US District Judge Sharon Gleason has ruled in favor of the National Marine Fisheries Service, upholding Amendment 16 to the federal salmon fishery management plan and confirming the agency’s authority to regulate only federal waters in the Cook Inlet Exclusive Economic Zone.
The decision is a legal victory for the State of Alaska, preserving state jurisdiction over nearshore salmon fisheries and reinforcing the state’s role in sustainable resource management.
The ruling stems from a legal challenge to Amendment 16, which clarified NMFS’s decision to manage salmon fishing in federal waters — waters beyond three miles from shore. But the amendment did not grant authority over Alaska’s state waters.
The plaintiffs in the case — United Cook Inlet Drift Association and Cook Inlet Fishermen’s Fund — argued that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act required a unified approach across both federal and state jurisdictions to effectively manage salmon stocks. They also claimed NMFS’s actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
UCIDA’s primary concern is the long-term sustainability of Cook Inlet’s salmon fisheries and the future of a viable commercial fishery in the region. The group believes the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides a strong national framework for science-based, sustainable fishery management. Under the MSA, fishery management plans must follow 10 national standards to ensure both sustainability and maximum sustainable yield. UCIDA contends that the Magnuson-Stevens Act allows for federal plans to incorporate state management practices and even delegate authority to state, but within a federally guided framework, and that NMFS cannot simply exclude Cook Inlet by narrowing its jurisdiction, as doing so undermines the the act’s original intent for unified, science-based fishery oversight.
The groups filed the suit in May 2024, contending that NMFS’s approach to limit federal management to the Cook Inlet Exclusive Economic Zone violated the Magnuson‑Stevens Act and the Administrative Procedure Act
Judge Gleason rejected these arguments, ruling that Magnuson-Stevens permits fishery management plans treat federal waters as separate management units. She concluded that the Cook Inlet EEZ is a standalone unit and that NMFS acted within its statutory authority. She also found the agency’s process to be founded on sound science and appropriate administrative procedures.
The outcome reaffirms Alaska’s ability to manage its salmon fisheries within state waters, an area that includes much of the productive nearshore habitat where salmon are caught. For state officials and stakeholders, the ruling is an affirmation of Alaska’s role in managing its fisheries.
UCIDA and Cook Inlet Fishermen’s Fund have sued repeatedly in this matter of the patchwork of jurisdictional authorities.
In 2013, they sued the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Secretary of Commerce, challenging the North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s decision to remove federal waters around Cook Inlet from its salmon fishery management plan, and arguing federal oversight was still legally required. That resulted in a win in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2016, which ordered the case back to district court, partly agreeing that NMFS had abdicated its responsibility under Magnuson-Stevens.
UCIDA then sued again in 2021-2022 when NMFS and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council attempted to close commercial salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet Exclusive Economic Zone entirely. A district judge vacated the closure, finding it arbitrary and capricious. The latest suit on Amendment 16 was filed in 2024.
Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor applauded the latest decision, calling it “a victory for the state’s rights and its salmon fishery.” He credited attorney Aaron Peterson and the Department of Law for their work in defending Alaska’s position.
Alaska’s salmon fisheries and fishing industry supports thousands of jobs, puts food on Alaskans’ tables, and attracts tourism to the state. The legal affirmation of state authority allows Alaska to continue applying local knowledge, science-based policies, and regulatory flexibility in its fisheries management.
The judge also emphasized the importance of coordination between state and federal agencies, noting that long-term sustainability depends on collaborative stewardship grounded in the best available science.
Note how Judge Gleason, a federal judge often vilified by commentators in MRA, interprets law as giving the State of Alaska considerable authority to manage fisheries resources.
Whether Alaska will engage in sustainable management is an open question. Nobody should be too pepped up about the State’s ability in this regard given the State’s dismal record managing Chinook and Chum stocks on the Kuskokwim and Yukon rivers that are bordering on extinction.
Oh well……
Had the lawyer for UCIDA actually read the law then this case wouldn’t have been brought, judge Gleason should be commended for being able to read. The folks at UCIDA have been paying for bad advice for a long time in an effort to have all the fish legally granted to them.
The dismal Chinook & Chum returns in the Yukon & Kuskokwim are the direct result of mismanagement by NOAA, NPFMC and NMFS, all of which are federal entities tasked with managing the Seattle based industrial factory trawler fleet that has decimated the federal waters off Alaska with outrageous amounts of salmon, halibut and crab bycatch that has been going on for decades now. For anyone wishing to educate themselves on this ecological disaster join STOP Alaskan Trawler Bycatch!
Pinch me and tell me that I’m not dreaming. This is great for the Alaska. Every time the feds take over fish or game it ends in disastrous management dictated by emotion, environmental activism and politics, not science. More of this, please. More of THIS.
How about closing commercial fishing in Cook Inlet until the King Salmon sport fishery recovers to 1980s levels? The same with Halibut and Coho Salmon.
Corruption runs deep…