ADFG Sends Letter To NFMS Regarding Gulf Of Alaska Chinook Petition

Last month, the U.S. Ninth 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for now put the brakes on a Wild Fish Conservancy-led lawsuit aimed to protect Gulf of Alaska Chinook salmon. The three-member judge panel cleared the way for

This week, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game released details of a lengthy letter the state sent to the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding its review of the petition to protect salmon from the commercial troll fleet in Southeast Alaska. The letter was titled, “Request for information, 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Gulf of Alaska Chinook Salmon as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act. NOAA-NMFS- 2024-0042.”

Here’s a portion of ADFG’s letter, which was addressed to Anne Marie Eich, assistant regional administrator for protected resources at NFMS:

Dear Dr. Eich:

The State of Alaska, through the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), submits this letter in response to the request for information from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS or Service) as it initiates a status review of Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). The status review was triggered by a January 2024 petition from Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) requesting that NMFS list the species, or any evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) that may be present in the petitioned area, as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and to concurrently designate critical habitat for any listed population segments. The petition requested review of Chinook in the “southern Alaska” area, including all rivers supporting Chinook salmon that flow into the Gulf of Alaska, from the southern side of the Aleutian Peninsula south and east to the southern border of Alaska and British Columbia.

The petition cites several factors that it asserts may be contributing to declines in GOA Chinook numbers and concludes that the population is impacted by all five of the ESA section 4(a)(1) threat factors. As we demonstrate in the following sections and appendices, the petition provides minimal information to support its assertions, and much of what it does present is easily demonstrated to be erroneous. Through our review of the purported threat factors, as well as an overview of the status and trends of Alaska Chinook populations in a historical context, we show that GOA Chinook continue to be well-managed on a sustained yield basis by the State of Alaska. The best available scientific and commercial information makes it clear that GOA Chinook salmon do not meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species, so there is no reason to list any GOA Chinook population segment under the ESA.

Alaska is troubled by many of the assertions in the petition and in NMFS’s positive 90-day finding.1 NMFS states in the finding that the agency “identified numerous factual errors, omissions, incomplete references, and unsupported assertions and conclusions within the petition.”2 This is a gross understatement of the substantial inaccuracies presented by the petition, which provided minimal, generalized, and vague information on population status and trends, specious information on threats facing the GOA Chinook populations, and incorrect information on regulatory protections, among other deficits. As NMFS noted, “[b]road statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact the species, do not constitute substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted.”3 Yet “generalized threats to the species” is precisely the level of information provided by the petition, which also fell far short of providing a “complete, balanced representation of the relevant facts, including information that may contradict claims in the petition,” as required by the ESA regulations.4

Notwithstanding the “low statutory standard at the 90-day stage” referenced by NMFS in the 90- day finding,5 the agency had a duty to reject conclusions in the petition that failed to meet even that low bar—assertions the agency could readily confirm were not supported by credible scientific information and thus do not constitute “substantial scientific or commercial information” that warranted a positive 90-day finding. Nevertheless, NMFS seized upon two factors mentioned in the petition—missed escapement goals and evidence of decreasing size at maturity—the agency felt may warrant further examination. However, a positive 90-day finding on this extremely information-deficient petition was not necessary for NMFS to pursue clarifying information—readily available in both NMFS’s files and from ADF&G—to ascertain the validity of the concern expressed in the petition about these two factors.

As NMFS stated, “[p]otential overharvest of some populations of Chinook salmon and missed escapement targets are not necessarily sufficient to indicate that the species may warrant listing under the ESA.”6 We agree. If this was the standard used by NMFS to commence species status reviews, then NMFS should have initiated species status reviews on the very long list of federally managed fisheries that are overfished under NMFS’s responsibility. But, of course, NMFS has not used overfished stocks as a benchmark for initiating status reviews in the past indicative of a double standard being applied here. NMFS should rescind the positive-90 day finding, because the agency made considerable mistakes in accepting and evaluating the petition.