Pacific Council adopts 2025 ocean salmon management alternatives for public review after multi-state, tribal and public debate

The Pacific Fishery Management Council on March 11 adopted proposed 2025 ocean salmon fishery management alternatives for public review after hearing technical analysis, tribal testimony, advisory-subpanel reports and public comment.

Council staff presented agenda item E7, outlining that the council would review the supplemental Salmon Technical Team (STT) report and advisory and tribal comments, then adopt alternatives for public review and identify any that might require emergency rule implementation. The STT told the council that some stocks are not meeting management measures and that further modeling inputs from Canada and Alaska could change impacts before final decisions in April.

Why it matters: The alternatives the council advanced will shape preseason public review and in-season options that managers and states use to design commercial and recreational salmon seasons. Tribal representatives told the council that ocean allocations must reflect treaty sharing agreements and long-standing restoration needs, and several public and advisory speakers urged conservative measures to protect at-risk stocks.

Body

STT analysis and technical warnings Angela Forstall, presenting agenda E7, told the council the adopted alternatives should strive to meet Fishery Management Plan objectives and that the council would further modify options at the April meeting if necessary. Dr. Michael O'Farrell of the Salmon Technical Team summarized Supplemental STT Report 1 and warned that “a small number of stocks” are not meeting management measures under current analyses and that continued modeling after the meeting (including Canadian and Alaska inputs) could change impact estimates.

Tribal testimony and concerns Wilbur Slockeys Jr., representing the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission and the Yakima Nation, urged the council to weigh U.S. v. Oregon allocations and treaty-reserved needs in decisions. He described cultural losses associated with damming and argued that current conservation measures and mitigation have not restored runs to levels that meet tribal treaty expectations. “We still face an unacceptable conservation burden,” Slockeys said, asking the council to account for tribal needs and the long-term work needed to rebuild runs.

Cindy Marchand, representing the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, told the council that Alternative 1 allocates an ocean harvest for Upper Columbia summer Chinook she said was “not acceptable” to the Colville tribes, citing model runs that produced allocations as low as 779 fish under one scenario and saying alternatives 2 or 3 would better preserve spawning abundance.

Advisory panel input and public comment Don Burnett (Salmon Advisory Subpanel) asked NOAA Fisheries for information on predation by sea lions and birds, saying predation poses “an increasing impact” on recovery efforts. Members of the Salmon Advisory Subpanel and state commenters described predation and ecosystem drivers as significant contributors to salmon mortality in addition to harvest.

Public commenters included representatives of salmon recovery entities. Steve Manlow (Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board) urged the council to reevaluate the abundance-based management matrix for Lower Columbia Tule Fall Chinook and to pursue concurrent habitat and hatchery reforms. Mike Sorensen, a charter representative on the SAS, opposed publishing a “zero-fishing” alternative for Oregon waters when he believed available science did not justify it, saying such an option had clear economic impacts for charter operators.

State motions and council votes - Oregon: John North moved to adopt for public review the non-Indian commercial and recreational alternatives for the area from Cape Falcon south to the Oregon–California border, with detailed regulatory clarifications and notification requirements as read into the record. The motion was seconded by Chris Despensen. After discussion, the motion passed; the council recorded three named no votes (Rebecca Lent, Marcy Remco and Corey Ridings) and one abstention (Mark Guralnick). The council chair announced the motion passed and advanced those alternatives for public review.

- California: Marcy Remco moved to adopt for STT collation, analysis and public review the salmon management measures for non-Indian commercial and recreational ocean fisheries from the Oregon–California border to the U.S.–Mexico border, as presented in the STT supplemental report. Mark Guralnick seconded. The council adopted California’s alternatives unanimously.

- North of Cape Falcon (state modifications): Kyle Lattick (presentation labeled “Kai Laticx” in the transcript) moved to adopt for public review alternatives for non-Indian commercial and recreational fisheries north of Cape Falcon with specific quota adjustments (including changing the Alternative 3 quota to 85,000 marked coho and calculating allocations consistent with FMP-defined sharing). The motion was seconded by Butch Smith and passed unanimously.

- Tribal fisheries north of Cape Falcon: David Soanes moved to adopt for public review the tribal fisheries alternatives as presented in the STT table dated March 11. The motion was seconded by Corey Ridings and passed unanimously.

Council direction, emergency rules and next steps Council staff and the STT emphasized that some alternatives may later require emergency rulemaking and that finalized season structure would be refined in April after additional modeling inputs arrive. Angela Forstall said the council’s adopted alternatives would be posted for public review and that staff would incorporate the additional guidance received during the meeting.

Public hearings and hearing officers The council confirmed hearing officers for the scheduled coastal-state hearings: Washington and California hearings on March 24 (in person) and Oregon on March 25 (online). Mark Guralnick was designated as the council hearing officer for California; other state and STT designees were confirmed.

Ending The council’s action advanced multiple region-specific packages for public input and signaled additional modeling and potential modifications ahead of final decisions at the April meeting. Staff will post the adopted proposed alternatives and supporting documents for the public comment period and will return with revised analyses in April after additional modeling inputs are available.