United States v. State of Or.

Citation: 666 F. Supp. 1461Docket: Civ. No. 68-513MA

Court: District Court, D. Oregon; July 24, 1987; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The United States, various Native American tribes, and the States of Oregon and Washington have jointly requested the court's approval for a 1987 Ocean and In-River Management Agreement concerning the Upper Columbia River Fall Chinook and Coho Salmon. The State of Idaho has raised objections, specifically concerning the management of wild type B steelhead in Zone 6, arguing that the proposed agreement does not adequately address their conservation. Although the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe has not signed the agreement, it has not expressed formal objections. A hearing was conducted on July 14, 1987. The document highlights the migratory nature of anadromous fish, which includes the fall run of chinook salmon and type B steelhead, both of which are significantly harvested using gillnets, leading to concerns about their comingling and conservation. Historical litigation dating back to 1968 aimed to clarify the treaty rights of the tribes to fish in the Columbia River.

Four Indian Tribes intervened in a consolidated legal action concerning fishing regulations in Oregon, leading to a 1969 judgment by Judge Belloni that limited the state's ability to enforce certain regulations against the tribes. The court retained jurisdiction, which prompted ongoing litigation and discussions on a comprehensive fisheries management plan for the Columbia River. In 1977, a five-year Columbia River Management Plan was established, setting conservation goals, fishing regulations, and future management techniques, along with the formation of a technical advisory committee (TAC) to analyze data and advise relevant agencies, including the Oregon-Washington Columbia River Fish Compact. Idaho has sought to join this Compact, which regulates commercial fishing zones in the Columbia River. 

Since the expiration of the initial five-year plan, the parties have engaged in several one-year management plans, with a notable court-adopted plan in 1985 despite Idaho's objections. Currently, a new plan for 1987 is under consideration. The court must assess whether to accept an agreement among some parties despite objections from others by weighing the potential harm to the objecting party's interests against the benefits to the agreeing parties and the public interest. Any regulation on Indian treaty fishing rights must meet three legal standards: it must be necessary for conservation, protect the treaty right to fish at usual and accustomed places, and ensure tribes have a fair share of fish from any run. Idaho's request to defer the proposed agreement is treated similarly to a request for preliminary injunctive relief, prompting an evaluation according to these standards.

To secure a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate either (1) a likelihood of success on the merits alongside the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) serious questions regarding the merits with a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff. These criteria illustrate a continuum where less probability of success on the merits can suffice if the hardships strongly favor the plaintiff. 

In this case, Idaho has moved to delay the approval of the 1987 Ocean and In-River Management Agreement, citing concerns over the management of type B wild steelhead, which is deemed a weaker stock. Idaho argues that the current plan does not meet escapement goals and undermines conservation efforts, potentially leading to the species' extinction. The state's interest in managing wild steelhead in Zone 6 must be weighed against an agreement involving Washington, Oregon, the federal government, and several Indian tribes regarding salmon stocks and treaty fishing rights.

Idaho asserts a unique interest due to the majority of wild steelhead returning to its waters, emphasizing the necessity for optimum escapement, supported by a 1984 TAC-established minimum spawning goal of 30,000 fish. Idaho's concerns are bolstered by historical data indicating harvest rates exceeding 30 percent in previous years, which, according to them, risks the viability of the steelhead population. Conversely, the proponents reference TAC data showing an increase in wild steelhead from 10,300 in 1974-75 to 26,900 in 1985-86 and anticipate a record fall chinook run while maintaining the season length to promote higher escapement for steelhead.

Overall, the document highlights the conflict between Idaho’s conservation goals and the interests of the other parties involved in the fisheries management plan, necessitating a careful assessment of the potential harm to Idaho's interests versus the collective agreement's benefits.

Conservation of steelhead was a key consideration during negotiations of the management plan aimed at protecting treaty fishing rights of Native Americans, the conservation of all fish species, and the harvest of fall chinook and coho salmon. Proponents argue that due to the simultaneous runs and similar sizes of steelhead and fall chinook, achieving optimal conservation of both is impossible. They assert that the proposed plan is a reasonable effort to manage fall chinook while minimally impacting steelhead. Urgency for the plan's approval before fishing seasons is emphasized. 

The court finds that while Idaho is concerned about the escapement rates of type B wild steelhead, the proponents have shown a significant increase in steelhead escapement, indicating successful management. The proposed fishing season was not extended despite potential justifications, reflecting consideration for steelhead. Open negotiations have led to adjustments in the plan that account for steelhead conservation, and the conservation goals of all parties involved are being met. 

The court concludes that Idaho has not demonstrated a likelihood of harm to its interests that outweighs the benefits of the plan for all parties and the public. The plan balances treaty fishing rights, optimal fish harvest, and conservation needs. Consequently, the court adopts the 1987 Ocean and In-River Management Agreement for Upper Columbia River Fall Chinook and Coho Salmon. 

Idaho's motion to reconsider the previous opinion is opposed by several tribes and is ultimately denied, with a motion to strike Idaho's reconsideration and request for costs and fees also denied. The court references Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b), which allows for amendments to findings upon a party's motion.

The motion for reconsideration must present substantive questions regarding significant findings of fact or legal conclusions. Under Rule 52(b), such motions aim to correct pivotal factual findings and are not for rehearing purposes. Rule 59(e) mandates that motions to alter or amend judgments be filed within ten days post-judgment, while Rule 60(b) allows for relief from a judgment for reasons like mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud, subject to the court's discretion. A moving party must show extraordinary circumstances to obtain relief.

In this case, the State of Idaho claimed error in the findings related to wild steelhead. The opposing parties contended that Idaho's motion was untimely and failed to demonstrate manifest error or lack of substantial evidence. The court found Idaho’s motion timely but ultimately determined that it lacked grounds for reconsideration, finding no evidence of mistake, newly discovered evidence, or other justifications for relief. The court reaffirmed its original findings as correct.

Additionally, the court addressed Idaho's motion for sanctions, emphasizing that each case must be evaluated on its own merits, balancing concerns over frivolous litigation against the need for vigorous advocacy. Although Idaho identified specific areas of contention, the court did not find sufficient grounds to impose sanctions. Consequently, both Idaho's motion for reconsideration and the motions to strike and for sanctions from the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation and Nez Perce Tribes were denied.