146 



The Draft Plan's reconiraendations are not consistent with the Columbia River Fish 

 Management Plan (CRFTAP), nor with the legal principles established by the federal courts 

 that protect the tribes' treaty-secured fishing rights. 



Review of the Team's Draft Plan indicates that the Team fundamentally misunderstands 

 the CRFMP and the tribes' treaty rights. The Team failed to recognize that the word 

 "conservation* is a I<^ term of art v^ch has specific meaning and usage in the context of 

 treaty fishing rights case law, but has a different definition in the Endangered Spedes Act 

 These two definitions are not interchangeable. As a result of these misconceptions, the Team 

 made recommendations which would have adverse consequences to tribal, state, and federal co- 

 management efforts. 



The CRFMP was developed by the parties to United States v. Oregon and adopted as an 

 order of the Federal District Court for the District of Oregon in October 1988. Parties to the 

 CRFMP include the United States of America (rgjrescated by the Dqjartment of Interior's 

 Asdstant Secretary of Fish, Wildlife and Parks' and Asastant Secretary of Indian AfEairs; and 

 the Department of Commerce's Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere), the Nez Perce 

 Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of 

 the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Confederated Tiibes and Bands of the Yakima 

 Indian Nation, the States of Or^on, Washington, and Idaho, and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe 

 (subject to certain limitations). " 



Among its purposes, the CRFMP is intended to "protect, manage and enhance the fishery 

 resources of the Columbia River system for the mutual benefit of present and future generations* 

 consistent with the treaty rights and conservation requiiements set forth by numerous federal 

 court decisions such as United States v. Oregon , United States v. Washington and Washington 

 V. Washi ngton State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n . 



The harvest provisions in the CRFMP were developed to assist in rebuilding Columbia 

 River salmon runs, based on estimates of fish production and limits to productivity at the tinie 

 the Plan was developed. The parties to United States v. Oregon recognized that it would be - 

 very difficult to achieve die CRPMP's r*uildirig goals and harvest sharing objectives, unless 

 other land and water management activities that impacted flie fisheries resource were also 

 addressed. The parties therefore pledged to use their best efforts to iat^rale fee CRFMP's 

 goals and objectives into other programs and plans reqtoied by or adopted under oflier state and 

 federal laws. To deal wifli the dynamic nature of the- fisheries resource, flie parties developed 

 a process for monitoring the performance of die Plan and for mo<E^dng its provisions as needed 

 to meet rebuilding and allocation goals. 



Akeyaspectof harvestmanagenientimdertheCREMPisthetribes' voluntary agr^meat 

 to agnificanfly greater harvest restrictions than could be imposed upon tiiem onder case law 

 principles in order to rebuild depressed runs. Thus, any ^milatfr^ ^ changes to harvest 

 management that are not agreed to by the tribes must meet flie standards set forth by the case 

 law. 



