Commercial fishermen hurt by funding cut to SAFE area fisheriesSubscriber Exclusive

A program designed to help commercial fishing on the Columbia River while also helping endangered salmon may no longer be safe. On June 18, the Bonneville Power Administration wrote a letter to state agencies saying it would no longer continue to help fund the Select Area Fisheries Enhancement (SAFE) salmon fisheries that take place near the mouth of the Columbia River. The BPA had promised to spend $2.4 million on the program as recently as Feb. 27. This decision surprised officials at the Oregon and Washington departments of fish and wildlife, and everyone else involved with the program. The SAFE area fisheries were started in 1993 to increase the harvest of salmon in the lower Columbia River for commercial fishermen, without placing additional strain on endangered runs of salmon in the river’s main stem. However, Jason Sweet, BPA’s fish and wildlife program executive director, reported that the agency did not see that effort as applicable to the conservation of Endangered Species Act-listed stocks, which use the main stem. “The off-channel fisheries supported by the SAFE program have increased commercial and recreational harvest opportunities, but there is no direct evidence that such increased off-channel harvest has resulted in reduced harvest impacts on weak and ESA-listed stocks in the mixed-stock fisheries on the main stem,” Sweet wrote. Tucker Jones, manager of Oregon’s Ocean Salmon & Columbia River Program, said “This totally caught us off guard. The first moment that we knew that there wasn’t going to be next year is when we received the letter.” Jones explained that without that funding, the program is unsustainable. “The BPA funds between 35 and 40 percent of the program,” he said. “That’s not quite half, but it is a critical piece. It’s foundational to the program.” Jones said that money funds a lot of the program, including hatchery operations, and the lion’s share of the net pen operations. “And, without the net pens operating, it’s really difficult to do anything,” Jones said. “The net pens allow a lot of flexibility to expand our production capabilities, and it allows us to have those terminal areas so the fish come back.” Many of the program’s young salmon are produced at hatcheries elsewhere, and then trucked to net pens in Youngs Bay and other SAFE areas. They imprint on the bays and sloughs so they will return there as adults. Commercial fishermen net the fish within the SAFE areas, and those fish fuel the local economies. Jones also takes umbrage with the claims made by the BPA as to why they are canceling the program’s funding. “Bonneville makes a lot of claims in their letter about why they are pulling back,” Jones said. “Fundamentally they say that it hasn’t contributed to the conservation of upriver stocks. I would say that is not the primary purpose of this program, and that it never was. It’s a mitigation program, not a conservation program.” The BPA was given a mandate to provide salmon to mitigate the reduction in habitat caused by the extensive system of reservoirs and dams on the Columbia. “But even if you were thinking about it conservation-wise, they missed the mark on that as well,” Jones said. He explained that by holding these fisheries off the main channel, commercial fishers do not encounter the stocks listed as endangered or threatened in the main stem, reducing the impacts to those listed stocks. Without the SAFE areas, there would be far fewer fish available to commercial and recreational fishers. “If we were to terminate the program, and return to commercial spring chinook fisheries (on the main stem), we would definitely need more impacts than we are currently allocated,” Jones said. He said the nontreaty (commercial) fisheries have come in under their ESA impact limit every year for spring chinook. That would not be possible if there was a return to main stem fishing. Effect on local communities Jim Wells currently serves as president of Salmon for All, a commercial fishing advocacy group based in Astoria, Ore. While the association lobbies for commercial fishermen, and the SAFE program, he points out that a lot of the fish produced are being caught by recreational anglers. “Thirty-four percent of the fish produced by the program end up being caught by recreational anglers,” Wells said. “That’s both in-river, and in the ocean,” He also points to the program’s long reach, which stretches far beyond the local area. “Fish releases from SAFE areas get caught from the southern Oregon Coast all the way up to southeast Alaska,” he said. “Both coho and chinook. The coho go south, and the chinook go north.” “We raise fall chinook,” continued Wells, “and those fish are often caught in the troll fishery in southeast Alaska. It’s got an economic range that is far-reaching.” The program’s effect is essential to local communities. “It’s really important for us here,” he said. “We are releasing about 9.5 million smolts and that helps both commercial and sport fishermen.” Buzz Ramsey of Lyle is an iconic figure in the local fishing scene, and a member of the Sport Fishing Industry Association. He said this decision holds a spotlight to the BPA’s regard for salmon. “Well, it’s just an example of the BPA being unfriendly towards salmon, again,” said Ramsey, “and I think the states need to sue them. That’s the only thing they are going to react to.” Wells referred to the plan put forth by former Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber, which was designed to boost smolt production within the SAFE areas, and move the commercial fleet off the main stem. That agreement accomplished its goal of reducing the fleet’s impact on the Columbia. However, the commercial fishers were allowed back on the main stem for fall chinook and coho, a decision that has not set well with sport anglers. Before the Kitzhaber plan, the main stem catch by the fleet was about 65 percent of the total. That equation has been reversed, and it is now 65 percent in the SAFE areas. What’s next Right now, the states, Salmon for All, and recreational anglers’ associations are all looking for ways to either reverse this decision, or come up with additional funding. That is a tall order, and the clock is ticking. Right now, the fish scheduled for release next spring are already in production. “We have fish in the hopper, so to speak,” Jones said. “They are scheduled to be released in the spring of 2027, and unless something happens in regards to funding, we would not have funds available for those. “It is my hope that we can figure something out with Bonneville so we do not have to either kill fish or release them six months early. That’s basically the same thing as killing them,” he added. If released prematurely, few of those fish would survive to return to the river as adults. The states are not wasting time. “We are talking internally, we are talking with the Clatsop County Fisheries, the industry leaders within the commercial industry, and with the recreational industry,” Jones said. “We’re talking with our delegation, we are talking with the governor’s office, and we’re talking internally about how to deal with this.” The governors of both states have sent a joint letter to the BPA imploring them to reverse this decision. However, Wells thinks to get the attention of the BPA, there needs to be a federal response. He is hoping both state’s senators step in to help. “A letter signed from both governors is gold,” said Wells, “but how much weight does that hold with the feds? I don’t know. We need a federal response here.” Other states are also chiming in. “The Alaska governor wants to know what is going on,” added Wells. “They realize that these fish partially fund their fisheries up there.” Wells is understandably upset about the impact this would have on the local commercial fisherman. “We have a lot of younger guys in this fishery, guys with families,” he said. “They are investing in new boats and equipment. They have got a real investment in this thing, and they are going to really get hurt. “They are young guys that work hard and are trying to move up. They are willing to work, and to try and take something like this away from them? What do they want them to do? Put a can on the street and beg?” Wells looks at the funding shortfall of $2.4 million, and wonders why that small an amount cannot be found within a well-funded federal agency. “It’s $2.4 million. A federal agency can’t afford that?” Wells asks. “We spend $16 million on a reflecting pool, but we can’t find $2.4 million for working families?” He is not the only one wondering that right now.

Related Stories