Pebble Panels Set For Look at Mining Data in Anchorage in October

Panel discussions on fish, wildlife and habitat, and much more related to the proposed Pebble copper, gold and molybdenum mine in Southwest Alaska are slated for early October in Anchorage.

They are being facilitated by the Colorado-based Keystone Center, which was hired by the Pebble Limited Partnership to convene a series of what are billed as independent science panels to review and evaluate data on the mine, Advocates of the mine remain firm in their stance that the massive project at the headwaters of the Bristol Bay watershed can operate in harmony with the world’s largest sockeye salmon fishery. Opponents say the mine stands to have adverse, possibly devastating effects on the habitat of this multi-million dollar fishery, which is critical to commercial, sport and subsistence interests.

The panel discussions come as the Environmental Protection Agency is evaluating its draft report, in the wake of much public comment, to determine whether large- scale mining at this location could damage the fishery.

Critics of the EPA study, mostly representing businesses involved in resource extraction in Alaska, have alleged that the EPA study was rushed, flawed and based only on a theoretical mine project. The EPA began its study at the request of a group of Bristol Bay residents, fishermen and conservationists.

Both sides have continued to argue their points in a steady stream of television ads.

The Pebble Limited Partnership also hired an international consulting firm, Knight Piesold, which assessed the EPA’s draft report as a fundamentally flawed document.

Alaska fisheries scientist Carol Ann Woody, who has extensive field experience in the Bristol Bay region, took a different stance. “My review of the Pebble Limited Partnership is they only released selected information and what they have released is hard to review because it is not in an acceptable format,” she said.

What the PLP needs to do is get its study published and that would involve peer review, she said.

OPINION: Kitzhaber Plan for Columbia River Commercial Fishery is Misguided

By Robert Sudar

When Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber announced on August 8th that he would be asking the Oregon Fish and Wildlife (ODF&W) Commission to draft plans for moving the commercial non-Indian gillnet fishery out of the mainstem Columbia River and into off-channel “SAFE” areas, it caught everyone in the industry by surprise. Commercial fishermen have been focused on defeating Oregon Initiative 81, promoted by various sportfishing groups and funded primarily by Norman Brenden, a Vancouver businessman. Governor Kitzhaber is suggesting that voters turn down the initiative and instead back his plan.

Most of the coverage so far of Kitzhaber’s plan has been based on statements from his office, from the Oregon Commission, and from a few of the major players in the issue. He claims that his plan is a conservation-based approach to, in his words, eliminate the “perennial and divisive conflicts” between user groups. In reality, it’s just another political approach to turning the wonderful salmon runs of the Columbia over to sportfishing interests. The true conservation plans are the various Salmon Recovery Plans developed in Oregon and Washington with public input and stakeholder involvement over a period of several years, and accepted by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Governor Kitzhaber's proposal should have similar vetting, rather than proposing a rush to rulemaking over a couple of months. An Environmental Impact Statement also seems like a reasonable requirement for such a massive change in where and how fisheries will take place.

All current gillnet openings on the Columbia pass the conservation test. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be allowed under Endangered Species Act (ESA) guidelines, since some ESA listed stocks of salmon or steelhead are present in the Columbia during almost all times of the year. The fleet has adapted tangle nets and added recovery boxes to their spring Chinook fishery, along with shortened net soak times, to lower the mortality rate to 14 percent for released wild fish. This compares favorably to the 10 percent rate applied to the sport fishery, and was determined in a study using the gear on the Columbia in the spring, whereas the sport rate comes from a study in the Willamette River.

During other times of the year, the commercial fleet uses zone closures and mesh size restrictions to avoid protected fish, such as in the August Chinook fishery. This last summer the fleet harvested more than 20,000 Chinook in (9) 9-hour openings by fishing primarily above the Lewis River (near Woodland) and using 9-inch mesh, so they could target healthy wild upriver bright stocks headed to the Hanford Reach area of the Columbia, stay above the protected lower river hatchery stocks, and pass steelhead through their nets.

Governor Kitzhaber wants to expand hatchery programs to existing and new SAFE areas in an effort to maintain the economic value of the commercial fishery to lower Columbia River communities where most of the fishermen live. That's an ambitious goal – almost 65 percent of the landed value of the gillnet fleet presently comes from their mainstem fishery. The first challenge revolves around funding. A proposal in the Oregon Legislature in 2011 was killed in committee when it was made clear that there was no funding to increase hatchery production. In addition, other possible SAFE areas were explored in the past and none were found to be viable, either in Oregon or Washington, primarily due to poor returns, straying of hatchery fish to areas where they weren’t wanted, and the presence of ESA fish from the mainstem.

Liz Hamilton of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association (NSIA) has stated that this is a good plan because it falls in line with the development of the Young’s Bay SAFE area by Astoria in 1994 as a replacement for mainstem gillnet fisheries. The commercial industry never agreed that Young’s Bay or similar off-channel fisheries would replace the mainstem fishery – it would only be a supplementation. In reality, enhancement was being done at Young’s Bay by local fishermen long before 1994. The only difference is that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) agreed then to fund the Young’s Bay program as partial mitigation for salmon killed by the hydropower system. It has been a struggle in recent years to maintain that funding, and BPA says their contribution will end by 2017.

Some reporters have said that conservation groups have supported the removal of gillnets from the mainstem. In the past twenty years, one initiative in Oregon and two in Washington that would have eliminated gillnetting have been on the ballot. All of those were soundly defeated by more than 60 percent of voters, largely because the conservation and environmental community recognized that these initiatives are political allocation issues and have nothing to do with rebuilding the resource. The only conservation group that has signed on to the current initiative is the Humane Society. Their primary involvement has been protecting sea lions at Bonneville Dam. Another group that uses “conservation” in their name – the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) – is a sportfishing organization and nothing more.

Governor Kitzhaber says his proposal will minimize mortality of wild fish and promote recovery. There is no mention in the plan of allowing the commercial quota of incidental mortalities of protected stocks to pass on up the river to spawn. That quota would simply be transferred to the sports community, giving them a larger harvest and a longer season.

The word “indiscriminate” has been applied by supporters of the Governor’s plan and the initiative when describing the gillnet fishery on the Columbia. ODFW has observers onboard commercial vessels during most commercial openings. The handling of target and non-target salmon stocks is recorded and used in the calculation of impacts on ESA stocks. The fishermen are able, time and again, to harvest their quotas without being halted due to excessive bycatch. Catch of non-target species and birds is also tracked. The Columbia fishery has the best ranking for bird interactions with nets – it’s totally a non-factor, as is lost nets on the river.

From a buyer’s perspective, the Columbia River harvest is important because it is composed primarily of Chinook and Coho, two of the preferred salmon in the marketplace. The fish are big because many stocks have to negotiate hundreds of miles of river to reach their natal streams, and they have high fat content, too. That gives them excellent eating qualities. The salmon from the SAFE areas are fine fish, but they are smaller, especially the Chinook – 12- to 15-lb average versus 14- to 22-lb in the mainstem. The fishermen can tell the difference, as can knowledgeable fish vendors and consumers. In addition, the majority of the SAFE production is Coho, whereas most of the mainstem harvest is Chinook – Governor Kitzhaber has not addressed how his plan would overcome that imbalance.

While Puget Sound Coho and Chinook were designated “sport priority” species almost 20 years ago, the Columbia Chinook and Coho are the primary inland salmon of those species that are available via commercial non-Indian harvest. They are local fish harvested by local fishermen and available to local markets in Washington and Oregon less than a day after harvest. That is a huge benefit to the non-fishing residents of both states, especially in light of the recent movement to local, natural foods. To suggest that the consumer should be satisfied with hatchery fish from lower river side-channels, or Alaskan fish, or farmed fish, is a slap in the face to the fish-buying public.

Governor Kitzhaber’s plan does provide for the use of seines in the Columbia by commercial fishermen, but the ability of the fishermen to switch to that gear has yet to be proven on an economic basis, and even in terms of harvest volume. Testing has been going on for three years and the gear does catch fish and allow the release of non-target stocks, but there are issues yet to be resolved. What is the mortality rate for handled and released fish? How many impacts on ESA stocks will be needed by a seine fishery, even if the mortality rate is lower? Where will those impacts come from? How do the fishermen switch to the new gear since very few of the boats used on the Columbia can be converted to seining? And how many fishermen could the seine harvest support? Until questions like those can be answered it is premature to expect a meaningful conversion to commercial seining on the lower Columbia.

Despite the many concerns about the Kitzhaber plan amongst Columbia River gillnetters, it is moving ahead. The ODF&W has agreed to consider it, as has the Washington Commission. A panel of commissioners from both states, along with two sports and two commercial representatives from each side of the Columbia, will be meeting in Olympia on September 21st and in Salem on October 22 to consider implementation. It’s difficult to understand how the Governor’s proposal is the conservation-based plan that will create the salmon recovery he suggests is his goal. It seems more likely that he is attempting to force a political resolution in favor of sport fishermen in a longstanding controversy where the sportfishing industry has been trying to gain a complete monopoly of the non-Indian fishery. The issue has withstood the test of voter initiatives and factual discussion in years past but it’s too soon to know if those facts will play any role in this new conversation.

Columbia River Commercial fisherman and buyer Robert Sudar has served as commercial adviser to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for the last 20 years.

ODFW to Begin Rule-Making Process for Lower Columbia River Fisheries Management Commission Approves Governor’s Gillnet Proposal

By Terry Dillman

Staffers from Oregon’s Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) are venturing into well-charted but controversy-infested waters as they prepare to sail into a rule-making process designed to weigh anchor on Gov. John Kitzhaber’s proposal to reform fisheries management on the lower Columbia River.

The state’s Fish and Wildlife Commission (OFWC) members opted to back Kitzhaber during an Aug. 14 teleconference focused only on the governor’s proposed solution to the on-going, complex and intense conflicts between commercial and recreational fishermen over salmon allocations in the lower Columbia River, as well as with conservation groups opposed to gillnetting. In an Aug. 9 letter to ODFW Director Roy Elicker and OFWC Chairwoman Bobby Levy, Kitzhaber outlined a compromise designed to phase gillnets out of the mainstem Columbia rather than ban them completely.

“Lower Columbia River recreational and commercial fisheries are vital to the social and economic fabric of our state and local communities, providing valuable jobs and millions of dollars of economic activity,” Kitzhaber wrote, noting that “optimizing the economic value of these fisheries within a conservation-based framework” is one of his priorities, although it is caught in the same net as high-profile reform issues such as health care and education.

Brent Brownscombe, the governor’s natural resources adviser, participated in the teleconference, providing an overview of the issue and the governor’s perspective on it and answering specific questions from the commissioners.

Thirteen species of salmon and steelhead within the Columbia River Basin are listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), which means all fisheries face significant limits due to low abundance and required survival of ESA-listed fish. Oregon’s long-term plan is the recovery of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead populations to levels that would support what Kitzhaber called “robust fisheries” across the state. Unfortunately, it has resulted in what the governor termed as “perennial and divisive conflicts” between commercial and recreational fisheries over the allocation of harvest impacts, along with the use of gillnets in non-tribal commercial fisheries in the river’s mainstem.

Attempts to reconcile those differences have proven almost futile, and many observers say Kitzhaber’s directive – based primarily on a compromise that sport fishermen put forward several years ago – is the governor’s answer to Measure 81 on the November ballot that, if voters approve it, would ban all commercial gillnets and tangle nets in Oregon’s inland waterways. Under the motto “for salmon, for wildlife, for jobs,” members of Portland-based Stop Gillnets Now (SGN) and others gathered 142,000 signatures to get the initiative, also known as the Protect Our Salmon Act, on the ballot.

The measure’s supporters say it would ban the use of “indiscriminate” gillnets on the Columbia River, yet still allow commercial fishing using “more sustainable practices,” such as purse seines.

They say it would protect the river’s wild salmon and steelhead, keep tribal fishing rights intact, retain the allocations for both commercial and recreational fisheries, and preserve the commercial fishery through required alternatives, such as seine nets and other selective gear that allows for the harvest of hatchery fish and protects endangered wild salmon and steelhead populations. They point to a 2009 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) pilot project focused on gillnet alternatives, which also included participation by ODFW.

An August 2010 news release from ODFW quotes John North, the agency’s Columbia River fisheries manager. “Development of viable fishing gear that can selectively remove hatchery fish would not only benefit commercial fisheries, but may also contribute to the recovery of wild salmon stocks on the Columbia river by reducing interactions with hatchery fish,” he said.

Kitzhaber’s directive also features the use of selective gear and fishing techniques “to minimize mortality of ESA-listed and non-target fish and optimize recovery.” The governor made it clear that he believes the use of gillnets in non-tribal mainstem fisheries is at odds with that objective.

Brownscombe told OFWC members that while Kitzhaber is not fundamentally opposed to gillnets, “it’s a mater of place” and whether or not the commercial fishery can switch its focus to hatchery fish. The governor said the matter is best resolved by a combined effort by the Oregon and Washington fish and wildlife commissions, not through a ballot measure.

Kitzhaber noted that he wants “a long-term solution to this contentious issue – one that enhances fisheries while minimizing mortality of wild fish to promote fish recovery, honors tribal commitments and optimizes economic benefits.”

“The long-term solution must enhance the economic vitality of both recreational and commercial fisheries, which provide the public with benefits, including recreation, family-wage jobs and businesses, local commerce and export economies, nationally-renowned culinary destinations and the Pacific Northwest’s uniquely high quality of life and culture,” the governor wrote. “Proposals that fail to enhance benefits for both recreational and commercial interests in the lower Columbia within a conservation framework are an unacceptable solution, as is the status quo.”

Finding a workable solution could prove daunting.

Brownscombe said the issue features “no shortage of history and conflicts.”

Both Oregon and Washington initiated measures to regulate the commercial salmon fishery as early as the 1870s, but conflicting regulations often hampered efforts to properly manage the resource. In 1915, the two states forged the Columbia River Compact. Adopted by the US Congress in 1918, the compact made the states co-managers of all Columbia River fisheries. It and the joint management staff from ODFW and WDFW still provide principal management of those fisheries, in consultation with NOAA Fisheries, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Game, the four treaty tribes and the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission. During the ensuing decades, other commercial activities – mining, logging, grazing and irrigation diversions – led to pollution and ever-increasing conflicts with a full-scale commercial salmon fishery.

The river’s salmon fishery now is one of the world’s most highly regulated fisheries, and numerous attempts to reconcile conflicts and resolve the river’s “salmon crisis” via various committees, commissions and councils have fallen short. Oregon and Washington representatives were tantalizingly close to agreeing on new gillnet rules in 2008, but Brownscombe said the effort failed as the process broke down due to escalating tensions between and objections from commercial and recreational fishery groups.

Efforts were scheduled to resume in 2013, but the success of getting Measure 81 on the November ballot spawned an earlier try by Kitzhaber.

Basically, the governor wants to phase out commercial gillnets from the river’s mainstem during a three-year transition (2013 to 2016) and move them into off-channel areas that would be enhanced to raise more hatchery fish for commercial fishermen, who could only fish in the main channel if they use alternative or selective fishing gear. A clear transition period, Kitzhaber noted, “is a central part of this solution…to span the time needed for the new investments in off-channel areas to occur and provide returns necessary to the vitality of the commercial fishery.”

Kitzhaber cited the OFWC as the proper venue to initiate “immediate significant steps” toward that goal.

He asked the commissioners to initiate a public rulemaking process to work toward adopting “a solution that achieves the key elements” of his proposal. He directed them to work with their counterparts in Washington, and to begin the process immediately to complete the needed rulemaking before the end of 2012.

The commission agreed.

Stop Gillnetting Now spokesman Jeremy Wright called the acknowledgement by the governor and the commission “a remarkable change.” While retaining “a healthy and understandable skepticism,” Wright said the group would participate in the rulemaking process.

David Reinhard, spokesman for Salmon for All, an association of gillnetters, fish buyers, processors and associated businesses founded in 1958, also weighed in. He said they need to retain mainstem fishing because off-channel areas can’t be enhanced enough to replace lost fishing opportunity.

Reinhard said they disagreed with some particulars of the governor’s approach, but agreed that the OFWC was the proper venue to pursue the matter. He called Measure 81 “poor fishery management policy” that would cost jobs in Oregon’s commercial fishing industry and deny Oregonians access to Columbia River salmon.

“Measure 81 is about politics, not policy,” Reinhard said. “Collaboration among tribal, sports and commercial fishermen working with state, federal and tribal officials is the best way to develop fisheries policy.”

Terry Dillman can be reached at tdwordwright@gmail.com.

Freezer Longliner Vessel Replacement Issues Face Final Action

Final action is scheduled at the October meeting of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in Anchorage on options to allow larger freezer longliners to harvest Pacific cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands.

Kenny Down, executive director of the Freezer Longline Coalition in Seattle, said in an interview Sept. 17 that he is hopeful that one of these options will pass the council with little objection. “It is long overdue… for safety reasons alone,” said Down, noting that some of the 25 active vessels in the fleet started out as military vessels in World War Two.

Such rebuilding and construction of new vessels, which would be subject to the highest US Coast Guard safety standards, would likely begin in 2013 and most of the fleet would be replaced over the next 15 years, Down said.

While it would not likely be hard to get financing for new vessels, at an average cost of $20 million to $30 million, “we are racing against the clock, because right now interest rates are low, he said.

Vessels operated by members of the Freezer Longline Coalition are currently based in Kodiak and Petersburg, Alaska, as well as Seattle, and operate out of Dutch Harbor. Down said he wasn’t sure where new vessel construction would likely take place, but said options include Ketchikan, Seattle, Tacoma and Portland, as well as the Gulf Coast.

There are three alternatives before the council range for this fleet, also known as hook-and-line catcher processors, outlined in the council’s Sept. 7 analysis for a proposed amendment to the fishery management plan for the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands.

The council noted in the regulatory impact review/initial regulatory flexibility analysis that the goal is to change criteria to allow owners of Bering Sea and Aleutian Island vessels fishing for Pacific cod to replace or rebuild their vessels to a length greater than that specified under restrictions of the license limitation program and the American Fisheries Act.

Specifically, the council proposes to first adjust the maximum length overall specified on the license limitation program license assigned to these freezer longliners. Originally implemented in 2000, each license limitation program is endorsed for management areas, catcher vessel or catcher processor operations, and the Pacific cod fixed gear target fishery, and specifies a maximum amount overall for licensed vessels. Maximum length overall for the license was based on length of the vessel initially receiving the license.

Details on alternatives options and other related issues are at www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc