NEZ PERCE TRIBE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (2013)
Tribal code
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
NEZ PERCE TRIBE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Management Plan
2013-2028
Z PERCE
NE
FIS
H E RIE S
Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Department Management Plan · 2013-2028
prepared by the Department of Fisheries Resources Management Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Team
design and layout by Jeremy FiveCrows
completed July 17, 2013
©2013, Nez Perce Tribe
Table of Contents
Introduction
1
Overarching Philosophy
Mission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Plan Purpose and Organization. . . . . 2
Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Guiding Principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Background
5
Fisheries Management with a
Nez Perce Point of View . . . . . . . . . . 6
Management Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Management Framework
Species of Interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Management Areas Within the U&A Area . . 32
Cultural Ethic to Restore and Care for
Fish – Duty and Obligation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Abundance Objectives and Thresholds
for Salmon and Steelhead. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Use of Nimiipúu timpt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Hatchery Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Habitat Condition Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Tribal Fishing and Treaty
Fishing Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Harvest Policy, Harvest Management,
and Harvest Sharing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Tribal Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Dams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Treaty Fishing Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Area of Use and Influence and Usual
and Accustomed Fishing Areas . . . . . . . . . 15
31
Management Objectives . . . . . . . . . 32
Oral Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Tribal Management Area. . . . . . . . . 15
25
Management Process
(Operations). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Fisheries Department. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Management Team. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
History and Geography of the Nimiipúu . . . 16
Decision Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Nez Perce Tribal Government
Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Co-management Forums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Tribal Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee. . . . 21
Fisheries Department
Human Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
The Fish and Wildlife Commission . . . . . . . 22
Employee Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
The Nez Perce Tribal Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Policy and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Public Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
A Closing Note on the
Human Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2013-28 Management Plan
i
Dedication
—·—
The Department of Fisheries Resources Management expresses its gratitude and respect to the
Nimiipúu, to the original treaty signers, to the
tribal leaders, and to the individual tribal members and their families for the stand they have
taken and take today, to exercise the treaty right
to harvest fish, and to the Nez Perce Tribe, as a
nation, for its leadership and co-management
responsibility for the resources upon which the
rights depend. From time immemorial, to the
treaty council at Walla Walla, to the confrontation at Rapid River, to today, it is the strength
and perseverance of the belief in the aboriginal
right and way of life of the Nimiipúu to forever
exist with, and be sustained by, earth’s other inhabitants that drives this program.
ii
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Introduction
T
he Nez Perce Tribe and this Department in particular, can be a
very rewarding place to work. The cause—protecting the resource,
protecting the treaty and helping to restore an environment in which
the resources put here by the Creator can thrive—is a good one. And
the Nez Perce, more than other resource managers, are willing to go
“all in” to ensure that occurs. Persons interested in a natural resource
field, because of the outdoors nature of the work, or the ethic and
appreciation for this natural world, will find a good and strong ally in
the Nez Perce Tribe. This is a good thing; this is good work. It is the
hope of the Department for employees to grow and enjoy their time
here.
1
Introduction
Plan Purpose and Organization
Purpose
This Management Plan is designed to provide
direction to the Department of Fisheries Resources
Management (Department or DFRM) employees
to implement a program consistent with Nez Perce
treaty-reserved rights that will: restore a balance
with nature, bring fish populations and their habitats to healthy conditions, and provide harvest opportunities for tribal members.
The Plan is intended to formally establish and
describe the desired fishery resource conditions and
the management framework that will be applied by
the Department to achieve those conditions. We
believe that communicating the fundamental mission and approach of the Department is important
internally - within the Department and within the
Nez Perce Tribe—and externally, to other fishery resource co-managers and the public-at-large.
The Plan will be applied to management of the
resource in the following ways:
2
ee
It will guide the Department in the development
and implementation of management recommendations and actions;
ee
It will provide a balanced, multidisciplinary approach for making sound management decisions
based on analyses of the full range of options
conducted by a staff having diverse expertise and
experience;
ee
It will provide benchmarks to maintain management continuity over time; and
ee
It will function as an assessment tool for tribal
policy to evaluate the performance of our Department.
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Organization
The Plan is organized as three major chapters:
ee
Background on the Nez Perce Tribe
ee
Overarching Philosophy
ee
Management Framework
1
The Background provides a brief description
of some concepts of the Nimiipúu (meaning “the
People,” or contemporaneously, the Nez Perce), including oral traditions, cultural ethics relative to restoring and caring for fish, and Nimiipúu timpt (Nez
Perce language) focusing on words for common fish
species. A section of this chapter provides information on tribal fishing and treaty fishing rights. Because the treaty-reserved fishing rights of the Nez
Perce form much of the foundation for how and why
this Department exists, a common understanding of
this topic is essential. A description and depiction
of geographic areas specific to the Nez Perce Tribe
and a brief sketch of the tribal government are also
provided.
The Overarching Philosophy chapter provides
a broad brush description of desired conditions, Department operational guidance, and expectations.
Four subject areas addressed are the Department’s:
1
ee
Mission Statement
ee
Vision
ee
Guiding Principles
ee
Management Goals
The Management Framework chapter addresses operations and functions of the Department. It
discusses Management Objectives, focusing on management areas, focal species, and several objectives
unique to and adopted by the Department that are
important for employees to know. These include fish
abundance objectives and thresholds, hatchery objectives, habitat conditions objectives, harvest objectives, and the Nez Perce views with respect to the
Federal Columbia River Power System (dams).
Management Processes are also included in this
chapter, describing how principle components of
the Department operate. Discussion is provided
on the Department, the Department’s management
team, decision framework and co-management forums pertinent to restoring salmon and other fishes
to the Columbia Basin. And finally, this chapter focuses on the human dimension of employment with
the Department and the Nez Perce Tribe.
A fourth component, “implementation actions,” which
would detail specific on-the-ground activities, will be the
primary focus of an Implementation Plan.
2013-28 Management Plan
3
4
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Background
T
he land and its waters define the Nez Perce way. Over the course
of thousands of years, nature has taught us how to live with her.
This intimate and sacred relationship unifies us, stabilizes us, humbles
us. It is what makes us a distinct people and what gives us our identity.
We cannot be separated from the land or our rights without losing
what makes us Nez Perce. We defend our rights to preserve who we are
and what we hold sacred.
5
Background
Fisheries Management with a
Nez Perce Point of View
The Nimiipúu fished, hunted, gathered, pastured
livestock and traded over an enormously broad area
that includes what is today, Idaho, Washington,
Oregon, Montana and Wyoming. This land of rolling hills, towering peaks, prairies, clear mountain
streams, and deep canyons has been the Nimiipúu’s
homeland since time immemorial. Relative to this
extensive area in which they have always lived, the
Nimiipúu have accumulated a deep repository of
ecological knowledge and wisdom concerning the
land, water, and other natural resources. Spirituality and proper respect (in the form of prayer) were
incorporated into every aspect of traditional Nimiipúu life: digging roots, hunting and fishing, weaving, teaching children, or taking sweat baths. All activities were conducted according to the Nimiipúu
belief system (or Indian way of life). The love and
respect for the gifts of the Creator and the Creation
guided Nimiipúu activities to avoid acts of greed
6
or selfishness such that the natural resources were
not depleted. These traditional guidelines have been
learned and passed down over the millennia through
Nimiipúu oral traditions (myths and stories), songs,
prayers, dances, rituals, and ceremonies.
Oral Traditions
Oral traditions are stories that teach many of the
central concepts used in contemporary natural resource management. These oral traditions remind
us that we have a responsibility to the animals, just
as they have a responsibility to us. (Carla HighEagle,
from Salmon and His People. Landeen and Pinkham,
1999). And they are stories about change; some
things are always changing and we must then deal
with or react to the change.
We set the tone of this document with the oral
tradition: “A Meeting between Creator and the Ani-
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
mals” and “Coyote Breaks the Fish Dam at Celilo1”.
These stories provide two central themes. First, is
the idea that animals and humans are fully integrat1
The stories provided here are illustrations of traditional
teaching methods. Flexibility in how a story is told is common and these stories are never ending, allowing specific
points to be shared and taught. We acknowledge that many
variations of oral traditions exist. As such, the oral traditions included in this document may differ slightly from
versions known by some individuals.
ed and connected within the ecosystem; humans
do not exist independent of the world and animals
around them. Second, Coyote is a focal character in
many oral traditions and can be viewed in a sense as
analogous to humans; always messing things up and
having to fix problems created by himself or others.
Our role in caring for animals is demonstrated in
many ways by Coyote.
A Meeting Between Creator and the Animals
On the Clearwater River near Lewiston, Idaho are rocks of all different sizes and forms, but
mostly all round and large. The Nez Perce referred to them as “large animals”. These were the remains
of the large animals before there were human beings. The Nez Perce have always known about the large
animals that inhabited this country as many large bones were found in the ground between Clarkston and
Pasco, Washington.
The Creator called everyone together to notify them of the great change which many of them wouldn’t
survive. The animals that were late to the meeting were turned into stone. The animals that were there had
to qualify themselves to be useful to the human beings as they were going to be naked, and would have a
hard time making a living. Thus, the animals came to be qualified by the Creator. [The storyteller would
describe all animals, including the birds, fish and insects. It was a teaching story to tell how these different
species help each other, and people, to survive.]
One by one the different species came forward. The Salmon and Steelhead came forward and stated
that “we can help the human beings with our flesh.” The great Salmon said, “When we come up the river
we will die, so the human beings will have to catch us before that happens.” “We will come up only certain
times of the year to be caught.” Steelhead said, “I want to come in the winter time with something special.
That will be the glue from my skin. This glue can be used to make bows and spears. I’ll be in the water all
winter long.” So, Creator qualified both the Salmon and Steelhead. Sockeye salmon said, “I don’t want to
be big like the other salmon and I want to be red because I will eat different foods.” Trout said,” I am going
to look like steelhead but I am not going to the ocean. I’ll stay here all year around in the water:” Finally,
Eel said, “I want to be long, and be able to put my mouth on the rocks. I will come up the river every year,
and they can use my flesh for food.” That is how all the fish qualified.
Coyote was last to come out and was not qualified. When you hear Coyote going ‘yip, yip, yip,’ you
knew that he could not even talk. The Creator pitied him and gave Coyote special powers. Creator said
“You will have all the faults and traits that the new human beings have. You will be able to transform and
change yourself and you will be able to get out of bad situations to save yourself.” So Coyote was qualified
but had to be a grey color.
—Modified from Allen Pinkham from Salmon and His People (Landeen and Pinkham, 1999).
2013-28 Management Plan
7
Coyote Breaks the Fish Dam at Celilo
Once Coyote was walking up the river on a hot day and decided to cool himself in the water. He swam
down the swift river until he came to the waterfall where the Wasco people lived. Five maidens had dwelt
there from ancient times. This was the place where the great dam kept the fish from going up river.
While he was looking at the great waterfall, Coyote saw a Maiden. Quickly he went back upstream a
ways and said, “I am going to look like a little baby, floating down the river on a raft in a cradle board,
all laced up.” As Coyote was drifting down the river, he cried”Awaaa, awaaa.” The Maidens, hearing this,
quickly swam over, thinking that a baby might be drowning.
The eldest Maiden caught it first and said, “Oh, what a cute baby.”
But the youngest maiden said, “That is no baby. That is Coyote.”
The others answered. “Stop saying that, you will hurt the baby’s feelings.”
Coyote put out his bottom lip as if he were about to cry.
The Maidens took the baby home and cared for it and fed it. He grew very fast. When he was crawling
around one day, he spilled some water on purpose. “Oh, Mothers,” he said, “Will you get me some more
water?”
The youngest sister said, “Why don’t you make him go and get it himself? The river is nearby”. So the
Maidens told Coyote to get the water himself. He began to crawl toward the river, but when he was out
of sight, he jumped up and began to run. The oldest sister turned and said “He is out of sight already. He
certainly can move fast.” “That is because he is Coyote,” the youngest said.
When the Coyote reached the river, he swam to the fish dam and tore it down, pulling out the stones so
that all the water rushed free. Then he crawled up on the rocks and shouted gleefully, “Mothers, your fish
dam has been broken!” The sisters ran down and saw that it was true. The youngest Maiden just said, “I
told you he was Coyote.”
Coyote said, “You have kept all the people from having salmon for a long time by stopping them from
going upstream. Now the people will be happy because they will get salmon. The salmon will now be able
to go upriver and spawn.
This is how Celilo Falls, came to be, where the Wasco people are today. As a result of Coyote tearing
down the fish dam, salmon are now able to come up river to spawn on the upper reaches of the Great Columbia River and it tributaries.
—Allen Slickpoo, Sr. quote from Salmon and His People (Landeen and Pinkham, 1999).
8
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Cultural Ethic to Restore and Care for Fish – Duty and Obligation
“Fish provide us with both physical and spiritual
sustenance. Other cultures seem unable to recognize
how those two concepts go hand in hand. Instead,
they see them as separate, traditional beliefs on one
side, science on the other. For Indian people those concepts have never been separate. Our fate and the fate
of the fish are linked.”
—Jaime Pinkham quote from Salmon and His
People (Landeen and Pinkham, 1999).
The Creator placed the Nimiipúu here in this
land and instructed them on how to use, honor, respect, and be humbled by it. Because the earth and
its natural resources have always provided for the
Nimiipúu well-being with physical and spiritual
sustenance, the Nimiipúu owe an obligation to the
earth and its resources to protect and preserve them
forever. Future generations will only be able to enjoy
the land and resources if the decisions and actions
that the present-day people, both Indian and nonIndian, are made with sustainability and stewardship in mind.
To use the land and its resources wisely, one must
know of the important intrinsic values that emanate
from them. If people recognize and understand the
interconnectedness of the land, its resources, and
themselves as human users, then it is possible that
a respect and humbleness may transcend from this
ecological wisdom. Our role is to not just use and
maintain this land and its resources, but to ensure
that the ecological cycles are self-perpetuating.
The concept that it is our commitment to care
for the Creator’s gifts so that they are ‘usable’ for the
present and more importantly, for future generations, is captured in the following statement:
“We did not inherit this earth or its natural resources from our ancestors, we are only borrowing
them from our children’s children; therefore, we are
duty bound and obligated to protect them and use
them wisely until such time that they get here, and
then they will have the same obligations.”
—Eugene Greene, Sr. quote from Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (1995).
This underlying ethical philosophy provides a
foundation for all fishery managers to shape comprehensive salmon restoration programs in the Co-
lumbia River Basin.
Consistent with this stewardship theme, the Nez
Perce Tribe has voluntarily reduced fishing on salmon and steelhead that were in decline; it has supported the breaching of the dams so that fish may
migrate up and down the river unimpeded; and it
has instituted scientifically and biologically sound
recovery actions for fish. These actions are all taken
to benefit the fishery resources and the surrounding
ecosystem into the future.
A theme central to the Department’s programs
will be the inclusion of a salmon restoration ethic
that encompasses the following elements:
ee
An appreciation of the earth and its natural
resources;
ee
The duties and obligations in fisheries management;
ee
The concept of future generations; and
ee
Guidance on how to use the land and resources wisely.
All are basic ethical elements that should be
shared by any fishery manager to help protect and
restore fishery resources for broader social and ecological benefits.
2013-28 Management Plan
9
Use of Nimiipúu timpt
It is important for this Department that oral and
written communication utilizing Nimiipúu timpt
(Nez Perce language) will become familiar for internal staff use. Routine use of Nimiipúu timpt will help
teach and preserve this unique cultural aspect of the
Nimiipúu. Nimiipúu timpt for the most frequently
used fisheries words, are provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Nimiipúu timpt (Nez Perce spelling) and
pronunciation guide to common words used in Nez
Perce Tribe fisheries management.
English
Nez Perce
Phonetic
fish (in general)
tsu yem
nah tsoak
Steelhead
cú·ỷem
nacóɂx·
hé·yey
Brook trout
pí·ckatyo
peets cut yo
Coho salmon
k̉ állay
ɂí·sl̉am
ka lie
Chinook salmon
Bull trout
hey yay
ees lamm
Westslope
cutthroat trout
waw̉ á·łam
wah wah
thlamm
Lamprey (eel)
hé·su
haa' sue
Sturgeon
qí·lex·
múq̉ uc
kee lahx
mook ootz
Northern Pike
Minnow
qí·yex·
key yehx'
Water
kú·s
koos
Dry creek bed
wé·le
waah lah
River
pí·k̉ un
pee quoon
Sucker
10
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Background
Tribal Fishing and Treaty Fishing Rights
Tribal Fishing
Nimiipúu culture revolved around fish and water, and many of the calendar months are named
after fish species and fishing times (see Figure 1).
Deward Walker’s (1967) research noted that “…the
Nez Perces were impressively dependent on aquatic
foods in the aboriginal period. For example the Nez
Perces regularly took the following types of fish: Chinook, silver, dog, and blueback [sockeye] varieties of
salmon; Dolly Varden, cut throat, brooks, lake, rainbow, and steelhead varieties of trout; several kinds
of suckers and white fish, sturgeon, squaw fish, lampreys, and an unidentified but numerous minnow.”
Research has been conducted by a number of
people in an effort to determine how many fish were
historically harvested by the Nimiipúu. Two relevant estimates originate from research conducted
by Walker in 1967 and elaboration by Alan Marshall
in 1977. Both used similar methods in determining
number of fish caught and used in 1800’s. These val-
ues are represented as “pounds per capita” at a tribal
population size of 5,000, and while these are rough
figures, they do illustrate the general magnitude of
harvest that occurred.
Example of pounds of salmon used by Nez Perce
using Walker’s (1967) method.
300 fish/day
×50 fishing sites
15,000 fish/day
×10 peak days
150,000 annual salmon catch
×10 lbs. average weight
1.5Mil pounds of fish
÷5,000 tribal members
2013-28 Management Plan
300 lbs. of fish/tribal member
11
Figure 1. Calendar of natural resource use by Nimiipúu.
Marshall’s (1977) research adjusted the fish consumption value determined by Walker (1967). In
Marshall’s (1977) view, the 300 pounds per person
per year is a minimum estimate because more fishing stations were used by the Nimiipúu. Marshall
(1977) estimated annual Nimiipúu consumption at
564 lbs. of fish/tribal member.
The Nimiipúu developed ways to harvest large
amounts of fish (Table 2). These were documented
12
as proven methods to catch the substantial numbers
of salmon and steelhead (as well as other species of
fish) that were indicated above.
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Table 2. Traditional Nez Perce fishing practices.
Season
Species
Spring
Steelhead Headwaters Traps and weirs
of rivers
Summer Chinook
Sockeye
Environment
Lower
stretches of
rivers, lake
outfalls, and
lakes
Equipment
Natural or
constructed
platforms
above eddies,
with spears,
harpoons, dip
nets, and thrown
nets; weirs and
seines; drift nets;
canoes with
spears; stone
walls used to
create eddies
Chinook
Upriver
Sockeye tributaries,
Steelhead lake
outfalls, and
lakes
Weirs
Winter
Salmon
Lower
Steelhead stretches of
rivers
Harpoons
Season
Unidentified
Sturgeon
Large gorge
hooks baited
with lamprey eel
Fall
Lower
stretches of
rivers
Conical fish
traps used with
rock or earth
dams
With such a reliance on fish, it is easy to understand that the Nimiipúu believe that one of “…the
greatest tragedies of this century are the loss of traditional fishing sites and Chinook salmon runs on
the Columbia River and its tributaries…” (Landeen
and Pinkham, 1999).
The Nimiipúu practiced sound fishery resource
decision-making that resembles contemporary concepts or practices commonly associated with conservation and sustainability of a natural resource.
The Nimiipúu governed where fishing occurred,
how many fish were to be harvested, who could participate, how to use the resource, and ways to honor
and perpetuate the resource. Fishing “regulations”
occurred at the local scale (tribal band/clan) according to traditional laws put in place to ensure that vital needs of the people were met and still allow fish
to complete their life cycle. This stewardship of the
resource and underlying obligation was upheld so
that future generations would have the same opportunity to enjoy the natural resources and continue
with the Nimiipúu way of life.
For the Columbia River, where use was shared,
the Nimiipúu relied on a combination of tribal diplomacy, trade and commerce, family relationships,
and intertribal wars to maintain the aboriginal right
to fish. Many of these same factors contribute to the
present-day exercise of the treaty fishing rights held
by the Nez Perce and other tribal peoples.
2013-28 Management Plan
13
Treaty Fishing Rights
The federal government entered into an agreement with the Nimiipúu in the Nez Perce Treaty of
1855. The treaty making was a result of increased
conflict between Indians and non-Indians entering
Nimiipúu and other tribal territories in the Pacific
Northwest. In order to protect their people and their
way of life, the Nez Perce retained a homeland of
approximately 7.5 million acres and reserved rights
they had exercised since time immemorial, while
ceding approximately 5.5 million acres of land to the
federal government.
The Nimiipúu way of life and survival depended greatly on the ability of individuals to fish, hunt,
gather, and pasture animals as they had always done.
With this in mind, these rights were expressly reserved in Article III of the Treaty of 1855:
“The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams
where running through or bordering said reservation
is further secured to said Indians; as also the right
of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places in
common with citizens of the Territory; and of erecting temporary buildings for curing, together with the
privileges of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and
pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land”
— Treaty of 1855, 12 Stat, 957
Arrival of the Nez Perce Indians at Walla Walla Treaty
May 1855. Gustav Sohen.
members will exercise this treaty-secured fishing
right at usual and accustomed (U&A) fishing areas.
During the time that the treaty was negotiated
(and subsequently authorized by the Nez Perce and
United States), the salmon resource reserved by the
Nez Perce came from “…river systems that were biologically functional and fully productive…” (Meyers
Resources, Inc. 1999). The decline of salmon productivity since the mid-1800’s to present, does not
alter, change, or abrogate the Nez Perce treaty right
to take fish. This right to take fish represents an inherent right that the Nimiipúu have held since time
immemorial. The fishing right is as important to the
Nimiipúu today as it was before contact with nonIndians.
The Nez Perce would not have signed this treaty
without first receiving assurances that these rights,
including the right to fish would be protected into
the future. Additional treaties between the two sovereigns have been made, but the reserved fishing
right has remained unchanged since 1855. Tribal
14
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Background
Tribal Management Area
Area of Use and Influence and Usual and Accustomed Fishing Areas
The Nimiipúu fished, hunted, gathered and traded over an enormously broad area. This includes, for
example, hunting bison in what is now eastern Montana and Wyoming (areas referred to as “Buffalo
Country”), and trading with peoples on the Pacific
coast. As a whole, this extensive geographic area has
been referred to as the Nez Perce Tribe’s “area of use
and zone of influence” and is set forth in Figure 2.
Nez Perce usual and accustomed (U&A) fishing
places are best understood as encompassing stretches of the river (i.e. not just specific locations). Usual
and accustomed fishing places may be documented
by a variety of sources such as archaeology, anthropology, ethnography, oral histories, and written
histories. Nez Perce U&A fishing places are located
throughout the present-day States of Idaho, Oregon,
Washington, Montana and Wyoming.
Figure 2. Nez Perce Tribe area of use and zone of
influence including the 1855 Treaty boundary (light
green), 1863 Treaty area (light blue), and Indian
Claims Commission boundaries (light yellow).
2013-28 Management Plan
15
History and Geography of the Nimiipúu
The Nez Perce Tribe’s area of use, zone of influence, and treaty-reserved right to take fish at all
U&A places are best understood by understanding
the history surrounding the Nimiipúu, their lands,
and the resources on which they relied and continue
to rely. This history is extremely relevant to many issues that arise today. While a complete portrayal of
the traditional power of the Nimiipúu and the history of the relationship between the Nimiipúu and the
United States is beyond the scope of this document,
it is important to appreciate the strength and perseverance of the Nimiipúu to protect and preserve
their aboriginal rights and way of life.
By the early 1850’s the Nimiipúu lived in a vast
aboriginal domain (more than 13 million acres) encompassing most of present-day central Idaho as
well as parts of southeast Washington and northeast Oregon, including the Wallowa Valley—while
also travelling extensively to places such as Buffalo
Country in present-day Montana and Wyoming
and to fisheries on the mainstem Columbia River
in present-day Oregon and Washington (as just two
examples). The Nez Perce were “the largest, most
powerful and influential nation of Indians in the
northwest area of the Rocky Mountains.” 18 Indian
Claims Commission 1, 92 (1967).
The United States had cleared title to the Pacific
Northwest as against all foreign nations in its 1846
treaty with Great Britain; however, the United States
shared title with the tribes, who in the words of the
U.S. Supreme Court were “rightful occupants of the
soil, with a legal as well as just claim to possession of
16
it, and to use it according to their own discretion.”
Thus, as a matter of American real property law, the
Nimiipúu had an aboriginal ownership interest in
the land.
The Treaty of 1855
The 1855 Treaty Council at Walla Walla and the
Treaty negotiations reflect the Nimiipuu’s inherent
tribal sovereignty and its rightful “aboriginal title” to
land. At the Treaty Council, the United States sought
to clear title to lands; the Nimiipuu sought to reserve and maintain a homeland (“Reservation”) and
reserve its aboriginal rights and way of life. Many
tribes, in the Treaty-making process, reserved only
10-20% of their aboriginal land (ceding 80% to 90%
to the United States). In contrast, in the 1855 Treaty,
the Nez Perce reserved 60% of their aboriginal land
(about 8 million acres). And, this Nez Perce homeland contained, as the United States recognized,
many of the best fisheries. This is reflected in the
treaty negotiation minutes:
Gov. Stevens said: “Here (showing a draft on a
large scale) is a map of the Reservation. There is the
Snake River. There is the Clear Water river. Here is the
Salmon river. Here is the Grande Ronde river. There is
the Palouse river. There is the El-pow-wow-wee. This
is a large Reservation. The best fisheries on the Snake
River are on it…”
Moreover, in addition to this homeland, Nez
Perce leaders insisted on reserving expansive offreservation hunting, fishing, gathering, and pasturing rights. The minutes of the treaty negotiations
reflect Governor Stevens’ repeated assurances, on
behalf of the United States, that the treaty would
reserve these expansive off-reservation rights to the
Nez Perce Tribe:
“You will be allowed to pasture your animals on
land not claimed or occupied by settlers, white men.
You will be allowed to go on the roads, to take your
things to market, your horses and cattle. You will be
allowed to go to the usual and accustomed fishing
places and fish in common with the whites, and to get
roots and berries and to kill game on land not occupied by the whites; all this outside the Reservation:
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Gov. Stevens said: “I will ask of Looking Glass
whether he has been told of our council. Looking Glass
knows that in this reservation settlers cannot go, that
he can graze his cattle outside of the reservation on
lands not claimed by settlers, that he can catch fish
at any of the fishing stations, that he can kill game
and can go to Buffalo when he pleases, that he can get
roots and berries on any of the lands not occupied by
settlers….
This Reservation is in his own country.”
After gold was discovered on the North Fork of
the Clearwater River in 1860 within the Nez Perce
Reservation, the reservation rapidly became overrun with trespassing miners and entire towns (such
as Orofino, Pierce, and Lewiston) established in
trespass.
The Treaty of 1863
The United States response to this invasion of
the 1855 Reservation was a failure to eject the trespassers and an effort to “divide and conquer” the
Nez Perce people through a new treaty negotiation
that would take 90% of the 1855 Reservation and
create a new 1863 Reservation surrounding only
the Clearwater River and its forks and comprising
770,000 acres. The 1863 Treaty represents a historical injustice (and is often referred to as the “steal
treaty”). However, it is important to understand
that the 1863 Treaty, by its express terms, did not
abrogate the Nez Perce Tribe’s off-reservation rights
reserved in the 1855 Treaty; that is, the 1863 Treaty
was “supplementary and amendatory” to the 1855
Treaty and preserved “all of the provisions” not “specifically changed,” including the 1855 Treaty’s Article III fishing and other off-reservation rights.
combat with local settlers that broke out as Young
Chief Joseph and his band were removing to the
Lapwai Reservation when young Nez Perce warriors
in Young Joseph’s party exacted revenge for past killings and violence, led to the War of 1877. After an
epic war spanning four months and 1,300 miles, including a final battle that took the lives of Looking
Glass and twenty four others in the Bear Paw mountains, a depleted band of Nez Perce, three quarters of
them women and children, surrendered just a short
distance from the Canadian border. Some Nez Perce
had made it to Canada; Joseph and the remaining
survivors were imprisoned for eight years at Fort
Leavenworth and in the Indian Country of Oklahoma and were then sent to the Colville Reservation
in Northeastern Washington and Lapwai, Idaho.
While these Nez Perce were never to return to the
Wallowas, the importance of the Wallowa country
to the Nez Perce has continued.
The 1863 Treaty purported to relieve Nez Perce
bands of their lands, even though they were not represented in the 1863 Treaty and were not signatories
to it. This was particularly egregious with respect
to the Nez Perce who lived in the heartland of Nez
Perce Country—the Wallowa country—and were
led by Old Chief Joseph. In 1873 President Grant issued an executive order setting aside a portion of the
Wallowa Valley as a reservation for the Nez Perce;
two years later it was rescinded. The ordered removal of Nez Perces from Wallowa country, and the
2013-28 Management Plan
17
MONTANA
WA S HIN G TON
18
ty
Trea
55
1863 Treaty
Reservation
Reserva
tion
O RE G O N
ID AHO
WA S HI N GTON
O REGON
Indian Claims
Commission
Boundary
I DA H O
Figure 3. Important Nez Perce boundary areas: Treaty of 1855 reservation, Treaty of 1863 reservation, and
Indian Claims Commission boundary. Green areas are federal lands.
18
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
The General Allotment (Dawes) Act
In 1887, Congress passed the General Allotment
Act, designed to make Indians into farmers and providing every tribal member with a plot of land, usually 160 acres, carved out of the reservation. Land
that was not allotted was declared “surplus” and
opened for settlement by non-Indians.
The land ownership changes within the 1863
Reservation occurring as a result of the Allotment
era did not affect the Nez Perce Tribe’s jurisdiction
within the 1863 Reservation. That is, all lands within
the exterior boundaries of the 1863 Nez Perce Reservation are Indian Country with respect to the
United States and the Nez Perce Tribe’s jurisdiction.
Within the 1863 Nez Perce Reservation, there
are three general categories of tribal lands:
ee
Individual Indian Trust Allotments – lands
held by the U.S. for the benefit of descendents of the original owners of the tribal
allotments.
ee
Tribal Trust Lands – lands held by the U.S.
for the benefit of the Nez Perce Tribe.
ee
Tribal Fee Lands – non-allotment lands
purchased and held by the Nez Perce Tribe
and located both within and outside the
reservation boundaries.
The Allotment Act and era did not alter the offReservation rights the Nez Perce Tribe reserved in
Article III of the 1855 Nez Perce Treaty.
taking of aboriginal lands by the United States without fair payment. Compensable aboriginal title was
required to be based on “actual and exclusive use
and occupancy ‘for a long time’ prior to the cession,
transfer, or loss of the property.” In its Nez Perce
decision in 1967, the ICC made comprehensive
findings based on detailed anthropological evidence
from both the United States and the Nez Perce Tribe,
of the area of “exclusive use and occupancy” and
“aboriginal ownership” – as against any other Indian
tribes2. The ICC determined that the Nez Perce had
“exclusive use” and occupancy of 13,204,000 acres of
land (Figure 3).
As Figure 3 depicts, much of the ICC Nez Perce
aboriginal area is today owned by the United States
and managed by different federal agencies. The fact
that the lands are federally owned is important to
treaty reserved rights in several ways. First, they are
considered to be “open and unclaimed” relative to
exercise of hunting, gathering, and pasturing rights
reserved in Article III. Secondly, the land managers,
as representatives of the United States, have a trust
responsibility to the Nez Perce Tribe; their actions
must recognize the treaties as federal commitments
and their actions must be taken in support of a tribe’s
ability to exercise rights guaranteed in the treaties.
And finally, the lands contain some of the best and
most productive habitat remaining for steelhead and
salmon in the Columbia River Basin.
2
Indian Claims Commission
The Indian Claims Commission (ICC) was created by Congress in 1946 to hear claims by Indian
tribes for, among other things, compensation for the
In a 1994 dispute in northeast Oregon filed in the U.S. v.
Oregon district court proceeding, the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals used the 1967 ICC Nez Perce decision as precedent in ruling that the Nez Perce Tribe has “continually”
been recognized as the entity reflected in the 1855 Treaty
and in which the fishing rights were vested.
2013-28 Management Plan
19
Background
Nez Perce Tribal Government Organization
Tribal Government
The Nez Perce Tribe presently operates under a
constitution and bylaws originally adopted in 1948
and which subsequently have been amended several
times. The Nez Perce Constitution delegates most
governmental function to the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee (NPTEC), which is comprised
of nine tribal members elected for three-year terms.
Three positions on the Executive Committee are
elected each year by the General Council, which
consists of all enrolled Nez Perce tribal members
over the age of 18. Executive Committee members
can run for reelection and serve several terms. The
General Council meets twice a year, in May and
September, for the purpose of hearing reports from
the Executive Committee. Internal Executive Committee elections, for the position of Chairman, ViceChair, and other offices are held during the Committee’s May meetings (Nez Perce Tribe, 2003).
20
As shown in the organization chart (Figure 4),
the Nez Perce tribal governance structure is large
and consists of different entities, boards, and commissions. The four main entities shown on the organization chart are Law and Justice, Legal Counsel, Enterprise System, and Executive Direction. In
addition, Nez Perce Tribal Housing and Nimiipúu
Health are two other entities associated with the
Tribe that have a considerable number of employees.
Their oversight is provided by the Housing Board,
and Tribal Chairman, respectively. The Fisheries
Department is within Executive Direction.
The organization chart for just the Tribal Government (Executive Direction) is depicted in Figure 5. The Fisheries Department reports to the Executive Director (E.D.); the E.D. reports to the Nez
Perce Tribal Executive Committee (NPTEC) Chairman, who reports to the full NPTEC, and who, in
turn, reports to the General Council.
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Figure 4. Organization chart for the Nez Perce Tribe.
Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee
NPTEC has responsibility for deliberating and
taking action on matters that determine tribal policy. All Department actions involving contracts between the Nez Perce Tribe and other entities and
actions establishing tribal policy must be submitted
to NPTEC for review and approval. The process for
doing so is through the NPTEC Natural Resources
(NR) Subcommittee.
The NR Subcommittee consists of eight of the
NPTEC members (minus the NPTEC Chairman).
They meet on the first and third Tuesday of each
month. They consider natural resources related actions, including those brought to them by the Department, the Department of Natural Resources,
the Fish and Wildlife Commission, and the Office of
Legal Counsel. Decisions made at the subcommittee
table are then deliberated at the full NPTEC meeting, which occurs on the second and fourth Tuesday
of the month.
Internally, those actions requiring NPTEC review and approval are submitted from the Depart-
ment Divisions through the Department Manager
to the NR Subcommittee chairman. Due to the
number of actions the Department brings forth, the
amount of review involved, and the fact that two
policy meetings are required for a final decision (NR
Subcommittee and full NPTEC), any action requiring NPTEC approval requires at least a three-week
lead time.
In addition to adopting actions requiring approval, informational items or presentations by
guests can also be brought forth for NR Subcommittee attention. These are submitted as “FYI” items as
part of the Department’s agenda. Briefing materials
for FYI items must be submitted following the same
schedule as action items.
Occasionally, with issues requiring specific
policy attention and focus, special meetings outside
of the subcommittee dates or regular NPTEC dates
can be called at the request of the subcommittee or
NPTEC chairman.
2013-28 Management Plan
21
Figure 5. Organization chart for the Nez Perce Tribal governmental services.
The Fish and Wildlife Commission
The Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission or FWC) is elected by the General Council during the September General Council meeting and appointed by NPTEC. There are five members and one
alternate on the Commission. They meet typically in
the evening on the second and fourth Monday of the
month, but can also meet at the request of a Commission member.
In summary, relative to the operations of the Department, the FWC has several important functions
(subject to the authority of NPTEC to reject or modify any action of the Commission). Below are select
subsections paraphrased from the Fish and Wildlife
section of the Law and Order Code – Section 3.1.11:
ee
22
To promulgate season fishing regulations
and areas and prescribe the manner and
methods which may be used to fish
ee
To establish regulations for the issuance
and use of fishing permits or other related
privileges within Nez Perce territorial jurisdiction
ee
To meet periodically with the Fisheries
Department staff to review department
programs and make recommendations for
needed improvements to the department
and/or NPTEC.
ee
To recommend to NPTEC broad policies
and long-range programs for the management, preservation and harvest of fish.
ee
To provide for the assembly and distribution of information to the public relating to
activities of the Department.
ee
To provide for the conservation, enhancement, and management of Nez Perce fish
resources.
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Department staff meets pre-season and in-season with the FWC to discuss actions and appropriate
updates involving harvest, potential run sizes, and
harvest rates. Briefings to the FWC are also provided
on technical items involving internal activities, intertribal activities (e.g. Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission), and interagency interactions
(e.g. Idaho Department of Fish and Game).
The Nez Perce Tribal Code
Chapter 3.1 of the Nez Perce Tribe Law and Order Code (Code) relates specifically to the regulation of fishing and hunting by the Nez Perce Tribe
and its members. The Code has enforceable legal
status, with adjudication occurring at Tribal Court.
The Code is available on the Nez Perce Tribe’s website (www.nezperce.org).
2013-28 Management Plan
23
24
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Overarching
Philosophy
25
Philosophy
Mission
The Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management will protect and
restore aquatic resources and habitats. Our mission will be accomplished consistent with
the Nimiipúu way of life and beliefs, which have the utmost respect for the Creator, for
all species, and for the past, present, and future generations to come. Our mission will be
consistent with the reserved rights stated within the Nez Perce Tribe’s 1855 Treaty.
Vision
26
ee
All species and populations of anadromous
and resident fish and their habitats will be
healthy and harvestable within Nez Perce
Usual and Accustomed areas.
ee
Sound fisheries and habitat management
actions will be implemented to improve
survival, production, recovery and restoration of all populations of native anadromous and resident fish species and their
habitats within Nez Perce Usual and Accustomed areas.
ee
The Nez Perce Tribe’s leadership in fisheries
and resource management will be recognized in professional and public forums.
ee
The Department shall be proactive in an
ever-changing ecological and management
environment.
ee
Tribal member use of and access to all
treaty rights and resources guaranteed
under the Treaty of 1855 will be respected
and promoted by the Department, our co-
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
managers, and the public at large.
ee
ic resource values and the future state of the
resource for the Nez Perce tribal members
and the non-tribal public.
Educational outreach will be provided that
ensures comprehensive knowledge of aquat-
Guiding Principles
Guiding Principles represent core concepts or expectations that must be maintained and achieved via
management actions. These are “what we keep an eye on” while engaging in our management actions. Guiding
principles are organized under four categories: Cultural, Biological, Social, and Legal.
Cultural
ee
Treaty fisheries must achieve a balance between conservation needs and perpetuating
the run with providing meaningful, desired
annual harvest by the Nez Perce Tribe at all
U&A fishing places.
ee
Tribal harvest recommendations will be
guided by Treaty of 1855 reserved fishing
rights, biological principles, cultural ethics,
and conservation necessity principles.
ee
Apply abundance-based harvest schedules
for fish stocks (hatchery and natural) consistent with the tribal ethic.
Cultural Significance
ee
ee
ee
ee
The traditional way of life for the Nimiipúu
(e.g. gathering, harvesting, ceremonies, and
traditions) depends on continuance of the
circle of life for all native species (plants and
animals).
The rights reserved under the Treaty of
1855 must be protected such that the enjoyment of these rights resembles that envisioned by the treaty signers and Nimiipúu
leaders.
All native anadromous fish and resident
fish have had long-standing cultural significance to the Nimiipúu, including: subsistence value, ceremonial and spiritual value,
medicinal value, economic or commercial
value, and intrinsic value.
ee
Native fish populations thrive best under
natural or normative conditions to which
they are best adapted.
ee
Contributions of all individual components
within the ecosystem (endogenous and
exogenous) are necessary for the overall
productivity, functioning, and health of the
ecological system.
ee
The biological, chemical, and physical interactions within natural productive ecosystems are complex.
ee
Natural ecosystems and populations are
inherently variable and dynamic.
ee
Natural ecosystems have been and will continue to be increasingly stressed and altered
by human activities and population levels.
ee
When historic natural conditions are not
achievable, altered ecosystems should func-
2013-28 Management Plan
27
Minimizing intrusive marking and handling of fish supports cultural and spiritual
beliefs, respect for the fish, and maximum
survival.
Community
ee
Ecosystem Approach to Management
(“Ridge-top to ridge-top management”)
The intrinsic connection between fishing
activities and the perpetuation of associated
customs, traditions, and family history are
essential for maintaining the unique Nimiipúu identity and should be passed on to
future generations.
Biological
Sustainable Harvest
tion adequately enough to maintain harvest
opportunities.
Species Life History Approach to Management
(“Gravel-to-gravel management”)
ee
The entire life cycle of a species must be
successfully carried out (from egg through
adulthood) for that species or population to
persist.
ee
Failure to serve a species' needs, at any life
history stage, can lead to extirpation of
populations.
Adaptive Management
ee
Complete fisheries resource information is
often not available to inform management
and foster policy decisions. In the absence
of complete information, actions shall be
implemented that are most protective of
treaty resources.
ee
Adaptive management generally consists of
monitoring the results of actions, evaluating
their effectiveness, adjusting plans if necessary, and applying new or modified strategies from knowledge gained.
ee
Individual areas and populations have
unique attributes that vary the effectiveness
of management actions. As a result, site
specific management actions, consideration,
and evaluation are often required.
Social
Employment
ee
All employees of the Department are valued
for the skills, attitudes and experience they
bring to management of the resource for
the benefit of Nez Perce tribal members, the
non-tribal public, and the resource itself.
ee
Tribal preference in hiring supports tribal
participation in self-government, encourages tribal members to pursue higher education, and provides a pathway for members
to administer matters that affect tribal life.
The preference granted to tribal members
is not as a racial group but as members of a
sovereign tribal (i.e. political) entity.
ee
Indian preference in hiring within other
natural resources management organizations supports the U.S. Government’s trust
obligations to tribes.
ee
A positive work environment for employees
at all levels of the organization fashions a
culture that values its employees and increases the productivity and quality of employment (NPT Human Resource Manual).
Education
ee
28
Early and continual education (from Head
Start through college and including social,
cultural, and work experience) that encompasses and expands traditional knowl-
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
edge as well as provides environmental
and scientific knowledge will improve the
recruitment of tribal members into natural
resource jobs and careers.
Legal
ee
The right to fish at usual and accustomed
fishing places includes an easement over
private and federal lands to reach these
places.
ee
Tribes have inherent sovereign authority to
regulate members hunting and fishing on
and off-reservation.
ee
Full and equal natural resource co-management responsibility is required to support
treaty-reserved fishing rights.
ee
Federal governmental agencies have treaty
trust responsibilities; their actions must recognize the treaties as federal commitments
and their actions must be taken in support
of a tribe’s ability to exercise rights guaranteed in the treaties.
Treaty-Reserved Rights
ee
Treaty-reserved fishing seasons are considered open until closed.
ee
The Nez Perce Tribe’s Treaty of 1855 reserves the “exclusive right of taking fish in
all the streams running through or bordering said reservation… as also the right
of taking fish at all usual and accustomed
places in common with citizens of the territory…”
ee
The right to fish in common has been determined, legally, to mean the right to 50% of
the harvestable surplus.
Management Goals
The following goals seek to secure the integrity
of populations and habitat features essential to recruitment.
conditions.
ee
The importance of natural reproduction
cannot be replaced but where it is compromised, it may be enhanced with measures of
artificial production.
ee
Achieve and maintain fish abundance in
tributary-specific areas at levels sufficient
Biological
ee
Achieve and maintain diverse and productive ecosystems with species composition
and productivity consistent with historical
2013-28 Management Plan
29
to support: 1) population persistence, 2)
harvest, and 3) ecological processes.
ee
Achieve and maintain fish abundance in
mainstem migration corridors at levels sufficient to support meaningful harvest.
ee
Achieve and maintain adult spawner distribution consistent with historically utilized
tributaries (includes within and across
tributary spatial scales).
ee
Achieve and maintain fish population genetic diversity at levels adequate for population persistence and consistent with historic
conditions.
conditions.
ee
Harvest
ee
Achieve harvest of 50% share of harvestable
fish (including 50% of harvestable hatchery
fish and annual harvest level of natural-origin fish considered acceptable and sustainable).
ee
Achieve tribal harvest in all population areas using traditional gear types and fishing
methods and practices.
ee
Harvest opportunities currently available
will be protected and enhanced.
ee
Mitigation goals must be met.
Physical
ee
30
Achieve and maintain in-stream physical habitat structure and function to support populations self-sustained by natural
reproduction and consistent with historic
conditions.
ee
Ensure passage/access for all life stages of
aquatic species in all streams and rivers.
ee
Achieve and maintain ridge-top to ridgetop physical structure and function to support populations self-sustained by natural
reproduction and consistent with historic
Achieve and maintain historic ridge-top to
ridge-top terrestrial vegetation community
and function that supports all life, such as
water, plants, and animals.
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Management
Framework
T
his chapter addresses operations and functions of the
Department. The Management Objectives section discusses
species of interest and management areas and several objectives
unique to and/or or adopted by the Department that are important
for employees to know. These include fish abundance objectives and
thresholds, hatchery objectives, habitat conditions objectives, harvest
objectives, and the Nez Perce Tribe’s views with respect to the Federal
Columbia River Power System (dams).
Management Processes are also included in this chapter, describing
how principle components of the Department operate. Discussion
is provided on the Department and its management team, decision
framework, and the co-management forums pertinent to restoring
salmon and other fishes to the Columbia Basin. And finally, this
chapter focuses on the human dimension of employment with the
Department and the Nez Perce Tribe
31
Management Objectives
Species of Interest
Management actions and resource utilization
commonly target a single or select number of species. The intent of this Plan is to structure management decisions in a manner that considers implications on the full spectrum of animals and plant
species. For management purposes, three categories
of species of interest are defined:
ee
Full - All species of animals and plants currently
present or historically occurring within the
management area. No species is considered to be
above another in terms of importance or value.
Interactions between species and the environment occur in dynamic balance. It is important
to consider those species present today, as well
as historical species that have been eliminated
or are close to extinction. Missing species have
an effect on the balance and function of the
ecosystem as a whole. Likewise, current physical
habitat conditions affect which species are able
to exist today.
ee
Focal Species – Focal species represent a subset
of animals and plants that are of high interest,
and/or are in need of management consideration and/or are valuable indicator species. They
represent a starting point for implementing
management actions and securing necessary
resources. They do not represent species which
are more important or of higher priority than
others. We restrict focal species designation to
fish species within the context of Department of
Fisheries Resources Management actions.
ee
Exotic Species - Exotic species are invasive
non-native species that pose a threat to the
delicate balance of the full and stable ecosystem
processes. As such, the removal of existing and
preclusion of further exotic species is desirable.
Native species that have been extirpated and
then reintroduced are not considered exotic. Native species that have increased dramatically in
abundance and distribution due to recent habitat
changes are still considered a native species, but
may be aggressively managed as necessary. As
climate change manifests, our definition and
management philosophy may require revision.
Management Areas Within the U&A Area
The identification of management areas is important for communicating goals and focusing work
(although it is important to acknowledge the inherent limitations of such designations)1. As such, watershed boundaries, at the subbasin level, are useful
for delineating management units and management
1
32
“The definition of the conservation unit for Pacific salmon
[and other species], as for any such classification, is necessarily arbitrary. Although tribal perspectives and biological
principles can provide some guidance, ultimately there is
not an acceptable minimum group of animals on which to
target conservation efforts because extirpation of even the
smallest spawning aggregate is unacceptable” (Mundy et al.
1995).
goals within the U&A area. These areas serve as the
core management units for fish and their habitats;
they provide a geographic focus for near-term treaty
fisheries and for preserving genetic and ecosystem
integrity. The Department’s strategy will be to continue to focus on these core management areas and
ramp-up activities for other identified populations
(within watersheds or among watersheds) as available resources permit. Ultimately, recovery and restoration of fully functioning ecosystems is important for all constituent populations across the entire
U&A area.
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Abundance Objectives and Thresholds for Salmon and Steelhead
Healthy salmon populations require adequate
abundance, survival (productivity), distribution,
and diversity. But in the end, robust adult returns
are central to maintaining ecological processes and a
focal point for tribal member and policy level expectations. Although we may focus on abundance for
the management context, we also recognize the importance of productivity, distribution, and diversity.
Abundance-based reference points (thresholds)
are delineated for salmon populations in order to
develop long-term management strategies and to
guide the implementation of short-term management actions necessary to achieve broad and population-specific salmon rebuilding goals. Adult salmon abundance (or escapement) objectives are our
primary measure for quantifying goals. Escapement
is defined as the number of adults and jacks in each
population that return to their river of origin.
Table 3 provides a reference of escapement
and harvest objectives for several focal fish species
by subbasin. These escapement and harvest objec-
tives were derived from the Northwest Power and
Conservation Council’s subbasin planning process.
The Nez Perce Tribe was the lead or co-lead for all
subbasin plans that fell within the Nez Perce ICC
boundaries. The escapement and harvest objectives
that the Department used for the subbasin plans
were originally described in the Tribal Restoration
Plan, Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission, 1996).
In addition to these established subbasin abundance objectives, the Department will consider and
utilize other goals or abundance thresholds as well.
Predetermined thresholds serve as useful decision
criteria that trigger specific actions (e.g. harvest rates
or initiation and management of supplementation
programs). Populations depressed to critically low
levels require more aggressive actions and demand
a more rapid population response than populations
fluctuating at higher, less risky levels of abundance.
Reference abundances or population designations
specified in this section include the designated
Table 3. Summary of subbasin abundance objectives from Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Fish
and Wildlife Program subbasin plans.
Imnaha
Grande Ronde
Clearwater
Species
Escapement Goals
Harvest Goal
Spring/Summer Chinook
60,000
45,000
Fall Chinook
50,000
35,000
Coho
14,000
Undefined
B-run Steelhead
42,000-91,000
25,000-74,000
A-run Steelhead
5,900-10,000
1,000
Pacific Lamprey
10,000-20,000
Undefined
Sturgeon
Undefined
Undefined
Spring/Summer Chinook
5,000-16,000
500-4,000
10,000
2,500
5,000-27,500
1,000-9,050
1,000-10,000 (existing)
200-7,000 (existing)
Sockeye
2,500
625
Coho
3,500
300
Spring Chinook
5,740
>700
Fall Chinook
3,000
Undefined
A-run Steelhead
4,315
2,000
Bull Trout
5,000
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Fall Chinook
Wild Summer Steelhead
Hatchery Summer Steelhead
Pacific Lamprey
2013-28 Management Plan
33
Table 3 (continued). Summary of subbasin abundance objectives from Northwest Power and Conservation
Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program subbasin plans.
Species
Escapement Goals
Harvest Goal
Spring Chinook
119,000-128,000
94,000
Summer Chinook
60,200-126,000
112,000
5,000
Undefined
Sockeye
8,000-44,500
2,000
Steelhead
145,000-192,900
126,000
20,000
Undefined
Pacific Lamprey
Undefined
Undefined
Sturgeon
Undefined
Undefined
Bull Trout
Undefined
Undefined
Spring Chinook
>500
>100
A-run Steelhead
2,000
500
Undefined
Undefined
Spring Chinook
2,400-3,400
1,200
Fall Chinook
2,000
1,000
Coho
Undefined
Undefined
A-run Steelhead
2,200-3,400
700-1,900
Pacific Lamprey
Undefined
Undefined
Asotin
Salmon
Fall Chinook
Coho
Bull Trout
Tucannon
Pacific Lamprey
stronghold, viable threshold, the sustainable escapement objective, and the ecological escapement objective for four focal species, spring/summer Chinook,
steelhead, and fall Chinook. (Tables 4, 5 and 6.)
Designated strongholds represent areas with historic high production, they are focal areas for recent
tribal harvest, and are viewed as essential for long
term population persistence.
Viable abundance thresholds are considered the
minimum size at which a population maintains essential genetic diversity, and at which there is negligible risk of long-term extinction given contemporary
levels of environmental variability. Viable threshold
abundances are 500, 750, 1,000, and 2,000 for spring/
summer and fall Chinook salmon populations, and
500, 1,000, 1,500, and 2,250 for selected steelhead
populations.2 The different sizes reflect the different
intrinsic potentials3 of spawning and rearing habitat
for the populations.
Sustainable Escapement Objectives describe the
numbers of returning adults that would annually sustain substantial spawning as well as harvest for tribal
and non-tribal fisheries. It is assumed that escapement sizes reflecting these values would also encompass healthy tribal and non-tribal fisheries downriver. Sustainable Escapement Objectives were derived
from the aggregate adult return objectives expressed
in Snake River subbasin plans (shown in Table 3)
which are broken out into the tributary populations
themselves. Their abundance also reflects the relative
intrinsic potentials for the given populations.
Ecological Escapement Objectives refer to the escapement level at which sustainable spawning abundance is maximized within a population, the full utilization of available spawning and rearing habitat is
promoted, and the ecosystem-level processes (e.g.,
nutrient redistribution) for multiple species are fos2 See Hatchery Objectives (p. 38) and Sliding Scales (p.39) for tered. Historical salmon and steelhead escapement to
further discussion.
the Columbia and Snake river basins was 8-16 million
3 Intrinsic potential – The estimated relative suitability of a and 500,000 - 2 million, respectively (NPPC 1986;
habitat for spawning and rearing of anadromous salmonid
species under historical conditions inferred from stream CBFWA 1990; Chapman 1986; Fulton 1968). Accordcharacteristics including channel size, gradient and valley ing to tribal knowledge, escapement at those historic
width.
34
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
levels to tributary-specific areas resulted in “fish so identified in Tables 4 through 6 serve as a starting
thick you could walk across their backs” and resulted point until more precise scientific data are available.
in the smell of fish carcasses filling valleys and precluding camping near streams. Ecological objectives
for populations were derived from the aggregate
spawner objectives expressed in Snake River subbament objective of 2,400 to 3,400 and a harvest objective of
sin plans (Table 3) which were grouped by the rela1,200 fish. We applied the upper end of the subbasin plan objective (3,400) as the sustainable escapement objective, which
tive intrinsic productivity potentials of spawning and
includes 2,200 fish for natural spawning and 1,200 fish for
rearing habitats for the populations in each subbasin
harvest. The natural spawner objective of 2,200 fish is then
and then raised by an order of magnitude4. Objectives
raised by an order of magnitude to establish the Ecological
4
For example, the Tucannon River has a subbasin plan escape-
Escapement objective of 22,000 fish.
Table 4. Designated stronghold populations, viable abundance thresholds, sustainable escapement objectives,
and ecological escapement objectives for populations of spring/summer Chinook in the Snake River Basin.
Subbasin
Lower
Snake R.
Grande
Ronde
River
Imnaha R.
Population
Tucannon River
X
Asotin River
Ecological
Escapement
Objective
750
3,400
22,000
500
2,000
10,000
Wenaha River
X
750
1,800
13,000
Lostine/Wallowa River
X
1,000
4,800
36,000
Minam River
750
1,900
14,000
Catherine Creek
1,000
3,000
22,000
Upper Grande Ronde River
1,000
4,100
31,000
Lookingglass Creek
500
1,000
3,000
X
1,000
5,700
38,000
X
750
5,100
14,000
X
2,000
8,600
24,000
X
750
5,400
15,000
X
1,000
6,900
19,000
Chamberlain Creek
750
3,900
11,000
Lower Mainstem Mid-Fork
500
2,100
6,000
1,000
6,900
19,000
Camas Creek
500
3,000
8,000
Loon Creek
500
3,200
9,000
Upper Mainstem Mid-Fork
750
6,100
17,000
Sulphur Creek
500
1,400
4,000
750
5,700
16,000
500
2,600
7,000
Imnaha River
South Fork Little Salmon River
Salmon
South Fork Salmon Mainstem
River
Secesh River
East Fork Salmon/Johnson
Creek
Middle
Fork
Salmon
River
Sustainable
Escapement
Objective
Designated Viable Abundance
Strongholda
Threshold
Big Creek
Bear Valley
X
X
Marsh Creek
2013-28 Management Plan
35
Table 4 (continued). Designated stronghold populations, viable abundance thresholds, sustainable escapement
objectives, and ecological escapement objectives for populations of spring/summer Chinook in the Snake River
Basin.
Subbasin
Upper
Salmon
River
Sustainable
Escapement
Objective
Ecological
Escapement
Objective
500
2,200
6,000
2,000
15,500
43,000
1,000
16,500
46,000
1,000
12,800
35,000
East Fork Upper Salmon
1,000
6,600
18,000
Yankee Fork
500
2,400
7,000
Valley Creek
500
3,200
9,000
1,000
8,000
22,000
Designated Viable Abundance
Strongholda
Threshold
Population
North Fork Salmon
Lemhi River
X
Lower Mainstem Salmon
Pahsimeroi
X
Upper Salmon Mainstem
X
Panther Creek
Clearwater
River
extirpated
Lapwai/Big Canyon Creeks
750
6,600
15,000
Potlatch River
500
5,700
13,00
Lawyer Creek
500
5,500
13,000
Upper S. Fork Clearwater
X
1,000
9,600
22,000
Lolo Creek
X
500
6,600
15,000
Lochsa River
X
1,000
10,200
24,000
Meadow Creek
X
500
3,300
8,000
Moose Creek
X
750
5,000
12,000
Upper Selway River
X
1,000
7,600
18,000
North Fork Clearwater
extirpated
Snake
R. above
Hells
Canyon
extirpated
a Restoration of all populations, including non-stronghold populations, remains the Nez Perce Tribe’s goal for maintaining healthy
and harvestable escapement levels.
Table 5. Designated strongholds, viable abundance thresholds, sustainable escapement objectives, and ecological escapement objectives for populations of steelhead the Snake River Basin.
Subbasin
Lower
Snake R.
Grande
Ronde
River
Sustainable
Escapement
Objective
Ecological
Escapement
Objective
Tucannon River
X
1,000
3,400
15,000
Asotin River
X
1,000
2,000
15,000
1,500
12,100
81,000
1,500
6,200
41,000
1,000
5,700
38,000
1,000
3,600
24,000
Upper Grande Ronde River
Wallowa River
X
Lower Grande Ronde River
Joseph Creek
36
Designated Viable Abundance
Strongholda
Threshold
Population
X
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Table 5 (continued). Designated strongholds, viable abundance thresholds, sustainable escapement objectives,
and ecological escapement objectives for populations of steelhead the Snake River Basin
Subbasin
Population
Designated Viable Abundance
Strongholda
Threshold
Sustainable
Escapement
Objective
Ecological
Escapement
Objective
Imnaha R.
Imnaha River
X
1,000
4,300
21,000
Clearwater
River
Lower Mainstem Clearwater
X
1,500
26,400
45,000
Selway River
X
1,500
32,700
55,000
Lochsa River
X
1,500
21,900
37,000
South Fork Clearwater
X
1,000
14,800
25,000
Lolo Creek
X
500
4,200
7,000
North Fork Clearwater
X
Lemhi
1,000
19,400
22,000
Upper Salmon East Fork
1,000
16,900
19,000
Upper Salmon Mainstem
1,000
21,200
24,000
Upper Middle Fork
1,500
25,000
28,000
Lower Middle Fork
1,500
28,000
31,000
Chamberlain Creek
1,000
11,300
13,000
Pahsimeroi River
1,000
16,300
18,000
Panther Creek
1,000
12,000
13,000
Salmon
River
Little Salmon River
X
1,000
14,400
16,000
South Fork Salmon
X
1,000
17,700
2,000
Secesh River
X
500
5,500
6,000
500
5,200
6,000
North Fork Salmon River
Hells
Canyon
Hells Canyon
extirpated
Powder River
extirpated
Burnt River
extirpated
Weiser
extirpated
a Great uncertainty exists on the historic and current status, structure, and biological importance of steelhead within the Snake
River basin. All populations, including non-priority populations remain the Nez Perce Tribe’s goal for restoring and maintaining
healthy and harvestable escapement levels.
Table 6. Designated stronghold, viable abundance threshold, sustainable escapement objective, and ecological
escapement objective for the population of fall Chinook salmon in the Snake River Basin.
Subbasin
Snake
River
Population
Snake Basin Population
Designated Viable Abundance
Strongholda
Threshold
X
3,000
Sustainable
Escapement
Objective
Ecological
Escapement
Objective
39,110
120,000
Marsing Reach
extirpated
Salmon Falls
extirpated
a All populations, including non-priority populations remain the Nez Perce Tribe’s goal for restoring and maintaining healthy and
harvestable escapement levels.
2013-28 Management Plan
37
Hatchery Objectives
The Nimiipúu have always cared for and ensured
that the fish were abundant enough to reproduce for
successive generations. Today, the Nez Perce Tribe
continues to protect and enhance abundance of fish
through natural production and artificial production in the form of hatcheries. Hatcheries for salmon and steelhead in the Columbia Basin were developed as a necessary mitigation tool to compensate
for the fishery losses that resulted from the impacts
of increased human settlement that began soon after ratification of the Treaty of 1855. Accordingly,
hatcheries represent a promise to those who have
always depended on the salmon for culture, sustenance, and livelihood to replace the fish that are and
were diminished as a result of human development
of salmon habitats. As long as the dams are here, the
mitigation responsibility remains.
In the Snake River Basin, all but one of the
hatcheries (Kooskia), were built specifically to mitigate for the impacts of the development and operation of hydroelectric dams (Dworshak, Brownlee,
Hells Canyon, Oxbow, Lower Granite, Little Goose,
Lower Monumental, Ice Harbor, McNary, John Day,
The Dalles, and Bonneville dams). These hatchery
programs play a very important role in meeting
congressionally mandated mitigation obligations
and treaty trust responsibility to protect and maintain tribal treaty reserved fisheries. The mitigation
obligations associated with the hydrosystem are
substantial and are not contingent upon the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
There has recently been much debate about the
effects of hatchery-origin fish on the productivity
of naturally reproducing salmon and steelhead. It
is important to remember, however, that hatcheries
were built and operated to mitigate for the destruction of habitat which, in turn, drastically affected
productivity. In other words, we don’t have low productivity because of hatcheries, we have hatcheries
because of low productivity.
The Department perspective with regard to
hatcheries is:
ee
38
ee
Hatchery production (including numbers,
release locations, and marking of fish) in the
Snake and Columbia basins is legally mandated
through the court-approved U.S. vs. Oregon
2008-2017 Management Agreement and is inextricably linked to providing treaty harvest.
ee
Not all hatchery programs are the same. Most
hatchery production in the Columbia Basin
occurs for harvest augmentation. Only a minor
amount of that production (approximately 13%)
is specifically intended for supplementation or
recovery of species.
ee
The Department has been a leader in implementing supplementation programs and hatchery reform. Our goals for supplementation
programs are:
¦¦
Increased abundance (both total and natural-origin) and spatial structure,
¦¦
Maintenance of culturally and economically
important tribal salmon fisheries,
¦¦
Contribution to non-Indian fisheries in the
region, and
¦¦
Restored ecosystem processes and health.
Hatchery production, including supplementation, is a key tool for maintaining treaty-based
harvest opportunities. Without hatchery production in the Snake River Basin there would
currently be no meaningful tribal harvest.
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
ee
We acknowledge there are risks associated with
the hatchery tool. However, we are managing
those risks through developing management
strategies such as the “sliding scale” and a rigorous research, monitoring, and evaluation program.
Sliding Scales
The “sliding scale” concept is a tool the Nez Perce
Tribe developed in collaboration with other fisheries
managers and is currently used in the Snake River
Basin for harvest and hatchery management. It is
based on managing hatchery and natural origin fish
to provide for conservation and rebuilding of a local population through 1) meeting natural spawning escapement thresholds; 2) attaining broodstock
needs; and 3) allowing for harvest regimes.
Several populations of Snake River fish are supplemented with hatchery fish from native origin
broodstock. The supplementation effort is intended
to specifically increase the numbers of spawners on
the spawning ground (and not just produce fish for
harvest). Because hatcheries typically produce and
hence return more fish than natural runs, the sliding scale was developed to balance the goals of rebuilding the runs of natural fish while controlling
or minimizing any potential detrimental effects that
may be caused by hatchery-origin returns.
The basic premise of the sliding scale is that at
low abundance levels, all fish (hatchery and wild)
are equal and needed to maintain the population –
whether in the hatchery or on the spawning grounds.
At higher abundances, the influence of hatchery origin fish on the spawning grounds and in the hatchery can be reduced in order to allow the wild origin
fish to have a greater influence on the population.
The management strategy for hatchery- and wildorigin fish relative to acquiring broodstock, composition on the spawning grounds and in the harvest,
is dependent on the number of hatchery- and wildorigin fish predicted to return in any given year.
In addition, taken by itself as a harvest management tool, the sliding scale can call for relative levels
of harvest based on the size of the returns. In other
words, harvest rates would not be a flat percentage
harvest across all levels of return, but would fluctuate depending on the ability of the return to sustain
a harvest. It is important to remember that fish en-
counter significant mortality throughout their lives;
commonly occurring from development in meeting
human needs – electricity, timber, agriculture production, etc. For a fishing-based people, it is the fish
as food that are required to sustain life and thus the
importance of allowing a harvest rate that is tied to
the variability in the runs – whether they are all wild
or supplemented runs. As such, it is conceivable
to have a sliding scale framework that can be tailored to each major population group, or designated
population(s).
2013-28 Management Plan
39
Habitat Condition Objectives
Native fish within the Nez Perce Country depend
on healthy habitats, healthy watersheds, and healthy
ecosystems. At the most fundamental level, both
resident and anadromous species require: clean,
cold and oxygen-rich flows; adequate stream depths
to avoid predation and allow seasonal movement;
physical habitat of sufficient complexity to meet
feeding, resting and hiding requirements for all life
stages; unimpeded access throughout the stream;
nutrient levels adequate to support primary production and prey species; and spawning substrate sufficiently clear of silt and sand to provide for spawning,
egg and alevin survival, and over-wintering habitat.
Water quality is critical. Because fish are coldblooded and rely on their environment for temperature regulation, elevated temperatures can negatively affect growth, immunity, swimming ability, and
reproduction. Sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen
are also essential for fish survival. Excess nutrients
and sediment in streams can reduce oxygen levels
and detrimentally impact native fish populations.
Conversely, the lack of marine derived nutrient input (e.g., from salmon and Pacific lamprey) to inherently infertile streams can hamper and limit biotic
productivity important for food production.
Fish rely on adequate flow and unblocked access
within streams to allow for seasonal migration as
well as daily use of varied habitats. Diverse physical
habitat may include boulders, large woody debris,
root-wads, and stable stream-banks. Healthy riparian areas (the vegetation that borders a body of water such as a stream) and fallen trees (large woody
debris) help provide pools, shade, cover from predators, and habitat for insects and other invertebrates
upon which fish feed. The synergistic effect of key
habitat features such as these are critical to the survival and rebuilding of our native resident and anadromous fish populations.
The health of entire watersheds, from ridge-top
to ridge-top, is important for fish survival because
watersheds contain an interconnected web of life.
Water that falls as rain or snow flows down slope
across the landscape and through the ground before
it eventually enters a common stream or other body
of water. This defines the spatial extent of a watershed. The watershed’s “web of life” is comprised of
40
many elements and impairment of any one element
can destabilize the whole system affecting stream
quality and fish habitat. For example, poorly maintained or densely packed roads within the upper
portion of a watershed can be prone to mass failure,
they can interrupt and channelize runoff, and the
exposed roadbeds (and failures) can contribute elevated levels of sediment to streams, thereby degrading spawning and over-wintering habitat. As another example, anthropogenic activities (residential
development, roads, logging, farming, and grazing)
near streams can reduce riparian areas and the wetlands, diminishing shade, large woody debris, bank
stability, flood attenuation, and runoff filtration.
Distributed across more than 20,000 square
miles at elevations ranging from just over 500' to just
under 10,000', fisheries habitat in Nez Perce country
is located within a wide range of topographic, geologic and climatic regimes. Much of the land within
Nez Perce Country is managed by the federal government. As noted in the section on ICC boundaries, this federal land nexus is critically important to
implementation of treaty rights and to the resource
itself. As a result, the Department has engaged in a
significant body of work on federal lands throughout the U&A areas – implementing more restoration
actions within the Snake River basin than perhaps
any other single entity or agency.
Given the synergistic effect of watershed health
on aquatic habitat quality, the Department employs
a “ridge-top to-ridge-top” approach to restoration. A number of different measures can be used
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
to guide restoration and determine if an ecosystem
is properly functioning. The following matrix (Table 7) depicts general standards that can be used
to assess whether habitat condition goals are being
met in most watersheds. Optimally, habitat conditions in individual watersheds would match natural conditions that existed prior to human impacts,
but this goal is sometimes unattainable due to development and management activities beyond our
control. Given this, and the diversity of landscapes
throughout Nez Perce territory, individual habitat
condition targets may vary from one watershed to
the next. Regardless, our overarching habitat condition objective remains consistent: we are striving to
re-establish properly-functioning, self-sustaining,
healthy streams, watersheds and ecosystems that are
so essential to rebuilding our runs.
Table 7. Matrix of pathways and indicators of properly functioning watershed conditions.
Pathway
Watershed
Conditions
Flow/ Hydrology
Indicator
Properly Functioning
Road Density
<1 mi of roads/sq mi within each watershed (Cottonwood BLM,
Clearwater NF, and Nez Perce NF, 1997)
Floodplain Connectivity
Off-channel areas are hydrologically linked to main channel;
overbank flows occur regularly and maintain wetland functions,
riparian vegetation and succession. (Cottonwood BLM,
Clearwater NF, and Nez Perce NF 1997)
Riparian Areas
Percent similarity of riparian vegetation to the potential natural
community composition is >75% (Cottonwood BLM, Clearwater
NF, and Nez Perce NF, 1997). Extent of the riparian area is at
or near natural conditions as determined by comparison with
historic information, oral histories and/or best judgment based on
soil types (Neil et al 2006).
Peak/ Base Flows
Watershed hydrograph indicates peak flow, base flow, and
flow timing characteristics comparable to a watershed with
similar hydrologic characteristics functioning within its natural
disturbance regime.
Daily flow is not subject to extreme variation (e.g. power peaking).
Channel Conditions
In-stream Habitat
Streambank Condition
Bank stability is >95% for A and B type streams, >90% for C
type streams, and 100% for E type streams (Cottonwood BLM,
Clearwater NF, and Nez Perce NF, 1997)
Channel Geometry
Near natural conditions as determined by comparison to an
undisturbed reference reach with similar geomorphology,
vegetation and climatic characteristics.
Width/Depth Ratio
A channel types <10
B channel types <20
C channel types <40
E channel types <7
F channel types <35
G channel types <9
(Cottonwood BLM, Clearwater NF, and Nez Perce NF, 1997)
Substrate
Cobble embeddedness <20% in salmonid spawning habitat and
<30% in salmonid rearing habitat (CRITFC, 1996) or at natural
levels as determined by comparison to an undisturbed reference
reach with similar stream characteristics and bedrock geology.
Surface Fines (<6 mm)
Pool tailouts and riffles with gradients <4 % are comprised of
<10% surface fines in A and B channel types and <20% surface
fines in C and E channel types (Cottonwood BLM, Clearwater NF,
and Nez Perce NF, 1997).
2013-28 Management Plan
41
Table 7 (cont.). Matrix of pathways and indicators of properly functioning watershed conditions.
Pathway
In-stream Habitat
(continued)
Indicator
Properly Functioning
Large Woody Debris
Near natural conditions as determined by comparison to an
undisturbed reference reach with similar stream characteristics
and natural vegetation community.
Pools (quality and
frequency)
Near natural conditions as determined by comparison to an
undisturbed reference reach with similar stream characteristics.
Macro-invertebrates
(species richness and
diversity)
Near natural conditions as determined by comparison to
an undisturbed reference reach with similar natural habitat
conditions.
Habitat Connectivity Barriers
100% habitat connectivity. Culverts and all other man made
barriers will simulate natural stream conditions, and provide for
passage of all life history stages for all aquatic species and at
least 100-year flow events.
The Lower Snake River dams are removed for the purposes of
allowing the rebuilding and recovery of anadromous fish runs in
the Clearwater, Snake and Salmon Rivers (NPTEC Resolution NP
99-140).
Water Quality
Temperature
Summer Maximum Temperature: 7 day average of the daily
maximum values is <12°C (55°F) in streams which historically
supported bull trout and <16°C (64°F) in streams which
historically supported salmon and/or trout (US EPA, 2003)
Spawning Season Maximum Temperatures: 7 day average
of the daily maximum values is <9°C (48°F) in streams which
historically supported bull trout, <13°C (55°F) in streams which
historically supported salmon, and <14°C in streams which
historically supported steelhead and/or trout (US EPA, 2003)
Suspended Sediment
≤ 10 days ≥ 25 mg/l and ≤ 5 days ≥ 80 mg/l in a one year period
(Cottonwood BLM, Clearwater NF, and Nez Perce NF, 1997)
Dissolved Oxygen
Salmon/Steelhead
Spawning Period
Seven day mean minimum DO >11 mg/l. However, if the
minimum intergravel DO (measured as a spatial median), is ≥8.0
mg/l, then DO criteria is >9.0 mg/l.
Where conditions of barometric pressure, altitude, and
temperature preclude attainment of the 11.0 mg/l or 9.0 mg/l
criteria, DO levels shall be ≥95% of saturation.
Intergravel DO shall not be ≤ 8 mg/l.
Dissolved Oxygen
Bull Trout
Rivers and Streams: DO ≥11 mg/L in the water column at all
times.
Lakes: DO ≥6 mg/L in the water column at all times.
Dissolved Oxygen Cold
Water Aquatic Life
Rivers and Streams: DO ≥8 mg/L in the water column at all
times.
Lakes: DO ≥6 mg/L in the water column at all times.
Total Dissolved Gas
Maintain chronic exposure <103%
Maintain acute exposure <115%
pH
42
6.5 to 9.0
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Pathway
Indicator
Water Quality
(continued)
Escherichia. coli
Properly Functioning
The Nez Perce Tribe has designated all water bodies as Primary
Contact Recreation (Resolution #NP03-136).
Geometric Mean Criterion. Waters designated for primary
contact recreation are not to contain E. coli bacteria in
concentrations exceeding a geometric mean of 126 colony
forming units per 100 m/L based on a minimum of five samples
taken every three to seven days over a 30-day period.
A single water sample exceeding the 406 colonies per 100 m/L
indicates a likely exceedance of the geometric mean criterion,
but is not alone a violation of water quality standards. If a single
sample exceeds 406, then additional samples must be taken
For waters designated as Religious and Ceremonial, the criterion
is a single sample maximum of 100 E. coli organisms per 100
m/L.
Nitrogen-Ammonia
The following criteria are not to be exceeded dependent on the
temperature (in ºC) and pH of the water body.
Acute Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC). The one-hour
average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (mg/L) is not to
exceed, more than once every three years, the value calculated
using the following equation:
CMC=
0.275
39.0
+
1 + 10
7.204-pH
1 + 10pH-7.204
Chronic Criterion (Criterion Continuous Concentration) (CCC).
The 30-day average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen
(mg/L) is not to exceed, more than one every three years, the
value calculated using the following equations:
When fish early life stages are likely present:
(
CCC=
0.0577
1 + 10
7.688-pH
+
2.487
1 + 10
pH-7.688
)
· min(2.85, 1.45·100.028·(25-T))
When fish early life stages are likely absent:
(
CCC=
0.0577
1 + 10
7.688-pH
+
2.487
1 + 10pH-7.688
)
· (1.45·100.028·(25-T))
The highest four-day average within the 30-day period should not
exceed 2.5× the CCC.
Total Phosphorous
<0.03 mg/L (US EPA 2000)
Other Pollutants
including Pesticides,
Herbicides, and Metals
Meets state water quality standards (refer to Idaho DEQ, 2005)
2013-28 Management Plan
43
Harvest Policy, Harvest Management, and Harvest Sharing
The Nimiipúu have always coexisted with and harvested fish. Use
of fishery resources depended upon
the season, species, and tributary
location specific to a tribal band.
This dependence on fish to meet
dietary, spiritual, and basic subsistence needs is still a prevailing necessity of Nez Perce life.
To this day, a “fair share” of the
salmon harvest by the Nez Perce
Tribe does not occur because of
the “takings” of fish by non-Indian activities and development in
the Columbia Basin. The environment and water that support fish
has been altered due to human development and enterprise over the
past century and a half. This human
progress has come at a cost to the fish species and
“salmon people.” Current productivity of salmonproducing streams is much lower than it was historically. Many of the fish species either face extinction
or are in seriously depressed conditions. As a result,
tribal harvest in the present day is only a very small
fraction of what the Nez Perce harvested in the mid1800’s. Although hard to quantify, it is probable that
current harvest is less than 1% of historical harvest
levels prior to the Treaty of 1855.
Now, of course, Snake River Chinook salmon
(fall and spring/summer), steelhead, and sockeye are
all listed under the ESA. The Nez Perce Tribe’s ability to implement meaningful treaty fisheries does
not exist and tribal culture and members have had
to adapt to this forced circumstance. These circumstances have forced tribal fisheries to be concentrated on those specific tributaries with runs strongly
influenced by hatchery programs.
U.S. v. Washington. These principles find that treaty
fishing can only be regulated if the following conservation necessity principles are met:
1. That they are reasonable and necessary for
species preservation,
2. They are the least restrictive available to
achieve the required conservation purpose,
3. They do not discriminate against Indian activities, either on their face or as applied,
4. Their purpose cannot be achieved solely
through the regulation of non-Indian activity, and
5. Voluntary tribal conservation measures are
not adequate to achieve the conservation
purpose.
Harvest Policy
While carefully managed harvest is considered
critical to salmon rebuilding, the Nez Perce Tribe
maintains that some level of tribal harvest should always occur and that treaty fishing is governed by the
conservation necessity principles resulting from the
treaty rights case law, including U.S. v. Oregon and
44
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
The Nez Perce Tribe believes that the conservation burden, and ultimately the contribution to
improving survival and rebuilding the Snake River
salmon and steelhead runs, be broadly and proportionally shared across the human-caused mortalities affecting salmon. Further, tribal harvest is not
to be viewed as a “new” action that incrementally
increases the survival gap of diminished Columbia
and Snake River runs, but rather as a baseline that
the fish runs have always encountered and that the
United States secured by treaty.
With respect to treaties, it must be understood
and embraced by others in the Pacific Northwest
that treaty harvest is a first priority to achieve. The
agreement to guarantee the Nez Perce Tribe the
“right to take” fish was made in 1855. Any later federal action – including the Homestead Act, the establishment of National Forests, the development of
the Columbia River for a power and transportation
system, and the ESA, are pre-dated by the United
States agreement that the Nimiipúu would have the
right to take fish at all U&A fishing places.
Harvest Management5
The Nez Perce Tribe intends to increase and expand the level of harvest or fishing areas for salmon and steelhead at all Nez Perce U&A areas in the
Snake Basin in a way that balances conservation
needs of the fish with the right to take fish. This can
be achieved through a biologically-sound harvest
management philosophy and harvest rate schedules keyed to the status and trends in abundance
and productivity of the fishery resource. Generally,
abundance-based tribal harvest strategies can be designed to account for annual variation in total fish
run size and run composition so that treaty fishery
harvest will not appreciably reduce the ability to collect adequate hatchery broodstock or progress towards natural spawning targets for particular tributaries. This is illustrated in Figure 6.
As returns increase, the Nez Perce Tribe expects
to increase the relative magnitude of tribal harvest
and fishing effort. When there is a low fish abundance or productivity, there will be a “minimal”
tribal fishery. Conversely, when adult runs begin
to meet “sustainable abundance” and “ecological
abundance” objectives, tribal fishery seasons will be
adjusted upwards to “moderate” or “high” levels of
harvest and fishing effort. Within each broad adult
escapement range and corresponding harvest category, the Nez Perce Tribe will determine how many
hatchery and wild fish will be targeted for harvest.
These harvest actions will ensure long-term allocation of adult returns between tribal and state sport
harvest, hatchery broodstock, and natural spawning
escapement requirements.
It is important to note that the graph does not
depict that an increase in adult fish will translate
into an equal increase in harvest (i.e., it is not a linear relationship; the axis values are not the same).
The graph however does portray the tribal philosophy for structuring treaty fisheries based on the relative health of the fishery resource.
Because Snake River fish are listed under the
ESA, the Nez Perce Tribe currently operates treaty
fisheries at very low adult escapement thresholds
5
This section and the Harvest Sharing section focus on
Snake River basin harvest, not on Nez Perce treaty harvest
implemented in the Columbia River mainstem. Harvest
management and sharing for those fisheries are described
in the US v Oregon court-approved Columbia River Fish
Management Plan.
2013-28 Management Plan
45
Figure 6. Magnitude of tribal harvest related to abundance thresholds and objectives.
Magnitude of Tribal Harvest
High
Moderate
Low
Minimal
Extinction
Viable
Sustainable
Ecological
Adult Escapement Threshold
and fishing effort and take levels are thus “minimal”
to “low.” Treaty harvest is still expected to occur
even at these adult escapement thresholds.
Ultimately rebuilding efforts will need to be successful to move Snake River fish populations into
the “sustainable abundance” and “ecological abundance” levels of adult escapement. Eventually, the
goal would be to achieve a harvest consistent with
pre-Treaty harvest levels.
Harvest Sharing
It is well-established that the 1855 Treaty provides Nez Perce fishers the opportunity to take a fair
share (or up to 50 percent of the harvestable surplus)
of the fish passing through or destined to reach its
U&A fishing places. A fundamental element of harvest planning for fisheries that are jointly shared and
managed by the Nez Perce Tribe and the States of
Oregon, Idaho and Washington is to determine and
agree to share the harvest. This section describes
how the harvest share will be allocated for supplemented and hatchery returns.
46
Supplemented Populations Harvest
Tribal fishery managers will first use the abundance-based harvest sliding scales (tiered to the
hatchery sliding scales) to determine broodstock
and escapement needs and the total tribal catch in
each subbasin. Determining the overall Nez Perce
treaty allocation of total harvestable fish in these
subbasins will then be evaluated against the appropriate level of ESA impacts for these subbasins.
A general principle of the allocation framework
is that natural fish harvest impacts are shared between the tribally regulated treaty fishery and stateregulated sport fishery and that the Nez Perce will
always have the prerogative to have some level of
treaty harvest. For purposes of harvest allocation
(between Nez Perce and non-Indian fishers), the
Nez Perce Tribe expects that at all return sizes, the
tribal harvest on natural origin fish will be greater
than that set forth in the state’s fishing regime6. This,
in turn, results in the non-Indian fishers having a
6
The Nez Perce Tribe generally expects that total allowable
wild fish impacts for fishery harvest be determined using
an 85:15 harvest sharing framework (or some similar arrangement) to allocate wild fish impacts between treaty and
state-regulated sport fisheries that occur in Snake Basin
tributaries to achieve an equitable harvest share between
treaty and non-treaty fisheries.
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
higher allocation of the hatchery returning fish (see
Figure 7 as an example of how the Nez Perce Tribe
and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife dealt
with allocation relative to preseason and in-season
management in the Imnaha River in 2010). The difference in allocation is due to differing fishing methods used by non-Indian and Nez Perce fishers. NonIndian fishers are allowed to use only hook-and-line
gear with barbless hooks; while Nez Perce fishers use
an assortment of gear types, from hook-and-line to
dipnets, spears, gaffs, and other traditional gears.
Example: 2010 Fishery Season
Oregon
wild
hatchery
33
370
11
403
total
403
403
50:50 harvest sharing
Figure 7. Example of harvest allocation between Oregon and the Nez Perce Tribe on the Imnaha River
fishery in 2010.
Hatchery Populations Harvest
The Nez Perce Tribe and the other tribal, state
and federal fishery managers develop annual return
estimates of Snake River salmon and steelhead. Most
harvest will target hatchery-origin returns, and those
return estimates are the drivers – although incidental harvest rates on natural-origin returns are also
determined for fish returning to ESA-listed populations in particular. In the simplest situation, with a
fishery on an all-hatchery run, the broodstock needs
for the hatchery of interest are accounted for which
leaves the “harvestable share” of the return. That
harvestable share is then split 50:50 between the
non-Indian fishery and the Nez Perce Tribe. When
the share is reached and updated return information
does not indicate a change from the prediction, harvest by the party reaching its share is closed. Harvest
can continue by the party not reaching its share.
2013-28 Management Plan
47
Dams
The Nez Perce Tribe has taken a strong policy
stance opposing construction and operation of hydroelectric dams because of their effect on salmon
runs. With respect to the four lower Snake River
Dams, NPTEC adopted resolution NP 99-140 which
states the following:
NPTEC Resolution NP99-140
Whereas, the Nez Perce Tribe has relied upon the salmon resources of the Columbia River system since
time immemorial as evidenced by Nez Perce history and legends; and
Whereas, salmon have a vital and primary role [to] the cultural, religious, economic and physical wellbeing of the Nez Perce people; and
Whereas, the Nez Perce Tribe reserved an exclusive right to take fish within the Nez Perce Reservation
and at all usual and accustomed places outside the Nez Perce Reservation in the Treaty of June 11, 1855,
with the United Sates and those rights continue in full force and effect today; and
Whereas, the runs of salmon and steelhead that once filled the rivers and streams of the Clearwater,
Snake and Salmon Rivers have declined drastically and that decline has had a serious and adverse impact
upon the people of the Nez Perce Tribe; and
Whereas, it is recognized that dams have been a major cause for the decline in salmon and steelhead
runs; and
Whereas, it is further recognized that the four dams on the lower Snake River have a particularly significant adverse impact on migrating anadromous fish runs; and
Whereas, scientific evidence and research indicates that the breaching of the four lower Snake River
dams is the only viable alternative that will allow recovery and rebuilding of anadromous fish runs in the
upper Columbia River Basin; and
Whereas, economic analysis reflects that the adverse economic impacts of breaching the four lower
Snake River dams will largely be offset by restored salmon runs and that increased costs to individual
electrical users will be minimal; and
Whereas, it must be recognized that the status quo also has a significant cost – the unavailability of
salmon – one which has been a heavy burden upon the people of the Nez Perce Tribe for many years; and
Whereas, the Nez Perce Tribe views the salmon as an invaluable resource that must be saved from
extinction and restored;
Now therefore, be it resolved, that the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee hereby states its support
for breaching the four lower Snake River Dams for the purpose of allowing the rebuilding and recovery of
anadromous fish runs in the Clearwater, Snake and Salmon Rivers.
—February 23, 1999
48
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
The dams on the lower Snake River and the
mainstem Columbia have had an enormous impact
on salmon and steelhead, and, in turn, on the Nez
Perce Tribe. The Nez Perce Reservation, and many
of the Nez Perce U&A fishing places, in addition
to those on the mainstem Columbia, are above the
eight federal dams on the lower Snake and Columbia Rivers.
The Nez Perce Tribe’s commitment to addressing the impacts of the federal Columbia and lower
Snake River dams on salmon and steelhead is evident in its participation in the efforts to bring these
Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS)
dams into compliance with the ESA. This has included the Nez Perce Tribe’s active participation in
decades-long litigation concerning the impacts of
these dams on ESA-listed salmon and steelhead.
The federal court for the District of Oregon,
like the Nez Perce Tribe, has stated that “rebuilding
salmon to healthy, harvestable levels will come in
large part from addressing the impacts of the downriver dam operations that do the most harm to salmon.” In the Nez Perce Tribe’s view, the Bonneville
Power Administration, the Corps of Engineers, and
the Bureau of Reclamation (and NOAA Fisheries
in their ESA consultation) have put the demands of
river users first and the survival and recovery needs
of endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead
last when it comes to the FCRPS dams. The Nez
Perce Tribe has participated in each round of the litigation involving the operation of the FCRPS dams
and NOAA’s ESA consultations, advancing the tribal
perspective and supporting additional protective actions for salmon and steelhead.
In 2008, the Nez Perce Tribe decided not to enter into an “accord” with BPA, the Corps, and Reclamation, which promised to secure funding to enti-
ties implementing offsite mitigation projects over a
10-year period, because—among other things—the
Nez Perce Tribe was unable to conclude that FCRPS
hydro operations were adequate given the survival
and recovery needs of salmon and steelhead, that
aggressive actions were being taken to address the
status of Pacific lamprey, and that requested silencing of the Nez Perce Tribe’s prior scientific views
and its advocacy for breaching the four lower Snake
River dams was in the best interests of salmon and
steelhead. In 2011, as in 1994, 2000, and 2004, the
federal court invalidated NOAA’s 2008/2010 BiOp
for the FCRPS. The Nez Perce Tribe will continue to
play a significant role in future decisions regarding
the operation of these federal dams.
2013-28 Management Plan
49
Management Framework
Management Process (Operations)
Fisheries Department
This section describes some basic functions
or statistics underlying the Department. It is essentially a “snapshot” in time, reflecting our status
in 2013. The Department’s website provides more
detailed information about our various programs
(www.nptfisheries.org).
The Nez Perce Tribe’s fisheries program begain in 1981 with initiation of stream survey work
conducted on the reservation and funded through
the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and
Conservation Act. Prior to this time, the Nez Perce
Tribe’s fisheries resource support was minimal and
provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the newly formed Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.
Currently, the Nez Perce Tribe has one of the
largest tribal fisheries programs in the United States.
The Department employs 135 to 185 people and the
demographics of the workforce are about 50% Nez
50
Perce tribal members, 5% members of other tribes,
and 45% non-Indians. The Department consists of
seven principal divisions: Administration, Conservation Enforcement, Harvest, Production, Research,
Resident Fish, and Watershed. The office location,
principal division using the location, and number of
staff at the location is shown in Map 1.
The program has approximately 60 biologists or
other class descriptions requiring a professional degree; the majority of the Department’s positions do
not require a degree. A quarter of the jobs are seasonal, occurring only during the field season, and
most of them require extended multiple-day camping in the field where the activities occur.
The pay rate for tribal fisheries jobs is better than
what an individual would make doing the same type
of work with state agencies and comparable to what
they would make for the Federal government (e.g.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or U.S. Forest Service).
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
M O NTA NA
Cherrylane
WAS H I N GTON
Lapwai
Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery
(Production)
16 staff
Administration, Harvest,
Production, Resident Fish
26 staff
Ahsahka
Dworshak Fish Hatchery
(Production)
10 staff
Orofino
Research, Resident Fish
28 staff
Sweetwater
Conservation Enforcement,
Research, Watershed
28 staff
Powell
Watershed
(seasonal)
21 staff
Kooskia
Grangeville
Kooskia Fish Hatchery
(Production)
4 staff
Watershed
4 staff
Joseph, Ore.
Nez Perce Ceded Territory
Production, Research,
Watershed
18 staff
McCall
O REG O N
Production, Research,
Watershed
29 staff
Map 1: Location and number of division staff in the Department of Fisheries Resources
I D A H Management.
O
Because of this, and because of the attractive nature
of the work, the Nez Perce Tribe has developed a
highly skilled workforce engaged in several different
disciplines of fisheries and watershed management.
In addition, turn-over in the Department is not a
significant issue; many employees have worked multiple years and multiple seasons for the program.
The Fisheries Department relies on a host of
funding sources, with most funding derived from
contracts to implement hydrosystem mitigation
actions associated with with Bonneville Power Administration’s Fish and Wildlife Program. (Table 8).
Contracts are developed to address certain limiting factors in the aquatic community. For example,
in response to the loss of runs caused by the mainstem dams, the Nez Perce Tribe employs hatcheries
to produce fish that will return to the basin for the
purposes of harvest and natural reproduction. The
Nez Perce Tribe and the funding entity (in this case
Bonneville Power Administration) determine the
species and number of fish that will be produced.
The responsibilities of the parties (Nez Perce Tribe
and BPA) in producing and releasing the fish are
then articulated in formal contracts.
To extend this example, both parties are also interested in determining whether a hatchery is returning fish and whether those fish are compatible with
their naturally produced counterparts. Accordingly,
a separate contract would be developed to monitor
and evaluate whether the hatchery program is functioning as intended. Such a contract may require
extended periods of field work to trap and evaluate
juveniles migrating downstream (both hatchery and
wild fish), as well as the returning adults.
2013-28 Management Plan
51
In another example, because a dam is a blockage
in the river, there may only be so much modification
feasible to the dam’s structure and its operations to
improve fish passage conditions. Recognizing that
fish passage through mainstem dams and reservoirs
cannot realistically duplicate free-flowing river conditions, the fisheries management entities in the
Columbia River Basin have developed a strategy
to mitigate for the dams and reservoirs by improving off-site, tributary habitat. In this case, various
problems would be identified within the tributary
watersheds in the basin that, when fixed, could benefit the fish rearing and returning to spawn there.
The Nez Perce Tribe and funding entity would then
enter into a contract stipulating the problems (e.g.
road derived sediment or a culvert passage barrier)
to be addressed, the time frame involved, and the
intended results.
Thus, the Fisheries Department “implements”
actions. We are not an academic or administrative
agency (as is a university or NOAA Fisheries, for example), but an entity focused on taking actions: to
improve habitat, to aid fish passage, to produce fish
for harvest and natural spawning, and to monitor
status of the fisheries to determine the level of progress being made. It is important to recognize that the
funding contracts are awarded through a competitive solicitation process; no one “gives” funding to
the Department because it is a tribal program.
The contract funding received is generally allocated similarly among the three largest divisions:
Watershed, Production, and Research. Each has
fairly similar levels of funding and staffing.
There are two programs within the Department that are essential to the exercise of treaty fishing rights, but are not wholly funded as mitigation.
These are the Conservation Enforcement and Harvest programs. The Enforcement program enforces
the Nez Perce tribal regulations regarding the fish
and wildlife portion of the Law and Order Code. As
a sovereign, the Nez Perce Tribe has the ability and
responsibility to regulate the activities of its membership and, in general, the activities occurring on
its lands. Especially with regards to the resource
conservation issues surrounding the exercise of fishing rights, the Nez Perce Tribe must have the ability
to set and enforce its seasons in order to fish without state interference. So it is not only for purposes
of resource protection, but also for the conducting
of its activities as a sovereign that the Enforcement
program and its staff serve a key role.
With the harvest program, there is again a critical touchstone with the legal interpretations of the
exercise of a shared treaty right as a sovereign. Treaty harvest is shared (as described earlier) with the
non-Indian fishers. The Nez Perce Tribe sets regulations and seasons for harvest based on run sizes that
are agreed upon by tribal, state, and federal fishery
managers. Commonly, when one of the parties (tribal or non-Indian) reaches its target harvest share,
that party closes down its fisheries, and affords the
other party a chance to complete its harvest share.
The determination of the number of fish the tribal
fishers have harvested relative to the target share is
made based on data collected by the Harvest program. Consequently, the active implementation of
the treaty language “…in comTable 8. Funding sources for the Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries mon with…” is facilitated via
Resources Management (FY 2012).
data and data analyses derived
from the Harvest program. In
% of
# of
Contract
Contracting Agency
Program
addition, tribal fishing is not
Contracts
Amount
Budget
always conducted in the same
Bonneville Power Administration
32
$16,885,890
81.5%
manner as non-tribal fishing
(different gear types, periods
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
5
$1,241,636
6.0%
and locations of fishing, etc).
Other
10
$792,169
3.8%
As a result, the Harvest proBureau of Indian Affairs
2
$599,328
2.9%
gram has, by necessity, develNez Perce Tribe
1
$512,268
2.5%
oped its own statistically reliable sampling methods that go
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
3
$497,938
2.4%
Commission
beyond “textbook” examples
for non-Indian fisheries comU.S. Forest Service
3
$187,884
0.9%
monly taught in undergraduate
Total
56
$20,717,113
or graduate school.
52
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
General Approaches of the Department (tools in the fisheries management toolbox)
The Nez Perce Tribe is recognized for its contributions in helping conserve and restore important
fish species using a “gravel-to-gravel” approach that
designs actions specific to each life stage of the fish.
Generally, fish management actions occur across
four main elements that affect fish at all life stages:
hydrosystem, habitat, hatcheries, and harvest. Because a one size fits all application of management
tools is not applicable, a varied approach to management action is required. The following section
provides a description of the primary tools used to
address certain conditions
a) Prevention of future impacts to fisheries
resources is just as important as improving existing
conditions. Review of fisheries resource management actions or impacts from others occurs through
program administration by:
ee
Providing support for, objecting to, or
modifying other agency proposed management actions.
ee
Suggesting modification of on-the-ground
human activities (logging, mining, development, road construction etc.).
ee
Recommending or participating in the Nez
Perce Tribe’s litigation as technical support.
b) Modification of human behavior also contributes to the well being of the environment and
its inhabitants. The Department can target three aspects of the human dimension:
ee
Harvest augmentation (most fisheries in
the Columbia Basin today are supported by
hatchery runs of this type)
ee
Supplementation for integrated natural
production and harvest (participation in
evaluating several types of supplementation programs will help guide decisions or
approaches in using the hatchery tool basinwide)
ee
Conservation via captive broodstocks
ee
Germplasm repositories (genebank)
ee
Reintroductions/fish translocation
d) Habitat protection and restoration can be
achieved in numerous ways. The Nez Perce Tribe is
actively involved in restoring and rehabilitating degraded watersheds by application of the following
measures that apply “ridgetop-to-ridgetop” management:
ee
Road obliteration
ee
Culvert replacement
ee
Riparian re-vegetation
ee
Riparian fencing
ee
Flow restoration
ee
Channel restoration
ee
Weed control
ee
Conservation easements
ee
Societal (individual) education
ee
ee
Recommending regulations and
enforcement
Ensure passage for all life stages of aquatic
species
ee
Irrigation screening
ee
Access protection
e) Harvest management tools include:
c) The Nez Perce Tribe is actively involved in
implementing hatchery production programs
for mitigation, reintroduction, and restoration of
depressed salmon, steelhead, and lamprey populations, while still providing for sustainable treaty
fisheries. Not all hatchery programs are the same;
the hatchery tool can be shaped to serve a number
of purposes, including:
ee
Developing run/population-based harvest
targets
ee
Recommend harvest regulations
ee
Recommend harvest closures
ee
Assisting in providing fish for subsistence
distributions
ee
Resident fish substitution (trout ponds)
2013-28 Management Plan
53
Fisheries Department Management Team
The management team under the direction of
the Department Manager guides department operations and management decisions. This team consists
of division and deputy directors from the Enforcement, Harvest, Production, Research, Resident Fish,
and Watershed divisions and the field office supervisors. The management team will also seek and utilize the expertise of all levels of Department staff.
In addition, the management team commonly represents the Department in collaborative discussions
or interactions with representatives of other fisheries management entities or agencies such as BPA,
NOAA, and the Northwest Power and Conservation
Council.
Management Processes
Tribal management processes, including those
affected by the Department, can be depicted as a
three-category hierarchy that includes policy, management, and technical decisions/issues. Decisions
occur at all levels, but the nature of the decisions differs at each level. These three categories of decisional
processes and their components (briefings, recommendations, and decisions) are portrayed in Table 9.
Those specific to the management team are shown
as providing recommendations and advisory roles
to decisions by the Department Manager.
Table 9. Description of roles and responsibly associated with decisions, recommendations, and briefings associated with policy, management, and technical level actions. X = Primary role and responsibly. a = Delegated
or acting authority.
Policy
Decision
Management
Briefing
Decision
Decision
X
X
X
X
X
Manager
X
X
X
Deputy Manager
a
X
a
X
Division Director
a
a
a
X
X
X
a
X
X
X
X
Professional
X
X
X
Technician
a
a
X
X
NPTEC
Subcommittee
X
FWC
Executive Director
Management
Team
Deputy Director
54
X
Recommendation
Technical
Briefing
NPTEC
Recommendation
Recommendation
Briefing
X
a
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Fisheries Department Decision Framework
Exercising adaptive management for fisheries
resources is inherently a dynamic process. Implementing a decision framework relies on defining
management objectives and selecting management
option(s) that are most likely to achieve the objectives. The Department intends to follow eight core
steps in decision making, targeting a balance of program content, management process, and relationships (between co-managers, resources users, and
policy). The steps to follow are:
1. Define the desired resource condition
2. Determine the resource status
3. Identify limiting factor(s) and critical uncertainties
4. Develop management options
5. Select and apply management action(s)
6. Monitor and evaluate results
7. Modify/adjust management action or goals
8. Re-evaluate results
An example of application of these steps is provided in Table 10.
Table 10. Decision framework example for Lolo Creek spring Chinook salmon.
Manage Framework Step
Example: Lolo Creek Spring Chinook Salmon
1) Define desired resource
condition
Adult escapement goals: 15,000 (ecological escapement), 6,600 (sustainable
escapement), 500 (viable abundance threshold). Numbers consistent with Tribal
Recovery Plan and Clearwater Subbasin Plan.
2) Describe current status of
resource
Indigenous Chinook salmon in the Clearwater River subbasin were eliminated
by Lewiston Dam. Spring Chinook salmon reintroduced after removal of the
Lewiston Dam in 1973. Spring Chinook adult abundance in early 1990’s was
less than 100 fish annually, and were mostly hatchery-origin returns.
3) Identify limiting factors and
uncertainties
•
•
•
•
•
Low adult abundance (limited seeding)
High out-of-basin mortality (e.g. dams)
Watershed disturbances (mining, timber harvest, and roads)
Passage/connectivity
In-stream cover
4) Develop management options
•
Hatchery supplementation (parr, presmolt, smolt, and/or adult; local or
aggregate broodstock; acclimated or direct release); harvest management
(take levels in tributary; no adipose fin clipping of hatchery releases)
Mainstem passage improvements (dam removal; transportation; and/or flow
management); harvest management (take levels in ocean and mainstem; no
adipose fin clipping of hatchery releases)
Road decommissioning; reduce suction mining; reduced timber harvest;
livestock ex-closures or reduction
Culvert replacement/removal; Road decommissioning
Stream bank stabilization; restricted timber harvest in riparian zone
•
•
•
•
5) Apply selected management
option(s)
•
•
•
•
•
6) Monitor and evaluate results
•
•
•
•
•
Hatchery supplementation (smolt and adult; aggregate broodstock; direct
release)
US v. Oregon harvest management agreement
Road decommissioning; tribal action regarding support for reduced suction
mining; constructed fence for livestock ex-closures
Culvert replacement/removal
Mainstem passage improvements
Limited ability to access primary spawning areas for smolt releases.
High prespawn mortality on adult outplants.
Unable to collect adequate local broodstock from early portion of run
Successful reestablishment of natural vegetation via livestock exclusions
and stream bank stabilization.
Successful passage of fish through redesigned culverts.
2013-28 Management Plan
55
Table 10 (cont.). Decision framework example for Lolo Creek spring Chinook salmon.
Manage Framework Step
Example: Lolo Creek Spring Chinook Salmon
7) Modify/adjust management
action or goals
•
•
•
Change from opportunistic release of smolts from aggregate stock to
annual acclimated release of presmolts from local broodstock
Marked hatchery releases with CWT only (no adipose fin clip)
Continue and maintain livestock exclusions
8) Monitor and evaluate results
(repeating loop with step 7).
•
•
•
•
Disease (Ick) issues with summer acclimation of presmolts
Low survival to Lower Granite Dam of presmolts
Increased spawner abundance
CHaMP habitat monitoring
The application of this decision framework is often an informal and implied process, but at times,
there is value in labeling and explicitly identifying
the decision points and steps. For instance, explicit
documentation would be similar to what would occur in the Structured Decision Making process recommended regionally by the Independent Scientific
Review Panel (ISRP 2008-4; 2011-25). In addition,
instituting such a deliberate, explicit process would
be helpful in forums involving inclusive participation by scientists, managers, and other stakeholders.
The decision framework aids collaboration in deciee
Harvest limits/closures (annual decision with in-season
updates; three spatial scales –
Columbia, Snake, tributary)
ee
Commercial sale regulations
ee
Prioritization of barrier removal
ee
Prioritization of roads to decommission
ee
Hydrosystem recommendations—flow and spill, configuration modifications
56
sion making by providing informed and transparent
choices which, in turn, can reduce contention and
promote proactive management over perpetuation
of entrenched ideologies (Irwin et al 2011).
The following list describes some decisions considered annually by the Department and tribal policy makers. Upon reflection of the decision framework example presented above, the deciding entities
may choose to apply an explicit decision framework
to help make those decisions more transparent and
documented.
ee
Transportation (barging)
schedule recommendations
ee
Decision to litigate against
or for a specific management
activity
ee
Adult Pacific lamprey numbers
to collect for translocation and
their disposition
ee
Hatchery program—release
date, size at release, release
sites, release numbers
ee
Percent hatchery-origin in
natural escapement (annual
application of multi-year sliding scale, or set percentage for
10-year period)
ee
Pass/keep and trapping rates
ee
Determine which types of studies are conducted and how they
are implemented and coordinated
ee
Decide what type and intensity of management action and
effectiveness monitoring to be
done.
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Fisheries Department Co-management Forums
The Nez Perce Tribe works with other tribes,
states, and federal entities with co-management responsibilities and obligations to rebuild the Snake
River salmon, steelhead, Pacific lamprey, and resident fish to harvestable levels. This restoration and
rebuilding effort operates in a number of management forums and occurs at various levels, including
local, regional, national, and international.
The following Table 11 is provided as a point of
reference for some of the forums related to fisher-
ies resources management in which the Nez Perce
Tribe may interact. This list provides a sketch of the
purpose in the “Function” column and it will change
in time. In some cases, the Nez Perce Tribe may
take issue with the appropriateness of a particular
forum for addressing tribal issues, but this list illustrates that the breadth of co-management issues
concerning the Department is vast. The Department
is continuing to explore opportunities for increased
involvement and effectiveness in advocating the Nez
Perce Tribe’s interests.
Table 11. Entities, forums, and functions of forums in which Department staff may interact.
Entity
Nez Perce Tribe
Columbia River InterTribal Fish Commission
(CRITFC)
Federal Court
US representatives
Canada representatives
Forum
Function
NPT Executive Committee (NPTEC)
Policy decisions on DFRM action items.
Natural Resources Subcommittee
Brief policy decision-makers, obtain policy
guidance, secure approval for action items to
proceed to NPTEC for final decision.
Fish and Wildlife Commission
Fishery management policy decisions.
Managers Meetings
Guidance and updates from Executive Director,
interdepartmental coordination.
DFRM staff meetings
Interdivisional coordination and updates.
Integrated Resources Management
Plan
Department of Natural Resources and DFRM
plan for resources management on the Nez
Perce reservation.
Snake River Basin Adjudication
Funding
Funds proposals related to fish and fish habitat
on an annual basis.
Commission meetings
Joint policy decisions by the four Lower
Columbia River Tribes (Umatilla, Warm Springs,
Yakama and Nez Perce).
Technical Meetings
Technical coordination, background,
and support for management and policy
deliberations.
Umatilla, Yakama, Warm Springs
tribal fisheries programs
Technical coordination on tribal programs and
fisheries issues in common.
US v. Oregon (Policy)
Implementation of the court supervised
Columbia River Fisheries Management Plan
(CRFMP).
US v. Oregon
• Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC), Production Advisory
Committee (PAC), Policy
Committee, Regulatory
Coordinating Committee (RCC)
• Snake Basin Harvest Forum
Joint technical assistance to the US v
Oregon parties for the Implementation of the
court-supervised Columbia River Fisheries
Management Plan. (Description of functions
provided in the CRFMP.)
US - Canada Treaty
• Pacific Salmon Commission
(PSC), Southern Panel (PAC),
technical committees
Ocean fishery and stock management policy.
2013-28 Management Plan
Technical coordination body for Snake River
runs specifically.
57
Table 11 (cont.). Entities, forums, and function of forums in which Department staff may interact.
Entity
Forum
Function
US Congress
Government-to-government
meetings
Funding initiatives, federal/tribal issue
resolution.
US Fish & Wildlife
Service
Government-to-government
meetings
Consultation between policy-level federal
representatives and NPTEC relative to treaty
trust responsibilities.
Lower Snake River Compensation
Program (LSRCP), Boise, ID
Implementation and evaluation of the
hatchery program to compensate for fish
resource losses caused by the construction
and operation of the four lower Snake River
hydroelectric dams.
Region 1, Portland Office
Habitat improvement projects.
Joint-management of Dworshak National Fish
Hatchery and operation and management of
Kooskia National Fish Hatchery. (Snake River
Water Act 2004)
Planning and implementation of Pacific
lamprey conservation actions (Pacific Lamprey
Conservation Initiative)
National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA
Fisheries)
58
Dworshak Fish Hatchery
Joint-management of Dworshak National Fish
Hatchery (Snake River Water Act 2004).
Recovery plans
Developed for resident fish federally listed as
threatened or endangered.
Biological Opinion
Consultation on the effects of activities (e.g.
Federal Columbia River Power System, harvest,
habitat actions, etc.) on federally listed resident
fish species.
Government-to-government
meetings
Consultation between policy level federal
representatives and NPTEC relative to treatytrust responsibilities.
Regional Executive Committee
• Regional Implementation
Oversight Group (RIOG)
• Technical Management Team
• System Configuration Team
• Fish Passage Operations and
Maintenance (FPOM)
Federal Columbia River Power System
operations – includes NOAA, BPA, BOR and
Corps of Engineers.
Recovery plans
Developed for anadromous fish federally listed
as threatened or endangered.
Biological Opinion
Consultation on the effects of activities (e.g.
Federal Columbia River Power System,
harvest, habitat actions, etc.) on federally listed
anadromous fish species.
Mitchell Act Program 1938
Produce fish for harvest and restoration.
Mitigation for Bonneville Dam.
Various subgroups (including representatives
from the above as well as regional
“sovereigns”) convened for purpose related to
FCRPS operations, studies and review.
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Table 11 (cont.). Entities, forums, and function of forums in which Department staff may interact.
Entity
Bonneville Power
Administration
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Indian
Affairs
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Bureau of Land
Management
Forum
Function
Government-to-government
meetings
Consultation between policy-level federal
representatives and NPTEC relative to treaty
trust responsibilities.
Fish and Wildlife Program
Hydrosystem mitigation program developed
under the Northwest Power Act. Principal
interaction is related to contract administration
and implementation project management on
Fish and Wildlife Program actions.
Government-to-government
meetings
Consultation between policy-level federal
representatives and NPTEC relative to treaty
trust responsibilities.
Columbia River Fish Management
Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program—
Research impacts on anadromous fish from
hydrosystem.
Dworshak Dam operations
Make recommendations relative to Dworshak
operations for cooling water temperatures in
the Snake River, also flows reserved to the NPT
under SRBA.
Dworshak Fish Hatchery
Corps funds operations of Dworshak Fish
Hatchery.
Section 203
Tribal partnership program under Water
Resources Development Act.
Government-to-government
meetings
Consultation between policy-level federal
representatives and NPTEC relative to treaty
trust responsibilities.
Fish and wildlife program (Portland
Area Office and Central Office)
Funding relative to implementation of SelfDetermination Act, Rights Protection Initiative
and Tribal Management and Development
programs.
Government-to-government
meetings
Consultation between policy-level federal
representatives and NPTEC relative to treaty
trust responsibilities.
Regions 1 and 6 and 4
Co-management of federal lands and
cooperation on an extensive body of
work—restoration projects, fish and habitat
monitoring, operation of acclimation sites,
facility use, harvest access, and effects
of forest management actions—on the 11
National Forests that the NPT shares a working
relationship.
Government-to-government
meetings
Consultation between policy-level federal
representatives and NPTEC relative to treaty
trust responsibilities.
Various Field Offices
Co-management of federal lands and
cooperation on fisheries and habitat restoration
work.
2013-28 Management Plan
59
Table 11 (cont.). Entities, forums, and function of forums in which Department staff may interact.
Entity
Forum
Function
U.S. Natural Resource
Conservation Service
County or Regional Organizations
Co-management interactions on non-Indian,
non-Federal owned lands to enhance Fishery
related resources.
U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation
Government-to-government
meetings
Consultation between policy-level federal
representatives and NPTEC relative to treaty
trust responsibilities.
Pacific Northwest Region
Involvement in irrigation projects – importantly,
the Lewiston Orchards Irrigation District on
the Nez Perce Reservation. Also involved with
habitat restoration activities in NE Oregon.
Governor/representatives meetings
Provide technical support for NPT policy
representatives on fishery issues.
Idaho Fish and Game Commission
Formal semi-annual Policy coordination
meetings with NPTEC.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
(IDFG)
Co-manager relationship in management of
fishery resources; e.g. hatcheries and harvest.
Idaho Office of Species
Conservation
Administers state share of habitat fund
associated with Snake River Basin Adjudication
State of Idaho
Administers state share of Pacific Coastal
Salmon Recovery Fund
State of Oregon
State of Washington
Northwest Power and
Conservation Council
(NPCC)
60
Governor/representatives meetings
Provide technical support for NPT policy
representatives on fishery issues.
Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW)
Co-manager relationship in management of
fishery resources; e.g. hatcheries and harvest.
Oregon Watershed Enhancement
Board
Funds watershed improvement projects.
Grande Ronde Model Watershed
BPA funded watershed board that reviews and
funds watershed improvement projects.
Governor/representatives meetings
Provide technical support for NPT policy
representatives on fishery issues.
Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW)
Co-manager relationship in management of
fishery resources; e.g. hatcheries and harvest.
Snake River Recovery Board
BPA and Washington funded watershed board
that reviews and funds watershed improvement
projects.
Fish and Wildlife Committee 1980
Northwest Power Act
Fish and Wildlife Program Amendments,
Subbasin Planning, project solicitation and
prioritization, funding recommendations,
briefings, updates and approval of items for the
full Council for formal decision.
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Management Framework
Fisheries Department Human Dimension
The culture and traditions of the Nez Perce Tribe
are deeply embedded within the management of the
Department. As such, employment by the Nez Perce
Tribe and within the Department carries the responsibility to help preserve and promote tribal and
community values.
The Department values and promotes diversity,
teamwork and efficient decision-making for a shared
vision. Our goal is to develop a highly trained, diverse, professional, and effective work force, taking
advantage of new and current learning models with
a commitment to educational excellence within the
Department. We promote tribal member employment as well as career advancement, continuing education, and training for all employees. All employees
have the opportunity to voice concerns and recommendations for advancing fisheries management on
behalf of the Nez Perce and all other resource users.
Employee Interactions
Effective communications and positive working
relationship between Department staff will benefit
from the following commitments:
ee
Being open and honest in our communications.
ee
Treating each other the way we want to be
treated.
ee
Talking to each other; not about each other.
ee
Honoring confidentiality.
ee
Providing a climate where we all have an opportunity for input. All ideas are equal. We take
individual responsibility for participating.
ee
Addressing issues, not personalities.
ee
Respecting and tolerating differences of opinion,
and supporting the Department once decisions
are made.
ee
Accepting responsibility and accountability for
our own actions and inactions, and for the ac-
2013-28 Management Plan
61
tions and inactions of the Department.
ee
Striving to hear what others really mean, not just
the words they use.
ee
Avoiding surprises that catch each other offguard. We address issues before they reach crisis
stage.
ee
Respecting each other’s time and commitments.
We’re prompt and prepared.
ee
Conducting ourselves as the professionals we
are.
ee
Using collaboration to reach informed decisions.
At the same time, we recognize decision authorities.
ee
Respecting and recognizing each other’s expertise and differences.
Policy and Procedures
Employees of the Nez Perce Tribe follow the Policies and Procedures stated in the Nez Perce Tribe’s
Human Resource Manual (HRM) as a condition of
employment. Employees are given an HRM upon
hiring; additional copies can be obtained from the
Nez Perce Tribe Human Resources Department.
The HRM should serve as a tool to help employees
work more efficiently, guide supervisors, and answer
62
questions toward better serving the Nez Perce Tribe
as a whole.
In addition to the HRM governing general employee conduct, project leaders may also develop
procedures that are specific to the safe and orderly
operations of a project. These procedures can be related to operations and maintenance of living quarters (e.g. trailers), operations of four-wheelers or
other all-terrain vehicles, and procedures for safely
working on fish traps. In general, project leaders
should try to make these types of operational procedures as consistent as possible (between and within
divisions as appropriate), such that there is a common familiarity by Department employees about
what is expected while being stationed out in the
field. It is expected that division directors will review
and approve operational procedures for the field.
And finally, directions for how policies in the
HRM should be implemented or directions for how
tribal employees should conduct themselves are
sometimes issued by the Executive Director or Tribal Chairman. Those directions are to be understood
in the parlance of the HRM as “valid work requests
made by one’s authorized supervisor.” Directions
to Department employees are also provided by the
Department Manager occasionally. Those directions
are concurred with or shared with the Executive Director, and again should be understood to be valid
work requests made by one’s authorized supervisor.
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Public Relations
The Department interacts with the public in
many important ways. Our education and outreach
program involves community members of all ages
including students, elders, landowners, and other
agencies. Through education we can change attitudes
and practices, get community members actively involved in our program, and get more accomplished
on the ground. News stories are also widely read or
seen and can be an effective media to get the message out. Our program will:
ee
Focus on the interconnectedness between all
watershed resources and the cultural importance
of fish and other natural resources to the Nez
Perce Tribe;
ee
Educate community members on Nez Perce history, treaty rights, and fisheries and watershed
issues;
ee
Keep tribal members informed on how the Department is advancing fisheries and watershed
issues;
ee
Keep tribal members informed on predicted
returns and expected harvest during fishing
seasons;
ee
Coordinate with other entities to provide workshops to educators, interested public, and partner agencies;
ee
Work directly with schools and/or educators to
determine student/teacher needs and develop
appropriate curriculum and activities;
ee
Provide hands-on learning opportunities;
ee
Provide opportunities to high school and college
students through internships and permanent
work with the Nez Perce Tribe; and
ee
Recruit Nez Perce tribal members currently enrolled in college through personalized advertisement of employment opportunities.
A Closing Note on the
Human Dimension
Nez Perce elder Charles Axtell has his own way of
deciding the success of his tribe’s work to bring coho
salmon back to Idaho waters. And by his measure,
there is no doubt that the work is paying off.
Axtell: “You see a lot of happy faces, they are getting their humor back you know, that’s the way the
Nez Perce has got good humor. You hear laughing especially when they eat, you hear that laughter continuously and that’s really good to me and good to hear.”
—from “Working for Idaho’s Extinct Coho
Salmon” by Aaron Kunz. December 7, 2012. Northwest Public Radio.
2013-28 Management Plan
Z PERCE
NE
FIS
H E RIE S
63
References
Chapman, D. W. 1986. Salmon and steelhead abundance in the Columbia River in the nineteenth
century. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 115:662-670.
CBFWA (Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Authority). 1990. Integrated system plan for
salmon and steelhead production in the Columbia River Basin, 449 p.; Clearwater River
subbasin salmon and steelhead production
plan, 238 p.; Grande Ronde River subbasin
salmon and steelhead production plan, 163 p.;
Imnaha River subbasin salmon and steelhead
production plan, 89 p.; Salmon River subbasin
salmon and steelhead production plan, 383 p.;
Snake River subbasin (mainstem from mouth
to Hell's Canyon Dam) salmon and steelhead
production plan, 81 p.; Tucannon River subbasin salmon and steelhead production plan, 98 p.
Available Northwest Power Planning Council,
851 S.W. Sixth, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 972041348.
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.
1996. Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit Spirit of
the Salmon: The Columbia River Anadromous
Fish Restoration Plan of the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakama Tribes. Portland,
OR.
Cottonwood BLM, Clearwater, NF, and Nez Perce
NF. 1997. Local adaptation of Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for
Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Environmental and Technical Services Division, Habitat Conservation Branch, 1996.
Fulton, L. A. 1968. Spawning areas and abundance
of chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha,
in the Columbia River Basin—Past and present. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep.—Fish.
571, 26 p.
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 2006.
Water Quality Standards, IDAPA 58.01.02.
Available online at http://adm.idaho.gov/adminrules/rules/idapa58/0102.pdf
64
Interior Columbia River Technical Recovery Team.
2007. Viability Criteria for Application to Interior Columbia Basin Salmonid ESUs. Interior
Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team.
Review Draft March 2007. http://www.nwfsc.
noaa.gov/trt/col/trt_viability.cfm
ISRP. 2008-4. Retrospective Report 2007. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon. www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/
isrp2008-4.htm
ISRP. 2011-25. Retrospective Report 2011. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon. www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/
isrp2011-25.pdf
Irwin, B. J., M.J. Wilberg, M.L. Jones, and J.R.
Bence. 2001. Applying structured decision
making to recreational fisheries management.
Fisheries. Vol. 36, No. 3. March 2011.
Josephy, A.M. 1965. The Nez Perce Indians and
the Opening of the Northwest. Yale University
Press, New Haven and London.
Landeen, D. and A. Pinkham. 1999. Salmon and
His People. Fish & Fishing in Nez Perce Culture. Confluence Press. Lewiston, ID
Marshall, Alan G. 1977. Nez Perce Social Groups:
An Ecological Interpretation: Ph.D. Dissertation in Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Meyer Resources, 1999. Tribal Circumstances and
Impacts of the Lower Snake River Project on
the Nez Perce, Yakama, Umatilla, Warm Springs
and Shoshone Bannock Tribes. Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.
Mundy, P.R., T.W.H. Backman, and J.M. Berkson.
1995. Selection of conservation units for Pacific
salmon: Lessons from the Columbia River. Pages 28-38 in J. L. Nielsen, editor. Evolution and
the aquatic ecosystem: Defining unique unites
in population conservation. American Fisheries
Society Symposium 17, Bethesda, Maryland.
Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management
Nez Perce Tribe. 2003. Treaties. Nez Perce Perspective. Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management Program in association with
the United States Department of Energy and
Confluence Press. Confluence Press. Lewiston,
Idaho.
Nez Perce Tribe, Department of Fisheries Resource
Management-Watershed Division.
2006. Riparian Buffer Recommendations for
Northern Idaho Based on the Best Available
Science.
nomic Resources in the Plateau: An example
from Aboriginal Nez Perce Fishing Practices.
Pullman, Washington: Washington State University Laboratory of Anthropology. No. 41.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2002.
Evaluating Criteria for the Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life in Washington Surface Water Quality Standards, Dissolved Oxygen, Draft
Discussion Paper and Literature Summary,
00-10-071. Available online at http://www.ecy.
wa.gov/pubs/0010071.pdf
NPPC (Northwest Power and Planning Council).
1986. Compilation of Information on Salmon
and Steelhead losses in the Columbia River
Basin. 850 S.W. Broadway, Suite 1100 Portland,
Oregon 97205. http://www.nwcouncil.org/
library/2000/2000-19/TechAppF/losses_part1.
United State Environmental Protection Agency.
2000. Ambient Water quality Criteria Recommendation – Rivers and Streams in Nutrient
Ecoregion III, EPA 822-B-00-016.
United State Environmental Protection Agency.
2003. EPA Region 10 Guidance for Pacific
Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water
Quality Standards, 910-B-03-002. Available
online at http://www.epa.gov/r10earth/temperature.htm
Walker, D. 1967. Mutual Cross-Utilization of Eco-
2013-28 Management Plan
65
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.