Mr. Guy Norman, Director of Interjurisdictional Fisheries (who rep.'s the state vs the NMFS/Col. Tribes in negotiations), has sent his awaited reply to the questions raised on this public forum about the unfair salmon allocations favoring the Columbia River Tribes. The outcome of Oregon and Washington state lawsuits filed against the Fed. Government have far reaching consequences, beyond just the Columbia R. and NW Washington Indian Treaty fishing activities. - I want to thank Mr. Norman for his considerable efforts, both on behalf of NW sportfishers and for his lengthy reply within. This letter of explaination may have raised as many questions as it has answered (not the fault of Mr. Norman). I will post a followup reply concerning the questions it has raised for us. I have also written the NMFS for their side of this ongoing story and we await that reply. Letter:
To: Steve Hanson ( Reel Truth )
From: Guy Norman ( ODFW )
As I indicated to you in our phone conversation, Indian and non-Indian harvest of Columbia River salmon and steelhead is an ongoing issue that is a major focus for ODFW. We are struggling with managing for ESA listed stocks while experiencing a significant improvement in the returns of other stocks of salmon and steelhead. We are also dealing with how to fit a longer term harvest management plan into the context of an overall recovery plan for Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead. In response to your request for further information regarding recent allocation decisions between Indian and non-Indian fisheries, I have provided some historical background as well as more current information. Hopefully this information will be useful for you to provide more clarification to others, or at the minimum demonstrate the complexity of the harvest sharing issue. The numbers I represent here reflect pre-season forecasts and actual numbers will be monitored by the Columbia River Compact during the course of the fall season.
In 1968 Judge Robert Belloni ruled, in the U.S. v. Oregon case, that state management practices failed to meet the Columbia River Treaty Tribes fishing rights and that the tribes were entitled to a fair and equitable share of the harvestable portion of the runs, later defined in 1974 as an even split.This decision followed on the heels of the Judge Boldt sharing decision in the U.S. v. Washington dispute pertaining to Puget Sound and Washington Coastal Tribes.
A federal court Judge ordered the development of the Columbia River Fish Management Plan(CRFMP) in 1983 in an effort to resolve fish management issues that were constantly brought before the federal court following the 1968 ruling. The CRFMP was intended to focus on rebuilding Columbia River fish runs and fairly sharing the harvest between Indian and non-Indian fisheries. The CRFMP was completed in 1988 and addressed management of seven runs of salmon and steelhead as well as shad, walleye, sturgeon, and lamprey. The CRFMP expired January 1, 1999.
The 1988-98 CRFMP took almost five years to negotiate, and attempted to address the specific needs of Indian and non-Indian fisheries within the intent of the previous court decisions. For example; 1) The cultural value of ceremonial and subsistence spring chinook to the Tribes was reflected in the upriver spring chinook allocation in Columbia River fisheries. Non-Indian fisheries were able to maintain significant spring chinook access by targeting on Willamette and Cowlitz stocks, which are not subject to allocation because they are produced below Bonneville Dam. 2) The non-Indian fisheries were allotted the majority of the coho to enable significant ocean and Columbia River fisheries to continue. In exchange for a greater share of coho, the states agreed to transfer some coho hatchery production to tribal areas above Bonneville Dam. These are just a couple of examples of many trade-offs that were made in the CRFMP to enable management that was fair in a broad context, and tailored to meet unique needs of the state and tribal parties to U.S. v. Oregon.
Since 1985, annual negotiations have been conducted to develop harvest agreements for fall chinook. The annual agreements attempt to address the specifics needs of individual stocks based on their status for that year, and also the Indian and non-Indian fishery needs for that particular year. These agreements have also contained hatchery production elements in addition to harvest.
In many years there are other constraints that overide the 50/50 sharing intent for upriver fall chinook. In recent years, including this fall, spawning needs for Lower Columbia River chinook have constrained fishery harvest before non-Indian fisheries could reach 50 percent of the upriver chinook.
The harvest sharing formula for fall chinook includes tribal, sport and commercial fishing in the Columbia River downstream of Priest Rapids Dam, as well as U.S. ocean fisheries south of the Canadian border. The formula is complex in that it only includes those fish destined for areas above Bonneville Dam and is adjusted for spawning value equivalents depending on where they are caught. The lower Columbia produced chinook caught by non-Indian fisherman are not counted against the non-Indian share.
The management of ESA listed Snake River wild fall (SRW) chinook has added another element of complexity to the harvest sharing formula. In the past, the harvestable number of Upriver Bright (URB) fall chinook was based on the number of fish returning above the spawning escapement goal at McNary Dam, which assures adequate numbers of wild fall chinook will return to the the Hanford Reach stretch of the Columbia River to spawn. The Hanford Reach wild fall chinook are extremely healthy and currently provide the most fall chinook to Columbia River fisheries, including hatchery produced fish. Since the Hanford URB and SRW return at the same time, and both are wild, they cant be separately identified in Columbia River fisheries that take place downstream of the Snake River.
This fall, the forecasts indicate that over 200,000 URB fall chinook will return to the the Columbia River. Included in the URB forecast is about 150,000 URB from the Hanford Reach, Deshutes River, and Priest Rapids Hatchery that could be harvested. This level of harvest could take place and leave enough fish to meet Hanford wild chinook, Deshutes wild chinook, and Priest Rapids Hatchery chinook spawning goals. However, ESA limitations on SRW chinook allow for only 65,000 of the 150,000 URB fall chinook to be harvested. Therefore, the total URB chinook harvest must be reduced to meet Snake River wild fall chinook spawning needs specifically. How that reduction is applied to Indian and non-Indian fisheries, when the CRFMP harvest sharing formula was based on the McNary Dam spawning goal, is the unresolved issue we will continue to address.
The 2000 Fall Management Agreement was a compromise reached by the U.S. v. Oregon Parties to enable fall fisheries to proceed with ESA permits from the federal government. The non-Indian share of the upriver chinook is less then the states were negotiating for in 2000, however we did not negotiate for a full 50 percent this year due to the need to limit harvest of lower Columbia River wild fall chinook.
The total non-Indian catch of fall chinook in the mainstem Columbia River this fall is expected to be 42,000, including lower Columbia and upper Columbia fall chinook stocks. The sport fishery is expected to harvest 25,000 fall chinook, including 5,000 from the Hanford Reach sport fishery. Another 12,000 Columbia River fall chinook are expected to be caught by non-Indian fisheries off the Washington and Oregon Coasts. The Treaty Indian fishery is expected to harvest 70,000 fall chinook this year.
The 2,000 Fall Agreement also includes harvest of coho and summer steelhead in fall fisheries. Non-Indian mainstem Columbia River fisheries are expected to catch 165,000 coho and about 7,000 summer steelhead. As with past Agreements, hatchery planning was an issue in negotiating the 2000 Agreement. The Agreement includes plans for use of fall returning hatchery salmon and steelhead in tributaries above Bonneville Dam.
Last spring, we could not reach an Agreement with the tribes concerning allocation of the upriver spring chinook return. As a result, the federal government determined the spring chinook allocation in the ESA permits they issued for the tribal and state fisheries. In the absence of an agreement, the federal government allocated the majority of the spring chinook ESA impacts to the tribes because they believed it consistent with the United States Treaty trust responsibility to the Columbia River Treaty Tribes. *
The Spring season was unsettled last year due to several factors: 1) An upriver return that was the largest in over 20 years, but co-mingled with listed spring chinook. 2) Expired Agreements that allocated upriver spring chinook impacts, 3) Non-Indian mainstem Columbia River fisheries being minimal or closed for several years because of small Willamette River hatchery returns as well as poor upriver returns, and 4) Tribal Ceremonial and subsistence priority for spring chinook.
It is now necessary to work towards a Spring Chinook Management Agreement in an environment of improved upriver and lower River hatchery runs that are returning with listed wild spring chinook. For several recent years non-Indian fisheries were as limited by poor hatchery spring chinook returns as they were by wild fish management constraints. Last spring we experienced a strong upriver spring chinook hatchery return and an improved Willamette River spring chinook hatchery return. We are already focusing on next springs management with an objective of reaching an Agreement that will provide fair non-Indian fishery access to the harvestable hatchery spring chinook.
We do expect a large return of upper Columbia and Snake River hatchery spring chinook in 2001. The non-Indian fisheries in the Columbia River next spring will not only be associated with the prospects for a U.S. v. Oregon
Agreement, but also with the allocation of Willamette Spring chinook between Columbia River and Willamette Basin fisheries. The Oregon Fish and wildlife Commission this winter will determine the Willamette spring chinook allocation.
Guy Norman
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Director
E-mail - guy.norman@state.or.us
Previous Topic
Index
