that NMFS makes based on its expertise.” The court also found that the plaintiffs did not provide reasons for supplementing a 2004 programmatic EIS that was incorporated by reference into the 2007 EIS.
Decision
04/07/2023
Complaint filed.
Two consortia with members that are federally recognized tribes filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Alaska asserting that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it adopted annual catch limits for groundfish fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. The consortia alleged that NMFS improperly based its environmental review on a 2007 environmental impact statement and 2023 supplemental information report that did not analyze the annual groundfish harvest specifications decision in light of climate-induced changes. The consortia contended that the determination that no supplemental environmental impact statement was required was arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with law.
Complaint