Snake River

Harvest Module

June 2014

Prepared by the:

National Marine Fisheries Service

West Coast Region 

Portland, Oregon
Snake River Harvest Module | 2

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

Contents

1. Purpose and Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3

2. Overview of Fisheries Affecting ESA-listed Snake River Species........................................ 4

2.1 Fisheries Management Processes........................................................................................ 5

2.1.1 Pacific Salmon Treaty and Pacific Salmon Commission ......................................... 6

2.1.2 Pacific Fishery Management Council....................................................................... 9

2.1.3 U.S. v. Oregon ........................................................................................................ 11

2.1.4 Snake River Mainstem and Tributary Fisheries...................................................... 14

2.2 Harvest Management under the Endangered Species Act ................................................ 15

2.2.1 Take Prohibitions.................................................................................................... 15

2.2.2 Section 7 Consultations........................................................................................... 16

2.2.3 Section 4(d) Limits ................................................................................................. 16

2.2.4 Section 10................................................................................................................ 17

2.2.5 Determining Allowable Harvest Rates ................................................................... 17

2.3 Regional Fisheries............................................................................................................. 18

2.3.1 Pacific Salmon Treaty Fisheries ............................................................................. 18

2.3.2 Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) and North of Falcon (NOF) 

Fisheries................................................................................................................................ 19

2.3.3 U.S. v. OR Fisheries ............................................................................................... 19

3. Historical and Current Impacts by Species.......................................................................... 25

3.1 Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon ESU........................................................................... 27

3.2 Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon ................................................................ 31

3.3 Snake River Steelhead DPS.............................................................................................. 34

3.4 Snake River Sockeye ESU................................................................................................ 36

4. Expectations and Considerations for Future Harvest Management ................................. 37

4.1 Snake River Spring and Summer Chinook Salmon ESU ................................................. 38

4.2 Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon ESU........................................................................... 39

4.3 Snake River Steelhead DPS.............................................................................................. 40

4.4 Snake River Sockeye Salmon ESU................................................................................... 41

5. Literature Cited ...................................................................................................................... 42
Snake River Harvest Module | 3

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

1. Purpose and Introduction

This module provides out-of-basin fishery management information to complement tributarylevel fishery information in the recovery plans for the four species of Snake River salmon and 

steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Three of the species are ESUs 

(evolutionary specific unit) and one is a DPS (distinct population segment). These species are:

• Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon (ESU)

• Snake River steelhead (DPS)

• Snake River fall Chinook salmon (ESU)

• Snake River sockeye salmon (ESU)

The purpose of this module is to describe fishery management processes for ocean and mainstem 

Columbia and Snake River fisheries, together with historical and current harvest rates of those 

fisheries. It also provides considerations for current and recommended future strategies that will 

aid in conserving the four listed Snake River species. This module is organized into four 

sections. Following this introduction (section one), section two describes salmon fisheries, 

section three provides historical and current fishery impacts by species, and the final section 

describes expectations and considerations for future fisheries management actions. In drafting 

this module, NMFS used information from the May 5, 2008 Biological Opinion for U.S. v. 

Oregon fisheries (NMFS 2008a) and the Associated Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis 

(NMFS 2008b), as well as the 2008 Pacific Salmon Treaty biological opinion (NMFS 2008c), 

and information available through the U.S. v. Oregon’s Technical Advisory Committee (Patino 

2014). 

This module complements the Snake River tributary-level fishery management information 

provided in the three Snake River recovery plans: (1) spring/summer Chinook and steelhead 

Management Unit Plans -Southeast Washington, Northeast Oregon, and Idaho and the specieslevel Roll-up Plan; (2) Fall Chinook Recovery Plan; and (3) Sockeye Recovery Plan. These 

recovery plans identify the actions that will restore viability of the species, identify key 

information needs, define an adaptive management strategy and describe plan implementation. 

In support of these recovery plans, several modules have been developed that present detailed 

and specific information on a particular subject to inform recovery planning and allow for 

consistent treatment of these topics in all three plans. Other modules produced for Snake River 

recovery planning include the Hydro, Ocean and Estuary Modules (NMFS 2014; Fresh et al. 

2014; NMFS 2011a). 
Snake River Harvest Module | 4

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

2. Overview of Fisheries Affecting ESA-listed

Snake River Species

The Columbia River Tribes have harvested salmon for cultural, subsistence and for economic 

purposes for thousands of years. They utilized all species of fish passing through their traditional 

fishing areas at all times of the year. They fished in both mainstem and tributaries utilizing a 

variety of fishing gear types. Fisheries were managed through a number of traditional practices 

which dictated where, when, and by whom fish were to be harvested. These management 

practices went along with stable and consistent fish runs and the ability of the tribes to use fish as 

a significant component of their total diet. One hundred and forty-one years ago, the United 

States made commitments to various Indian tribes to protect the tribes' treaty reserved rights to 

take fish. The tribes' right to take fish is of enormous cultural and societal importance to the 

tribes. For more information on Tribal Treaty Rights, please refer to those sections of each 

recovery plan.

The largest harvest of Columbia River Chinook salmon took place in 1883, when West Coast 

canneries packed 43 million pounds of salmon. These early fisheries depended on gillnetting and 

seining at the river mouth, but with the invention of the gasoline engine and its adaptation to 

oceangoing boats around the turn of the century, trolling also expanded rapidly. Ocean fishing 

remained unregulated until 1949, with the creation of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

Commission. Ocean harvest of salmon remained significant in the 1970s and 1980s, but 

unfavorable conditions greatly affected West Coast commercial salmon fisheries in the early 

1990s. Ocean commercial and recreational harvest of salmon has been reduced significantly –

more than 90 percent since the mid-1970s – as a result of a decline in abundance and the 

response through international treaties, fisheries conservation acts, regional conservation goals, 

the Endangered Species Act, and state and tribal management agreements. 

Snake River spring/summer and fall Chinook salmon, Snake River sockeye salmon and Snake 

River steelhead are exposed to fisheries in the Columbia River estuary, mainstem Columbia, 

Snake River, and to varying degrees in the ocean and in the Snake River tributaries. The impact 

of ocean fisheries is very low for Snake River sockeye and Snake River spring/summer Chinook 

salmon, and essentially non-existent for Snake River steelhead. It is believed the migration path 

and ocean distribution of Snake River sockeye and Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, 

and Snake River steelhead is such that they are not present in near shore areas where ocean 

salmon fisheries traditionally occur. This situation is a very different than the case for Snake 

River fall Chinook salmon, which are frequently caught in ocean fisheries from Oregon north to 

Alaska. 

Fisheries are currently managed to focus on different stocks and populations, and to take fish in 

order to meet commercial, recreational and tribal needs. Fisheries influence salmonid population 

viability by causing direct and incidental mortality to natural-origin fish. Direct mortality is 
Snake River Harvest Module | 5

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

associated with fisheries that are managed to specifically harvest target stocks. Incidental 

mortality includes mortality of fish that are harvested incidentally to the target species or stock, 

caught and released, or captured by fishing gear but not landed (drop-off). 

2.1 Fisheries Management Processes

Snake River salmon and steelhead are affected by fisheries in the Columbia and Snake Rivers, 

Snake River tributaries, and to varying degrees along the West Coast of the United States and 

Canada. These fisheries are managed by multiple jurisdictions interacting through several 

institutional processes: 

Ocean Fisheries

• Ocean salmon fisheries targeting stocks of mutual concern to Southeast Alaska, British 

Columbia (B.C.), Washington and Oregon are managed pursuant to the provisions of the 

Pacific Salmon Treaty (Pacific Salmon Treaty) between the U.S. and Canada. The 

Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) negotiates, facilitates and monitors implementation of 

fishing regimes. PSC does not regulate; regimes are implemented by the Parties’ (Canada 

and the United States) domestic management entities. The agreed fishing regimes are 

contained in Chapters 1-6 of Annex IV of the Treaty. The PSC reached agreement on 

new fishing regimes for five chapters in May of 2008 which took effect on January 1, 

2009 and will continue through 2018. Chapter 4, which governs Fraser River sockeye 

and pink salmon fisheries, was modified by agreement in 2013, taking effect on January 

1, 2014 and will continue through 2019.

• Fisheries in the Pacific, south of the U.S./Canada border and between 3 and 200 miles 

from the coast, are managed subject to the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (revised and reauthorized in 2006), through 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) process. The PFMC is one of eight 

fishery management councils established by the Act.

• Ocean salmon fisheries between Cape Falcon (on the north Oregon coast) and the 

Canadian border are coordinated with fisheries in the Columbia River, Puget Sound, and 

coastal rivers through the North of Falcon (NOF) process. This process was established 

by the states and the Pacific Northwest treaty tribes; it occurs largely coincident with the 

PFMC process. Coordinating preseason fishing plans between ocean and river fisheries 

ensures that conservation and various allocation objectives are met. Allocation objectives 

include treaty Indian/non-treaty allocations for Puget Sound and Washington coastal river 

fisheries and allocations between various non-treaty user groups, such as commercial and 

recreational fisheries. 

Columbia Basin Fisheries

• Fisheries in the Columbia Basin, particularly in the mainstem of the Columbia River, are 

managed pursuant to fishing plans developed by the parties to U.S. v Oregon, under the 
Snake River Harvest Module | 6

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

continuing jurisdiction of the Federal district court. Parties to this process include the 

Federal government, the states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and the four Columbia 

River Treaty Tribes and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. A negotiated long-term 

Management Agreement for 2008–2017 covers all anadromous salmonids in the 

Columbia Basin (including Snake River spring/summer and fall Chinook salmon, Snake 

River sockeye, Snake River steelhead, Coho, white sturgeon fisheries and other species.)

o Commercial fisheries in the mainstem of the Columbia River separating Oregon 

and Washington are managed through the Columbia River Compact. This 

agreement between the two states dates back to the early 1900s. Mainstem 

Columbia fisheries in the Compact area are coordinated for consistency in the 

Compact forum, but are actually regulated by each state. 

o Sport fisheries in the Columbia River are managed through a process of Joint 

State Sport Hearings. 

o The Columbia River treaty tribes have authority to regulate treaty Indian fisheries 

in the mainstem Columbia River. Each Tribe regulates Columbia and Snake 

Rivers tributary fisheries under their respective jurisdictions.

o Regulations for recreational fisheries in the tributaries of the Columbia and Snake 

Rivers are developed by the Fish and Wildlife Commissions of Idaho, 

Washington, and Oregon for their respective waters. 

o Treaty/non-treaty allocation of tributary fisheries is negotiated by the relevant comanagers.

These processes are further described below.

2.1.1 Pacific Salmon Treaty and Pacific Salmon Commission

The United States and Canada ratified the Pacific Salmon Treaty in 1985 following many years 

of intermittent negotiations. The Pacific Salmon Treaty provides a framework for the 

management of salmon fisheries in those waters of the United States and Canada that fall within 

the Pacific Salmon Treaty’s geographical scope (Figure 1). In addition to institutional and 

procedural provisions (e.g., establishment of the Commission and its panels; meeting schedules 

and protocols, etc.), the Pacific Salmon Treaty established fishing regimes that set upper limits 

on intercepting fisheries, defined as fisheries in one country that harvest salmon originating in 

another country, and sometimes include provisions that apply to the management of the Parties’ 

nonintercepting fisheries as well. The Pacific Salmon Treaty also established procedural 

mechanisms for revising the regimes, which serve the overall purpose of accomplishing the 

conservation, production, and harvest allocation objectives set forth in the Pacific Salmon 

Treaty. It is important to note that these fishing regimes are not self-executing; they must be 

implemented by the Parties with conforming regulations issued under the authority of their 

respective management agencies.
Snake River Harvest Module | 7

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

The fishing regimes contained in Annex IV of the Pacific Salmon Treaty are expected to be 

amended periodically upon recommendation of the Commission as new information becomes 

available to better accomplish the Pacific Salmon Treaty’s conservation, production, and 

allocation objectives. The original (1985) regimes varied in duration and some were modified 

and extended for several years, but by the end of 1992, all had expired. Despite several years of 

negotiations, both within the Commission and a variety of other processes and forums, the 

United States and Canada were unable to reach a comprehensive new agreement until 1999. 

During the interim period (1993 through 1998), fisheries subject to the Pacific Salmon Treaty

generally were managed pursuant to short term (annual) agreements that governed only some of 

the fisheries. When even short term agreements were not reached, the fisheries were managed 

independently by the Parties’ respective domestic management agencies, but generally in 

approximate conformity with the most recently applicable bilateral agreement.

The agreement finally reached in 1999 (hereafter the “1999 Agreement”) came to fruition 

through a government-to-government process rather than within the normal PSC process 

established under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The 1999 Agreement was comprehensive, and 

included amended versions of Chapters 1-6 of Annex IV, as well as a variety of other provisions 

designed to improve implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty and the operations of the 

Commission.

Figure 1. Pacific Salmon Treaty Area.
Snake River Harvest Module | 8

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

The fishing regimes in Chapters 1-6 applied for a duration of ten years, expiring at the end of 

2008, except for Chapter 4 (Fraser River Sockeye and Pink Salmon), which applied for twelve 

years, through 2010, but which was later extended through 2013. The Pacific Salmon Treaty

provides mechanisms whereby the Commission may recommend amendments to any fishing 

regime at any time, including prior to their scheduled expiration date; this in fact has occurred 

for some of the fishing regimes contained in the 1999 Agreement, but in each case the expiration

dates set in 1999 were left unchanged. Approval of Commission recommendations to amend 

fishing regimes is formalized by the two countries in an exchange of diplomatic notes between 

the U.S. Secretary of State and Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Anticipating the expiration of the fishing regimes established in the 1999 Agreement and the 

time required to negotiate new regimes, the Commission began negotiations for new regimes in 

January of 2007. After nearly 18 months of negotiations, the Commission reached agreement in 

May of 2008 on amended versions of each of the five expiring Chapters of Annex IV. By letter 

dated May 21, 2008, the Commission transmitted the amended Chapters to the governments of 

Canada and the United States and recommended their approval (Koenings and Sprout 2008).

A major component of the 2008 Agreement, and the one that proved most difficult and timeconsuming to negotiate, is the management regime set forth in Chapter 3 of Annex IV for 

Chinook salmon. It continues the basic aggregate abundance-based management (AABM) 

approach established in the 1999 Agreement for three major ocean Chinook salmon fisheries in 

southeast Alaska and Canada, coupled with an individual stock-based management (ISBM) 

approach for all other Pacific Salmon Treaty-area fisheries in Canada and the Pacific Northwest. 

The new Chinook regime incorporates several revisions, including reductions in two major 

fisheries relative to those allowed under the 1999 Agreement.

Pursuant to the Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985 (16 USC 3631), the U.S. Federal law 

governing implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the Secretary of State, in consultation 

with the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior, is authorized to approve, on behalf of the United 

States, fishing regimes recommended by the Commission. Throughout the negotiations that 

occurred within the Commission to develop new regimes, the U.S. Federal representatives 

involved in the negotiations indicated to all participants, Canadian and U.S. alike, that approval 

of the new regimes by the United States would be considered a Federal action that required 

consultation under section 7 of the ESA, and thus the approval of a new agreement by the U.S. 

government was contingent on a determination by NMFS that implementation of the agreement 

would meet the requirements of the ESA. A biological opinion dated December 22, 2008 

determined that salmon fisheries in southeast Alaska (SEAK), British Columbia, and the Pacific 

Northwest, if managed consistent with the Commission’s proposed Agreement, are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of ESA listed species including in particular salmon, 

steelhead, the Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) green sturgeon, Southern Resident 

killer whales and steller sea lions, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their 
Snake River Harvest Module | 9

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

critical habitat. This determination took into account other applicable fishing plans implemented 

per U.S. domestic regulatory process that affect the same listed species.

2.1.2 Pacific Fishery Management Council

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) of 1976 is the 

principal law governing marine fisheries in the United States. The Act was adopted for the 

purposes of managing fisheries 3-200 miles offshore of the U.S. coastline, phasing out foreign 

fishing activity within this zone, recovering overfished stocks, and conserving and managing 

fishery resources. In 1996, Congress passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act, which revised the 

MSA and reauthorized it through 1999; the Act was again reauthorized in 2006. The Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (PFMC) is one of eight regional fishery management councils 

established by the MSA. The PFMC is responsible for fisheries off the coasts of California, 

Oregon, and Washington (Figure 2). Thus, the PFMC is responsible for all ocean fisheries, 

including salmon, groundfish, pelagic fish, etc., and does not focus solely on salmonids. It is 

responsible for regulating fisheries regimes agreed by the PSC. 

Chinook and Coho salmon are the main salmon species managed by the PFMC in waters 

extending from the Canadian border to Mexico, and 3-200 nautical miles offshore. In oddnumbered years, it may also manage special fisheries near the Canadian border for pink salmon. 

Sockeye, chum, and steelhead are rarely caught in these ocean fisheries. The PFMC’s Salmon 

Fishery Management Plan (SFMP) describes the goals and methods for salmon management. 

Central parts of the plan are annual spawner escapement goals for the major salmon stocks and 

an allocation of the harvest among different fisheries or locations (i.e. allocations are set for 

ocean or inland commercial, recreational, or tribal fisheries as well as for specific ports). The 

PFMC uses management tools such as season length, quotas, bag limits, and gear restrictions to 

achieve fishery management goals. Most non-treaty Coho salmon fisheries north of Cape Falcon 

are mark selective. There is normally a mark selective chinook recreational fishery north of Cape 

Falcon in May and June.
Snake River Harvest Module | 10

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

Figure 2. Pacific Fisheries Management Council Areas.

Annually, a preseason process of meetings and public hearings is used to develop 

recommendations for management of the ocean fisheries. Past harvest data and preseason salmon 

abundance forecasts are the primary basis for management decisions concerning season structure 

and harvest quotas. Final recommendations are adopted annually in April and implemented by 

NMFS beginning in May. The Salmon Technical Team (STT) provides technical information 
Snake River Harvest Module | 11

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

and data analysis to the PFMC; the team is composed of eight representatives from state, 

Federal, and tribal fisheries management agencies. The Salmon Advisory Subpanel (SAS) has 17 

members who represent commercial, recreational, and tribal interests, as well as a public 

representative and a conservation representative.

Impacts on each species vary widely, depending on many complicated factors, including annual 

salmon abundance and ESA restrictions. The PFMC evaluates ESA consultation standards each 

year and provides guidance for the upcoming ocean fishing season. Further ESA restrictions 

apply to specific Columbia River fisheries.

2.1.2.1 North of Falcon Process

As described in Section 2.1, folded into the PFMC management process is a parallel public 

process referred to as North of Falcon (NOF). The NOF process integrates management of ocean 

fisheries between Cape Falcon (on the north Oregon coast) and the Canadian border with inland 

area fisheries (Figure 2). Columbia River fall Chinook salmon fisheries are a significant part of 

the NOF process. Coordination and shaping of the ocean and freshwater fisheries occurs to 

assure that fish conservation objectives are met and there is reasonable sharing of the 

conservation burden between the fisheries and various user groups. With the implementation of 

multi-year management agreements between the states and Columbia River Tribes, the 

treaty/non-treaty allocation is addressed through the management agreements and no longer 

negotiated during the PFMC/NOF processes.

2.1.3 U.S. v. Oregon

In 1968, the U.S. District Court ruled that Columbia River treaty Indians were entitled to an 

equitable share of the upper Columbia River fish returns (fish stocks returning above Bonneville 

Dam), in a court case known as U.S. v. Oregon. After 20 years of legal tests and negotiations, the 

CRFMP was adopted by District Court order in 1988 and agreed to by the parties: the United 

States; the states of Oregon, Washington,; and the four treaty Indian tribes. The purpose of the 

Columbia River Fish Management Plan (CRFMP) as defined by the court was to:

. . . provide a framework within which the Parties may exercise their sovereign 

powers in a coordinated and systematic manner in order to protect, rebuild, and 

enhance upper Columbia River fish runs while providing harvests for both treaty 

Indian and non-Indian fisheries. In order to achieve the goals of the CRFMP, the 

Parties intend to use habitat protection authorities, enhancement efforts, artificial 

production techniques, and harvest management to ensure that Columbia River 

fish runs continue to provide a broad range of benefits in perpetuity. 
Snake River Harvest Module | 12

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

Fisheries in the Columbia River basin were managed subject to provisions of the CRFMP from 

1988 through 1998. The CRFMP was a stipulated agreement adopted by the Federal Court under 

the continuing jurisdiction of U.S. v. Oregon (Civ. No. 68-513 (D. Or.)). Following 1998, 

fisheries were managed subject to provisions of a series of short term agreements among the 

Parties, the durations of which ranged from several months, covering a single fishing season, to 

five years. 

In 1996, the parties to U.S. v. Oregon negotiated three-year (1996–98) management agreements: 

one each for upper Columbia fall Chinook and upper Columbia spring Chinook, summer 

Chinook, and sockeye. The agreements were a result of a 1995 court settlement where the parties 

agreed to discuss the possibility of amending the CRFMP. The 1996–1998 management 

agreements formed the basis for subsequent agreements, and included escapement goals, 

production measures and harvest allocations. Annual agreements have occurred for fall Chinook, 

Coho, and summer steelhead during 1999-2004. A three year management agreement with a 

provision to extend harvest rates for 5-years was reached for spring Chinook, summer Chinook, 

and sockeye for the period 2001–2005. 

In 2005, the parties to U.S. v. Oregon negotiated a three-year (2005-2007) Interim Management 

Agreement (2005 Agreement) (U.S. District Court 2005). The 2005 Agreement applied to 

winter, spring, summer, and fall season fisheries. The 2005 Agreement and associated harvest 

provisions were the result of ongoing negotiations in U.S. v. Oregon and the sequential evolution 

and development of fishery management since the initial salmon listings in 1992. These 

negotiations have been under the continuous supervision of the Federal Court with jurisdiction 

over U.S. v. Oregon. The most recent iteration of the negotiations began with completion of the 

Interim Agreement in 2005. The 2005 Agreement served as the model for the successor 2008 

Agreement.

The 2008 Agreement management provisions are, in most respects, similar to those in the 2005 

Agreement. This is true in particular for the winter, spring, and summer season fisheries. There 

are, however, two notable changes in management of fall season fisheries. Under the 2005 

Agreement, fall season fisheries were subject to fixed harvest rate constraints of 31.3% for Snake 

River fall Chinook and 17.0% for B-run steelhead1. However, the 2008 Agreement includes 

abundance based harvest rate schedules that allow the harvest rates to vary up or down from the 

status quo rates depending on the overall abundance of Snake River fall Chinook and B-run 

steelhead. The use of abundance based harvest rate schedules generally is more responsive to 

overall stock status. Abundance based harvest rates schedules previously were developed for 

other stocks including upriver spring Chinook (including the Snake River spring/summer 

Chinook salmon ESU), sockeye, and upper Columbia River summer Chinook. These were 

 1 Inland steelhead in the Columbia River Basin are commonly referred to as either A-run or B-run, based on migration timing and 

differences in age and size at return. A-run steelhead are believed to occur throughout the steelhead streams in the Snake River 

Basin, and B-run are thought to produce only in the Clearwater and Salmon rivers.
Snake River Harvest Module | 13

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

incorporated into the 2005 Agreement and directly carried over into the 2008 Agreement. 

Development of abundance based harvest rate schedules for Snake River fall Chinook and B-run 

steelhead for use in the 2008 Agreement applies the benefits of abundance based management to 

these two additional stocks. 

Figure 3. The area covered for fisheries under the 2008 U.S. v. Oregon Agreement (TAC 2008).

2.1.3.1 Columbia River Compact

In 1918, the U.S. Congress ratified a compact between Oregon and Washington covering 

concurrent jurisdiction of mainstem Columbia River commercial fisheries. The Columbia River 

Compact comprises the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission (WFWC) and the Oregon 

Fish and Wildlife Commission (OFWC). In recent years, the commissions have delegated 

decision-making authority to the state fish and wildlife agency’s director or designee. Periodic 

hearings to adopt or review seasonal commercial regulations (including those related to fisheries 

in the U.S. v. Oregon agreements) are held just before major fishing seasons to consider current 

information and establish season dates and gear restrictions. Additional hearings are held inseason when updated information concerning run size, attainment of escapement goals, or catch 

guidelines indicates a need to adjust the season.

The Compact jurisdiction includes the Columbia River from the mouth to just upstream of 

McNary Dam. The Compact sets fishing seasons in Zones 1-5 (Mouth to Bonneville Dam) and 
Snake River Harvest Module | 14

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

currently adopts the treaty Indian commercial sales in area Zone 6 (Bonneville Dam to McNary 

Dam) (Figure 3). Working together under the Compact, the states have the responsibility to 

address the allocation of fish harvest among non-tribal commercial and recreational fisheries and 

meet the requirements of the US v. Oregon agreements. Specific fisheries are overviewed below.

A nearly identical process of Joint State Sport Hearings addresses the concurrent management of 

sport fisheries in the mainstem. 

2.1.4 Snake River Mainstem and Tributary Fisheries

Salmon and steelhead fishing occurs in the Snake River mainstem and its tributaries in the states 

of Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Co-managers currently develop and submit to NMFS yearly 

Fishery Implementation Plans (FIP). The FIPs include annual pre-season fishery impact rates 

consistent with fishery management frameworks currently being developed through the Snake 

Basin Harvest Forum (SBHF), an offshoot of the U.S. v. Oregon process. These frameworks 

being developed are based on sliding scales that tie allowed fishery impact rates to forecast 

return of natural-origin adults. When the return of natural-origin returns to a population or a 

defined management area is low, the allowed ESA impact rate is prescribed at low levels. When 

a large number of natural-origin fish is expected to a given population or to a defined 

management area, the allowed ESA impact rate can be higher without increasing the risk to 

ESA-listed populations. According to fishery management frameworks being developed, each 

year the total ESA impact rate for a population or to a defined management area will be allocated 

by the tribal and state managers. Co-managers’ report harvest statistics as close to real-time as 

possible and all fisheries are managed not to exceed any of the ESA limits on any given year. 

More specific information on tributary fisheries in Washington, Oregon and Idaho can be found

in the respective Snake River ESA Recovery Plans.
Snake River Harvest Module | 15

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

2.2 Harvest Management under the Endangered Species Act

In the 1990s, 12 Columbia River basin Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) were listed as 

threatened or endangered; one, the Lower Columbia Coho, was added in June 2005, and all were 

reaffirmed in status reviews June 2005 and January 2006, except the Upper Columbia steelhead, 

which was upgraded to Threatened in January 2006, reinstated as endangered by court order in 

June 2007, and upgraded again as threatened by court order in June 2009. Currently there are 

four species in the Snake River listed under the ESA. This module focuses on these 4 species in 

the Snake River Basin, which are:

ESU Original Listing 

Date

ESA Listing Status ESA Critical 

Habitat

Snake River

spring/summer 

Chinook salmon

Listed as threatened 

on April 22, 1992

Listed as threatened 

on June 28, 2005 

[NMFS 2005a]

Critical habitat 

designated on 

October 25, 1999 

[NMFS 1999a]

Snake River fall 

Chinook salmon

Listed as threatened 

on April 22, 1992

Listed as threatened 

on June 28, 2005 

[NMFS 2005a]

Critical habitat 

designated on 

December 28, 1993 

[NMFS 1993]

Snake River steelhead Listed as threatened 

on August 8, 1997

Listed as threatened 

on January 5, 2006 

[NMFS 2006a]

Critical habitat 

designated on 

September 2, 2005 

[NMFS 2005b]

Snake River sockeye 

salmon

Listed as endangered 

on November 20, 

1991

Listed as endangered 

on June 28, 2005 

[NMFS 2005a]

Critical habitat 

designated on 

December 28, 1993 

[NMFS 1993]

Because of the ESA status of these Snake River salmonids, NMFS is required to review the 

effects of the fisheries through various regulatory processes. 

2.2.1 Take Prohibitions

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the unauthorized “take” of listed species. Under the ESA, “take” 

means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct. NMFS can authorize take that is incidental to otherwise lawful 

activities, such as fisheries targeting non-listed species, using authorities provided in sections 

4(d), 7 and 10 of the ESA. For threatened salmon ESUs and O.mykiss DPS, NMFS will apply 
Snake River Harvest Module | 16

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

section 4(d) protections to natural and hatchery fish with an intact adipose fin, but not to listed 

hatchery fish that have had their adipose fin removed prior to release into the wild (NMFS 2005).

2.2.2 Section 7 Consultations

Under section 7 of the ESA, each Federal agency must, in consultation with NMFS, insure that 

any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

its designated critical habitat. Federal agencies proposing to take an action that might affect 

ESA-listed salmon must first consult with NMFS about such effects. NMFS may authorize 

actions that result in take of listed salmon, provided that:

• such take is incidental to, and not the primary purpose of the proposed action; and, 

• the effects of the proposed action are not to jeopardize the continued existence of the 

species nor destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitats.

Because NMFS has a significant role representing the Federal government in the fishery 

management arena, most of its section 7 consultations on fishery management are actually 

section 7 consultations with itself. Section 7 consultations have occurred prior to the 

implementation of fishing plans and agreements covering both ocean and in-river fisheries. 

Some of the consultations have involved a fishing plan for a single year and fishery. Others have 

covered multiple years and fisheries. NMFS posts section 7 Consultations that have been 

completed for salmon fishing at the following website: https://pcts.nmfs.noaa.gov/pctsweb/homepage.pcts.

2.2.3 Section 4(d) Limits

NMFS issued a final rule pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA (NMFS 2000a), adopting the take 

prohibitions in section 9(a)(1) of the ESA. As part of the rule, NMFS also sets forth specific 

circumstances when the prohibitions will not apply, known as 4(d) limits. The 4(d) Rule limits 

the application of the take prohibitions if a management agency develops and implements a

Fishery Management and Evaluation Plan (hereafter FMEP) that NMFS determines will not 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the listed species. As a result, take 

of any listed species normally prohibited under section 9 may be exempted via consideration of a 

FMEP through the 4(d) rule.

A separate but closely related tribal 4(d) rule created an additional limit for tribal resource 

management plans (NMFS 2000b). The Tribal 4(d) Rule limits the application of the take 

prohibitions if a tribe develops and implements a Tribal Resource Management Plans (hereafter 

TRMP) that NMFS determines its implementation will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of 
Snake River Harvest Module | 17

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

survival and recovery of the listed species. As a result, take of any listed species normally 

prohibited under section 9 may be exempted via consideration of a TRMP through the Tribal 

4(d) rule.

Once those FMEPs or TRMPs are approved, the take of listed species is authorized to the extent 

that it occurs in fisheries managed in conformity with those approved plans. Completed FMEPs 

and TRMPs can be found at: 

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/salmon_steelhead/salmon_and_steelhead_fish

eries.html.

2.2.4 Section 10

Section 10 of the ESA allows NMFS to issue permits for scientific purposes, to enhance the 

propagation or survival of listed species, or when a take is incidental to, and not the purpose of, 

the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Section 10 permits have been issued by NMFS 

for a number of fisheries regulated by the states, particularly certain tributary fisheries directed at 

harvestable hatchery origin salmon and steelhead.

More information is available in the Salmon Harvest and Hatcheries section of the following 

website: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/index.html.

2.2.5 Determining Allowable Harvest Rates

NMFS’ approach for determining allowable harvest and exploitation rates is described in a 

document entitled “NMFS Approach to Making Determinations Pursuant to the Endangered 

Species Act about the Effects of Harvest Actions on Listed Pacific Salmon and Steelhead” 

(NMFS 2004a), which is available online at: 

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/fishery_management/salmon_steelhead/20

04_esa_harvest_salmon.pdf. 

NMFS regional policy on the relationship between recovery and section 7 is provided in the 

document titled, Integrating Recovery Plan Products and Section 7 consultations in the NMFS 

Northwest Region, July 24 2008 (NMFS 2008d).
Snake River Harvest Module | 18

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

2.3 Regional Fisheries

The current distribution of harvest (who is catching the fish) results from a complex interaction 

of management processes (as described above), regions, and types of effort (e.g., commercial, 

recreational, tributary, ocean troll, treaty Indian, non-treaty Indian).

2.3.1 Pacific Salmon Treaty Fisheries

Snake River fall Chinook salmon are caught in all of the major marine mixed stock fisheries 

between Northern California and Alaska, including within the Columbia River. Snake River fall 

Chinook salmon stocks are major contributors to the Southeast Alaska troll fishery all year 

except during the spring. Canadian marine fisheries include commercial troll and net fisheries as 

well as recreational sport fisheries in northern B.C., Central B.C., West Coast of Vancouver 

Island, Strait of Georgia, and Strait of Juan de Fuca. In Southeast Alaska, Pacific Salmon Treaty

Chinook salmon marine fisheries include commercial troll and net fisheries as well as 

recreational sport fisheries. In recent years, fall Chinook salmon harvest in terminal fisheries in 

Alaska and harvest of Alaska hatchery production has increased, although these harvests are not 

subject to Pacific Salmon Treaty limitations, and these fisheries do not impact Snake River fall 

Chinook salmon.

In June 1999, under the Pacific Salmon Treaty, Canada and the U.S. agreed on a new approach 

for managing Chinook salmon fishing regimes wherein Southeast Alaska (all gear), northern 

B.C. (troll and recreational), and West Coast Vancouver Island (troll and outside recreational) 

fisheries would be managed under AABM regimes. This approach establishes annual catch 

ceilings derived from estimates of total aggregate abundance of all stocks contributing to the 

fishery that year and target fisheries harvest rates. Fisheries not managed under AABM are 

required to be managed so as to reduce harvest rates relative to those observed in a standard base 

period (1979-1982). Canadian fisheries were required to reduce by 36.5 percent and U.S. 

fisheries by 40 percent. Smaller reductions apply for stocks meeting their escapement 

objectives. Ocean fisheries have been required since 1996, through ESA consultation, to achieve 

a 30% reduction in the average exploitation rate observed during the 1988 to 1993 base period. 

The basic Chinook salmon management approach established in 1999 was continued, with 

certain refinements, in the new Chinook chapter put in place from 2009 through 2018, with the 

most significant change being a reduction of 15 percent for the Southeast Alaska fishery and 30 

percent for the West Coast Vancouver Island fishery relative to those provided in the 1999 

Agreement.
Snake River Harvest Module | 19

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

2.3.2 Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) and North of Falcon (NOF)

Fisheries

Snake River fall Chinook salmon are caught in all of the major marine mixed stock fisheries in 

the West Coast of the United States. Ocean fisheries along the U.S. West Coast are separated 

into four major management areas (Figure 2):

• U.S./Canada border to Cape Falcon, Oregon

• Cape Falcon, Oregon to Humbug Mountain, Oregon

• Humbug Mountain, Oregon, to Horse Mountain, California

• Horse Mountain, California to the U.S./Mexico border. 

These management areas are further subdivided depending on the type of fishery. Numerous 

treaty Indian commercial troll, non-Indian commercial troll, and recreational marine fisheries 

exist along the West Coast. While these areas are subdivided, the PFMC manages the U.S. West 

Coast concurrently for no less than a 30.0 percent reduction in a Snake River Fall Chinook 

salmon Index compared to the 1988-1993 base period adult equivalent exploitation rate for all 

ocean fisheries combined (PFMC 2014).

2.3.3 U.S. v. OR Fisheries

Fisheries managed under the U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement (2008-2017) and the 

associated Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008a), including non-Indian commercial and recreational 

fisheries, and treaty Indian fisheries in the Columbia River as described in Section 2.1.5 and 

Figure 3. The list of fisheries included in the U.S. v Oregon Agreement is presented in Table 2. 
Snake River Harvest Module | 20

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

Table 2. Fisheries included in the 2008-2017 U.S. v. Oregon Agreement.

Fishery 

Management Jurisdiction Fishery Description by Target Species/Area

All Year Non-Treaty Commercial anchovy/herring/sardine

Commercial carp

Recreational steelhead (mouth to Hwy 395 

Bridge)

Recreational warm water species

Recreational sturgeon - below Bonneville Dam

Recreational sturgeon - above Bonneville Dam

Commercial sturgeon

Recreational fisheries in select areas

Commercial fisheries in select areas

Research, Monitoring and Evaluation

Winter-Spring season 

January 1 through 

June 15

Non-Treaty Commercial spring Chinook

Commercial smelt (mainstem and tributaries)

Commercial shad (mainstem and Washougal 

Reef)

Recreational spring Chinook - below Bonneville 

Dam

Recreational spring Chinook - above Bonneville 

Dam

Recreational spring Chinook - Snake River

Recreational spring Chinook – Ringold

Recreational smelt (mainstem and tributaries)

Wanapum tribal spring Chinook

Treaty Tribal Sturgeon set line

Sturgeon gill net with incidental Chinook and 

steelhead

Winter/Spring season salmon with incidental 

steelhead
Snake River Harvest Module | 21

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

Spring Chinook C&S

Spring tributary fisheries

Summer season June 

16 through July 31

Non-tribal Recreational salmon – mouth to PR Dam

Commercial salmon

Commercial shad (mainstem and Washougal 

River)

Treaty Tribal Summer Chinook with incidental steelhead

Sockeye

Sturgeon set line

Summer tributary fisheries

Shad (may start in spring season)

Lamprey (may start in spring season)

Fall season August 1 

through December 31

Non-tribal Commercial salmon

Recreational Lower Snake River Salmon

Recreational Buoy 10

Recreational salmon (TP/RP upstream to PR 

Dam)

What about fall Chinook above PRD?

Recreational steelhead (tributary dip-ins)

Commercial smelt (mainstem and tributaries)

Recreational smelt (mainstem and tributaries)

Treaty tribal Fall Chinook with incidental Coho and steelhead

Sturgeon gill net

Sturgeon set line

Fall tributary fisheries

Yellow Perch
Snake River Harvest Module | 22

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

2.3.3.1 Lower Columbia River Commercial Fisheries

Lower Columbia River non-Indian commercial fisheries occur below Bonneville Dam in the 

mainstem (statistical Zones 1-5) or in select off-channel fishing areas (statistical Zones 7, 71, 74, 

and 80). Commercial fishing seasons in the mainstem Columbia River are established by the 

Columbia River Compact, while Select Area seasons are established by the state in which the 

fishery occurs. Zone 6 (from above Bonneville Dam to Just below the Deschutes River) was 

open to non-Indian commercial fishing until 1956; gill nets, set lines, and seines were used, 

although seines were finally prohibited in 1950. In 1957, Zone 6 was closed to non-Indian 

commercial fishing (see further discussion under Treaty Indian Fishery below).

The number of drift gill net licenses in the commercial fishery declined after 1938, with a low of 

597 in 1969, but increased to a high of 1,524 in 1979. In 1980, a limited entry vessel permit 

moratorium went into effect. In the mid-1980s, 288 licenses were purchased and permanently 

retired; 135 licenses were bought back by Washington in 1995–96. In 1999, Columbia River 

commercial licenses totaled 591.

The number of seasons and fishing days allowed for the commercial mainstem fishery has 

declined dramatically since 1938. Before 1943, over 270 fishing days were allowed annually. 

From 1977 through the 1980s an average of 38 fishing days were allowed annually and, in the 

1990s, 29 average annual fishing days were allowed. A Commercial fishing season for spring 

Chinook salmon (including Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon) has occurred since 

2001. Sockeye retention has recently been allowed in summer season fisheries in the Columbia 

Basin in accordance with the 2008 Biological Opinion. Since the 1980s fall season (August 

through October) seasons have been limited by time, area, and harvest quotas, but have occurred 

each year

Commercial fishing in Columbia River off-channel areas was initiated in 1962 with the adoption 

of salmon seasons for Youngs Bay, Oregon. Recent declines in mainstem fishing opportunities 

prompted the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) to fund a research project to expand netpen programs to select off-channel fishing areas. The result of this effort was the Select Area 

Fishery Enhancement (SAFE) project. These commercial fisheries currently target hatchery 

Coho, Select Area bright fall Chinook salmon, and spring Chinook salmon returning to these 

programs. Fisheries in SAFE areas are not located in the migratory corridor of the Columbia 

River and have low impacts on Snake River stocks, averaging an annual harvest rate of 0.14 

percent of Snake River wild fall Chinook salmon since 2007 (Whisler 2014).

Currently, winter and spring fisheries in the mainstem are mark selective but summer are not. 

Most fall fisheries are not mark selective, but a mark selective Coho tanglenet fishery was 

implemented in 2013. The lower Columbia River commercial fisheries target spring Chinook 

(including Snake River spring/summer) salmon beginning in early March- April and can 

occasionally extend through June 15 (considered the end of the run timing for Snake River
Snake River Harvest Module | 23

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

spring/summer Chinook salmon through McNary Dam). Select Area commercial fisheries 

harvest spring Chinook in off-channel areas (Youngs Bay, Tongue Point, and Blind Slough in 

Oregon and Deep River in Washington) returning from net pen and hatchery releases in these 

areas. Seine fishing will begin to be re-established in 2014.

2.3.3.2 Lower Mainstem Columbia River Recreational Fisheries

The lower Columbia River mainstem below Bonneville Dam is separated into two main areas for 

recreational harvest; Buoy 10 (ocean/in-river boundary) to the Rocky Point/Tongue Point line, 

and the Rocky Point/Tongue Point line to Bonneville Dam. Separate regulations of the Buoy 10 

area are only used in fall season fisheries. Recreational fisheries are mark-selective for spring 

Chinook, summer chinook, Coho salmon and steelhead. Some fall Chinook salmon recreational 

fisheries are mark selective. Sockeye fisheries are not mark selective. The lower Columbia River 

sport fishery catches summer and fall Chinook, sockeye, and Coho salmon, and summer and 

winter steelhead in the mainstem Columbia River from Rocky Point/Tongue Point to Bonneville 

Dam. Recreational fisheries also occur in the Select Areas, upstream of Bonneville Dam and in 

the lower Snake River up to the Washington-Idaho border. Catch in recreational fisheries above 

Bonneville is generally low compared to the fisheries below Bonneville. Steelhead harvest is the 

exception.

2.3.3.3 Recreational fisheries from Bonneville Dam to the mouth of the Snake River

Recreational fisheries in the Columbia River target different stocks at different times of year. 

State permanent regulations allow steelhead fishing for adipose clipped steelhead from January 

1- March 31 and June 16-Dec 31. Steelhead fishing can be allowed at other times of the year by 

temporary regulation. State permanent regulations allow fishing for fall chinook and Coho

between Aug 1-Dec 31. Fall chinook fisheries are not mark selective and Coho fisheries 

upstream of the Hood River Bridge are not mark selective. Normally there are seasons for 

adipose clipped spring chinook and adipose clipped summer chinook, but these seasons vary by 

run size and allocation decisions. Tributary fisheries in the Zone 6 area have some impact on 

Snake River steelhead and these impacts are counted toward the total mainstem fishery limits. 

2.3.3.4 Treaty Indian Mainstem Fisheries

The Columbia River treaty tribes have authority to regulate treaty Indian fisheries in the 

Columbia River. The Compact actions approve consistent state commercial regulations that 

allow non-Indians to purchase fish from the treaty Indian commercial fisheries in Zone 6 

(Bonneville Dam to McNary Dam), in bank fisheries downstream of Bonneville Dam, and in any 

tributary fisheries where sales are authorized (Figure 3). Treaty tribal harvest includes 

commercial and ceremonial and subsistence (C&S) fisheries. The tribal ceremonial fisheries are 

of highest priority and generally occur before tribal commercial fishing. The tribal fisheries 

involve members of the four Columbia River treaty Indian tribes: Yakama Nation, Nez Perce 

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

the Warm Springs Reservation. The mainstem Columbia River fishing area currently includes all 
Snake River Harvest Module | 24

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

of the area between Bonneville and McNary Dams along with areas downstream of Bonneville 

roughly downstream to Beacon Rock outlined in MOU’s/MOA’s with the states of Oregon and 

Washington. These fisheries are managed under the jurisdiction of U.S. v. Oregon. The U.S. v. 

Oregon Management Agreement for 2008-2017 implements abundance-based management on 

Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, upper Columbia summer chinook, fall chinook, 

sockeye, and steelhead in treaty mainstem fisheries such that fishery impacts increase in 

proportion to the abundance of natural-origin fish forecast to return once certain run-sizes has 

been achieved. 
Snake River Harvest Module | 25

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

3. Historical and Current Impacts by Species

Many of the regulating factors that affect harvest impacts on Columbia River stocks are 

associated with treaties, laws, policies, or guidelines established for the management of other 

stocks or combined stocks, but indirectly control impacts of Columbia River fish as well. 

Because annual management measures must meet the conservation objectives of all the key 

stocks, fishing seasons are usually limited by the necessity of meeting the requirements for the 

least abundant stock (i.e., weak stock management). The emphasis of weak stock management 

has changed over the last 25 years, as ocean and freshwater fisheries have been widely reduced 

and refocused on hatchery-origin or healthy wild fish using a combination of time, area, and 

mark-selective regulations. Although direct harvest of weak stocks or populations has never 

been a desirable management practice, incidental fishery impacts have now become much more 

important in managing weak stocks than directed harvest. Limits intended to protect weak stocks 

in mixed stock fisheries reduce access to healthy wild or hatchery runs. Relatively small numbers 

or proportions of a protected stock may be impacted in a mixed stock fishery, but the regulatory 

consequences of those small impact allowances can result in significant reduction in harvest 

opportunity in mixed stock fisheries. 

Listed fish generally comprise a small percentage of the total fish caught by any fishery. Every 

listed fish may correspond to tens, hundreds, or thousands of other stocks in the total catch. As a 

result of weak stock constraints, surpluses of hatchery and strong naturally spawning runs often 

go unharvested. Small reductions in fishing rates on listed populations can translate to large 

reductions in catch of other stocks and recreational trips to communities which provide access to 

fishing, with significant economic consequences.
Snake River Harvest Module | 26

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

Figure 4. Fisheries, Fisheries Effects, and Life History Effects.

Analysis of fisheries impacts may consider a variety of direct and indirect effects (Figure 4). 

Direct effects include mortality in fisheries that are managed to specifically harvest target stocks. 

Indirect effects include incidental mortality of fish that are caught and released, encounter fishing 

gear but are not landed, or are harvested incidentally to the target species or stock. Indirect 

effects also might include genetic, growth, or reproductive changes when fishing rates are high 

and selective by size, age, or run timing. 

Fishery impact analyses may be conducted at population or fishery-specific levels. Populationspecific analyses would treat impacts by all fisheries in aggregate. Fishery-specific analyses 

would consider fine-scale impacts. By nature of their wide ranging travels, anadromous 

salmonids can be exposed to a wide variety of fisheries from their Columbia Basin watershed of 

origin all the way to Canada and Alaska. This broad distribution can substantially complicate 

analysis and attempts to limit impacts on specific stocks. 

Analysis of fishing and harvest is also complicated by the need to consider fisheries impacts at 

both the species impact and population goal levels. Fishing mortality can be considered an 

impact that interacts with other factors to affect salmon productivity and viability and thus needs 

to be addressed as part of recovery planning and actions. However, directed harvest or increased 
Snake River Harvest Module | 27

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

accessibility to other populations in mixed stock fisheries are also key elements of broad 

recovery goals, because recovery objectives include sustaining healthy, harvestable populations.

Fishery impact limits to protect listed weak populations are generally based on risk assessments 

that identify points where fisheries do not pose jeopardy to the continued persistence of a listed 

group of fish. In many cases, these assessments identify the point where additional fishery 

reductions provide little reduction in extinction risks. A population may continue to be at 

significant risk of extinction but those risks are no longer substantially affected by the specified 

fishing levels. Often, no level of fishery reduction will be adequate to meet naturally spawning

population escapement goals related to population viability. In those cases, elimination of harvest 

will not in itself lead to the recovery of a population. However, prudent and careful management 

of harvest is necessary to prevent unacceptable risk to listed populations and can help close the 

gap and protect listed populations while habitat is being restored.

The main purpose for hatchery production in the Columbia River is to provide for harvest

opportunity and meet mitigation goals (although there are some situations where hatchery 

production is also a conservation tool that can aid recovery). Hatcheries can cause additional 

impacts and risks to listed species. Adverse impacts can result when natural-origin fish are

harvested when hatchery-origin fish are targeted in a particular fishery. Hatchery-origin fish 

spawning in the wild can potentially also result in adverse impacts to natural-origin fish. 

Hatchery impacts are addressed more specifically in the MU plans and in the Snake River 

recovery hatchery module.

3.1 Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon ESU

Snake River fall Chinook salmon are present throughout ocean fisheries from Alaska to 

California, and in fall season fisheries in the mainstem Columbia River. Incidental catch occurs 

in fisheries that target harvestable hatchery and non-listed natural-origin fish. The presence of 

large numbers of harvestable natural-origin Chinook salmon in the fishing locations from other

sources makes it infeasible to distinguish Snake River fall Chinook salmon through means of 

mark-selective fishing techniques. 

Total harvest mortality for the combined ocean and inriver fisheries can be expressed in terms of 

exploitation rates which provide a common currency for comparing ocean and inriver fishery 

impacts (Fisheries in the Columbia River are generally managed subject to harvest rate limits. 

Harvest rates are expressed as a proportion of the run returning to the river that is killed in river 

fisheries). The total exploitation rate has declined significantly since the ESA listing. Ocean 

fisheries have been required since 1996, through ESA consultation, to achieve a 30% reduction 

in the average exploitation rate observed during the 1988 to 1993 base period. 
Snake River Harvest Module | 28

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

Figure 5 depicts the distribution of Lyons Ferry Hatchery average total fishing mortalities among 

fisheries. Lyons Ferry Hatchery fish are used as a surrogate for natural-origin Snake River fall 

Chinook salmon for ocean fisheries.

Figure 5. Percent distribution of Lyons Ferry Hatchery fish average total fishing mortalities among fisheries (1999-

2011).

Under the 2008-2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement, the harvest of Snake River fall 

Chinook in the Columbia River may vary from year-to-year based on the abundance-based 

harvest rate schedule in Table 3. Allowable harvest on any given year depends on the abundance 

of unlisted upriver fall Chinook salmon and natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon. The 

allowable harvest rate ranges from 21.5% to 45.0%. 

The harvest rate schedule in Table 3 modifies the past practice of managing fisheries subject to a 

fixed harvest rate, providing a management structure that is responsive to the status of the 

species. Under the new schedule (Table 3), harvest may vary up or down depending on the 

overall abundance of unlisted upriver fall Chinook and listed natural-origin Snake River fall 

Chinook salmon. The harvest rate schedule is generally calibrated to provide higher harvest 

rates when abundance is high enough to accommodate the increased harvest and still meet the 

TRT recovery abundance threshold of 3,000 natural-origin fish to Lower Granite Dam. 

Conversely, when numbers are low, harvest rates are reduced to provide greater protection. 

SEAK

NBC

WCVI

Geo St

WA/OR coast

Puget Sound

Terminal
Snake River Harvest Module | 29

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

Table 3. Abundance-based harvest rate schedule for Snake River fall Chinook (TAC 2008).

State/Tribal Proposed Snake River Fall Chinook Harvest Rate Schedule under the 2008-2017 U.S. v Oregon

Management Agreement.

State/Tribal Proposed Snake River Fall Chinook Harvest Rate Schedule

Expected URB 

River Mouth 

Run Size

Expected River 

Mouth Snake River

Wild Run Size 1

Treaty Total 

Harvest Rate

Non-Treaty 

Harvest Rate

Total Harvest 

Rate

Expected 

Escapement of 

Snake R. Wild Past 

Fisheries

< 60,000 Or < 1,000 20% 1.50% 21.50% 784

>60,000 And > 1,000 23% 4% 27.00% 730

>120,000 And > 2,000 23% 8.25% 31.25% 1,375

> 200,000 And > 5,000 25% 8.25% 33.25% 3,338

And > 6,000 27% 11% 38.00% 3,720

And > 8,000 30% 15% 45.00% 4,400

1. If the Snake River natural fall Chinook forecast is less than level corresponding to an aggregate URB run 

size, the allowable mortality rate will be based on the Snake River natural fall Chinook run size. 

Notes:

Treaty Fisheries include: Zone 6 Ceremonial, subsistence, and commercial fisheries from August 1-December 31. 

Non-Treaty Fisheries include: Commercial and recreational fisheries in Zones 1-5 and mainstem recreational 

fisheries from Bonneville Dam upstream to the confluence of the Snake River and commercial and recreation 

SAFE (Selective Areas Fisheries Evaluation) fisheries from August 1-December 31.

The Treaty Tribes and the States of Oregon and Washington may agree to a fishery for the Treaty Tribes below 

Bonneville Dam not to exceed the harvest rates provided for in this Agreement.

Fishery impacts in Hanford sport fisheries count in calculations of the percent of harvestable surplus achieved.

When expected river-mouth run sizes of naturally produced Snake River Fall Chinook equal or exceed 6,000, the 

states reserve the option to allocate some proportion of the non-treaty harvest rate to supplement fall Chinook 

directed fisheries in the Snake River.

Since 1996, based on a post season review, actual Columbia River harvest rates have, with one 

exception, been less than the ESA-authorized limit. The difference between the allowed and 

observed harvest rate has ranged from -0.9% to 13.8% (Table 4). In the last 3 years, when the 

ESA-authorized limit was 45% according to Table 3, the average observed HR was 32.9%. 

Figure 6 presents observed harvest rate on Snake River fall Chinook salmon since 1986.
Snake River Harvest Module | 30

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

Table 4. Observed harvest rate on Snake River fall Chinook salmon compared to the maximum allowable harvest 

rate limit under the 2008-2017 U.S. v Oregon Management Agreement (Patiño 2014).

Year

Observed 

HR (%)

Allowed

HR (%) Difference

1996 27.1% 31.3% 4.2%

1997 32.2% 31.3% -0.9%

1998 26.7% 31.3% 4.6%

1999 30.4% 31.3% 0.9%

2000 28.7% 31.3% 2.6%

2001 21.2% 31.3% 10.1%

2002 28.0% 31.3% 3.3%

2003 21.7% 31.3% 9.6%

2004 20.7% 31.3% 10.6%

2005 25.3% 31.3% 6.0%

2006 27.0% 31.3% 4.3%

2007 22.6% 31.3% 8.7%

2008 27.6% 31.3% 3.7%

2009 38.0% 38.0% 0.0%

2010 26.0% 33.3% 7.3%

2011 32.8% 45.0% 12.2%

2012 34.8% 45.0% 10.2%

2013 31.2% 45.0% 13.8%

Average 27.9% 6.2%

Figure 6. Fishery-related mortalities for Snake River fall Chinook salmon in U.S. v. OR fisheries since 1986 (Patiño 

2014).

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

1986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013
Snake River Harvest Module | 31

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

3.2 Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon

The ocean fishery mortality on upriver spring/summer Chinook salmon is very low and, for 

practical purposes, assumed to be zero, based on the rare occurrence of coded wire tag (CWT)

recoveries in ocean fisheries. Incidental take of ESA-listed Snake River spring/summer and 

Upper Columbia River Chinook salmon occurs in spring and summer season fisheries in the 

mainstem Columbia River that target harvestable hatchery and natural-origin stocks. While 

Upper Columbia spring Chinook and Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are ESAlisted, Upper Columbia summer/fall Chinook salmon are not listed and often have a large surplus 

that can be harvested. 

Under the terms of the 2008–2017 Agreement, fisheries are subject to a harvest rate schedule that 

varies from year-to-year based on an abundance-based harvest rate schedule ranging from 5.5 

percent to 17 percent (Table 5), described in the U.S. v. Oregon 2008–2017 Management 

Agreement. Harvest depends on the total (hatchery + natural origin) abundance of upriver spring 

(including Snake River Spring/summer Chinook salmon), natural-origin Snake River

spring/summer Chinook salmon, and may be further limited by natural-origin Upper Columbia 

River spring Chinook salmon (see footnote 4 of Table 5). The allowable harvest rate may range 

from 5.5% to 17%. As indicated in Table 5, most of the harvest under the 2008-2017 U.S. v.

Oregon Agreement occurs in treaty Indian fisheries. Recent estimates of the harvest rate of 

Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon from 1979 to 2013 are presented in Figure 7. The

incidental take of these fish resulting from fisheries under U.S. v. Oregon jurisdiction since 2001

has averaged 11.0%. 
Snake River Harvest Module | 32

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

Table 5. Abundance-based harvest rate schedule for upriver spring Chinook and Snake River spring/summer 

Chinook salmon in spring management period fisheries under the 2008-2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management 

Agreement (TAC 2008).

Harvest Rate Schedule for Chinook in Spring Management Period

Total Upriver Spring 

and Snake River 

Summer Chinook Run 

Size

Snake River 

Natural

Spring/Summer 

Chinook Run 

Size1

Treaty Zone 6 

Total Harvest 

Rate 2,5

Non-Treaty 

Natural 

Harvest Rate 

3

Total 

Natural 

Harvest 

Rate4

Non-Treaty 

Natural Limited 

Harvest Rate4

<27,000 <2,700 5.0% <0.5% <5.5% 0.5%

27,000 2,700 5.0% 0.5% 5.5% 0.5%

33,000 3,300 5.0% 1.0% 6.0% 0.5%

44,000 4,400 6.0% 1.0% 7.0% 0.5%

55,000 5,500 7.0% 1.5% 8.5% 1.0%

82,000 8,200 7.4% 1.6% 9.0% 1.5%

109,000 10,900 8.3% 1.7% 10.0%

141,000 14,100 9.1% 1.9% 11.0%

217,000 21,700 10.0% 2.0% 12.0%

271,000 27,100 10.8% 2.2% 13.0%

326,000 32,600 11.7% 2.3% 14.0%

380,000 38,000 12.5% 2.5% 15.0%

434,000 43,400 13.4% 2.6% 16.0%

488,000 48,800 14.3% 2.7% 17.0%

1. If the Snake River natural spring/summer forecast is less than 10% of the total upriver run size, the allowable mortality rate will be based on 

the Snake River natural spring/summer Chinook run size. In the event the total forecast is less than 27,000 or the Snake River natural 

spring/summer forecast is less than 2,700, Oregon and Washington would keep their mortality rate below 0.5% and attempt to keep actual 

mortalities as close to zero as possible while maintaining minimal fisheries targeting other harvestable runs.

2. Treaty Fisheries include: Zone 6 Ceremonial, subsistence, and commercial fisheries from January 1-June 15. Harvest impacts in the 

Bonneville Pool tributary fisheries may be included if TAC analysis shows the impacts have increased from the background levels. 

3. Non-Treaty Fisheries include: Commercial and recreational fisheries in Zones 1-5 and mainstem recreational fisheries from Bonneville 

Dam upstream to the Hwy 395 Bridge in the Tri-Cities and commercial and recreation SAFE (Selective Areas Fisheries Evaluation) 

fisheries from January 1-June 15; Wanapum tribal fisheries, and Snake River mainstem recreational fisheries upstream to the WashingtonIdaho border from April through June. Harvest impacts in the Bonneville Pool tributary fisheries may be included if TAC analysis shows 

the impacts have increased from the background levels.

4. If the Upper Columbia River natural spring Chinook forecast is less than 1,000, then the total allowable mortality for treaty and non-treaty 

fisheries combined would be restricted to 9% or less. Whenever Upper Columbia River natural fish restrict the total allowable mortality 

rate to 9% or less, then non-treaty fisheries would transfer 0.5% harvest rate to treaty fisheries. In no event would non-treaty fisheries go 

below 0.5% harvest rate.

5. The Treaty Tribes and the States of Oregon and Washington may agree to a fishery for the Treaty Tribes below Bonneville Dam not to 

exceed the harvest rates provided for in this Agreement.
Snake River Harvest Module | 33

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

Figure 7. Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon harvest rates resulting from the implementation of fisheries 

under U.S. v. Oregon jurisdiction since 1979 (Patiño 2014).

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001200320052007200920112013
Snake River Harvest Module | 34

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

3.3 Snake River Steelhead DPS

Few steelhead are caught in ocean fisheries. Harvest mortality in ocean fisheries is assumed to 

be zero. Snake River Steelhead are caught in fisheries in the mainstem Columbia and tributaries 

(e.g. Deschutes River), and Snake Rivers and Snake River tributary areas. Fisheries in the 

mainstem Columbia River are currently being managed subject to the terms of the U.S. v. 

Oregon Management Agreement for 2008–2017. Non-Indian fisheries are subject to a 2 percent 

harvest rate limit on A-run steelhead in winter, spring, and summer season fisheries, and a 2 

percent harvest rate limit separately on A-run and B-run steelhead in fall season fisheries. 

Treaty-Indian fall season fisheries are currently managed using the abundance based harvest rate 

schedule for B-run steelhead, as contained in the 2008 Agreement (Table 6). Under the 

abundance based harvest rate schedule, the harvest rate limit may change depending on the 

abundance of B-run steelhead. The harvest rate allowed under the current harvest rate schedule is 

also limited by the abundance of upriver fall Chinook salmon. The purpose of this provision is to 

recognize that impacts to B-run steelhead may be higher when the abundance, and thus fishing 

opportunity for fall Chinook salmon, is higher and remains consistent with conservation goals. 

However, higher harvest rates are allowed only if the abundance of B-run steelhead is also 

greater than 35,000. This provision is designed to provide greater opportunity for the tribes to 

satisfy their treaty right, to harvest 50% of the harvestable surplus of fall Chinook salmon, in 

years when conditions are generally favorable. Even with these provisions, it is unlikely that the 

treaty right for Chinook salmon or steelhead can be fully satisfied. The harvest rate in tribal fall 

season fisheries may range from 13 to 20% and the non-Treaty fall season fishery harvest rate 

would remain fixed at 2% (Table 6). 

Table 6. Abundance Based Harvest Rate Schedule for B-run Steelhead (TAC 2008).

Upriver Summer Steelhead Total B Harvest Rate Schedule

Forecast Bonneville 

Total B Steelhead 

Run Size

River Mouth URB 

Run Size

Treaty Total B 

Harvest Rate

Non-Treaty wild B 

Harvest Rate

Total Harvest Rate

< 20,000 Any 13% 2.0% 15.0%

> 20,000 Any 15% 2.0% 17.0%

>35,000 And >200,000 20% 2.0% 22.0%

B-run steelhead is used as the primary steelhead related harvest constraint for tribal fall season 

fisheries and are thus the indicator stock used for management purposes. Generally, the status of 

B-run steelhead is worse than that of A-run steelhead. B-run steelhead are subject to higher 

harvest rates because they are larger and thus more susceptible to catch in gillnets. Harvest 

impacts on B-run steelhead generally are also higher because their timing coincides with the 

return of fall Chinook salmon, the primary target of tribal fall season fisheries. A-run steelhead 
Snake River Harvest Module | 35

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

typically return a few weeks earlier and thus are less susceptible to catch. Consequently, there 

are no specific management constraints in tribal fisheries for A-run steelhead. Recent estimates 

of the harvest rate of Snake River steelhead from 2000 to 2013 are presented in Figure 8. 

Figure 8. Snake River steelhead harvest rates resulting from the implementation of fisheries under U.S. v. Oregon

jurisdiction since 2000 (Patiño 2014).

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013

SR Group A SR Group B
Snake River Harvest Module | 36

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

3.4 Snake River Sockeye ESU

Few sockeye are caught in ocean fisheries. Ocean fishing mortality on Snake River Sockeye is 

assumed to be zero. Management provisions for sockeye in the 2008 U.S. v. Oregon agreement 

have not changed from those in the 2005-2007 agreement. Non-Indian fisheries in the Columbia 

River mainstem below the highway 395 bridge where it crosses the Columbia River between 

Kennewick and Pasco, WA are limited to a harvest rate of 1% and Treaty Indian fisheries to 5 to 

7%, depending on the run size of upriver sockeye stocks (Table 7 estimates of the harvest rate of 

Snake River sockeye salmon from 1979 to 2013 are presented in Figure 9.) 

Table 7. Sockeye Harvest Rate Schedule (TAC 2008).

River Mouth Sockeye Run Size Treaty Harvest 

Rate

Non-Treaty Harvest 

Rate

Total Harvest Rate

< 50,000 5% 1% 6%

50,000 -75,000 7% 1% 8%

> 75,000 7% * 1% 8 % *

*If the upriver sockeye run size is projected to exceed 75,000 adults over Bonneville Dam, any party may propose harvest 

rates exceeding those specified in Part II.C.2. or Part II.C.3. of the 2008-2017 Management Agreement. The parties shall 

then prepare a revised biological assessment of proposed Columbia River fishery impacts on ESA-listed sockeye and shall 

submit it to NMFS for consultation under Section 7 of the ESA.

Figure 9. Snake River sockeye salmon harvest rates resulting from the implementation of fisheries under U.S. v. 

Oregon jurisdiction since 1979 (Patiño 2014).

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001200320052007200920112013

SR...
Snake River Harvest Module | 37

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

4. Expectations and Considerations for Future

Harvest Management

Provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty that relate to management of Chinook salmon fisheries 

in particular will be in place through 2018. Fisheries managed under the jurisdiction of the 

PFMC are subject to long-term biological opinions that are in place until changed. Fisheries in 

the mainstem Columbia River will be managed subject to the U.S. v. Oregon Management 

Agreement through at least 2017. If and how these fisheries will change thereafter is unclear. 

The existing fishery regimes have been developed over the years since the first ESA listings in 

the Columbia River Basin in 1991, and include substantial reductions in fisheries considered 

necessary to comply with ESA requirements to date. It is reasonable to expect that fishery 

management provisions will continue to evolve in response to new information, including 

recommendations developed through the recovery planning process. However, it is not possible 

to predict the direction or magnitude of change for any particular ESU/DPS. Given these 

uncertainties, if it is necessary for planning or analysis purposes to make assumptions about 

harvest impacts in the future, the most reasonable assumption is that future harvest impacts will 

not increase over current levels.

The Snake Basin Harvest Forum (hereafter SBHF), an informal offshoot of the U.S. v. Oregon

process, was formed in early 2009 to develop comprehensive and coordinated fishery proposals

for the three Management Units of the Snake River spring/summer Chinook and Steelhead 

Recovery Plan (Southeast Washington, Northeast Oregon and Idaho). NMFS approved 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) FMEP that includes fisheries targeting 

hatchery-origin Steelhead in the southeast Washington portion of the Snake River that include 

retention of adipose-clipped Snake River fall Chinook (NMFS 2011b). Other FMEPs and 

TRMPs for steelhead fisheries are expected in the near future. NMFS also approved a package 

of management plans targeting Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon in the Northeast 

Oregon portion of the Snake River (NMFS 2013a). NMFS has approved IDFG’s FMEP and the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes TRMP for spring/summer Chinook salmon fisheries in the Salmon 

River Basin (NMFS 2013b). NMFS expects that U.S. v Oregon Parties will use the SBHF to 

develop additional proposals for harvest of Snake River spring/summer and fall Chinook salmon 

and steelhead in the near future. 

Ideally, agreements can be reached though the SBHF for long-term frameworks for managing all 

fisheries in the Snake Basin consistent with ESA and the needs of the co-managers. The ESA 

analysis of Snake Basin fishery proposals for Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, 

Snake River fall Chinook salmon and Snake River steelhead will require consideration of the 

combined effects of all the proposed fisheries on a given population, Major Population Groups 

(MPGs) and ultimately on each of the affected ESA-listed species that may occur. The goal is to 

ensure that these fisheries are consistent with recovery of these listed species.
Snake River Harvest Module | 38

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

The ongoing hatchery reform outside and within the Snake River basin may affect harvest 

management outside and within the basin, and its effect on fisheries in the Columbia River may 

alter the fisheries effects describes in this module to varying degrees. More information on 

hatchery recovery strategies and proposed actions can be found in the respective Snake River 

ESA Recovery Plans.

4.1 Snake River Spring and Summer Chinook Salmon ESU

NMFS believes there are opportunities to develop proposals that emphasize harvest of hatcheryorigin Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook salmon with adequately low risk for natural origin 

spawners. It is appropriate to consider the fisheries that have occurred in recent years that 

emphasize the harvest of hatchery-origin fish, particularly in terminal areas. For tribal fisheries,

and particularly as we approach a recovered status for listed species, harvest proposals targeting 

natural-origin stocks may be deemed appropriate. NMFS recommends developing abundancebased harvest rate schedules that respond to the return of natural-origin fish. Fisheries may occur 

in mixed stock areas and be based on indicators of aggregate abundance. However, NMFS also 

suggests development of, and possibly greater emphasis on, terminal area fisheries that are based 

on population-specific abundance-based harvest rate schedules. One of the recovery strategies in 

the Snake River Basin will be to account for population specific impacts that occur in mixed 

stock fisheries
Snake River Harvest Module | 39

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

4.2 Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon ESU

Since there is only one extant population in the Snake River Fall Chinook salmon ESU, the

management situation is less complicated than that for Snake River steelhead or Snake River

spring/summer Chinook salmon. Thus it is appropriate to consider developing total combined 

abundance-based harvest rate schedule for fisheries in the Snake River that responds to the return 

of natural-origin fish in a given year. A return of 3,000 natural-origin spawners is a logical 

benchmark that would be included in such a schedule. These fisheries should generally target 

hatchery-origin fish and emphasize the reduction of potential hatchery-origin spawners. As 

abundance of natural origin fish increases there may be more harvest opportunities in terminal 

areas.
Snake River Harvest Module | 40

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

4.3 Snake River Steelhead DPS

The Snake River Steelhead DPS is listed as threatened. Most of the fishing occurs in mixed 

stock areas with the associated consequences to weaker populations. The tribes have indicated 

their interest in more fishing opportunity than they have had in the recent past. These 

circumstances all contribute to what will be a challenging management problem. 

Generally, NMFS believes it is possible to support fishing levels in the Snake Basin similar to 

those that have occurred in recent years. Fisheries should continue to emphasize the harvest of 

hatchery-origin fish. Greater flexibility may be attained through the development of abundancebased harvest rate schedules (especially if these are population-specific) that respond to the 

return of natural-origin fish. NMFS suggests the consideration of greater emphasis on terminal 

area, population-specific harvest frameworks, although NMFS understands that fishing 

opportunity in terminal areas of the Snake Basin for steelhead may be limited relative to those 

for spring/summer Chinook salmon.

NMFS believes that increasing harvest impacts beyond those that have occurred in the past may 

be problematic. The tribes have a treaty rights to fish for steelhead in the Snake River Basin. As 

a consequence, it may be necessary to develop a co-management framework that allows for the 

allocation of existing impacts among greater number of participants. 
Snake River Harvest Module | 41

July 2014| NOAA Fisheries 

4.4 Snake River Sockeye Salmon ESU

The status of the Snake River Sockeye Salmon ESU is the highest risk of extinction of any listed 

salmonid species in the Columbia River Basin. Currently, the ESU is represented by fish 

produced by a captive propagation program with fish returning to Redfish Lake near the 

headwaters of the Salmon River in Idaho. Adult sockeye salmon returning to the Sawtooth 

Valley pass through fisheries directed at other species in the Columbia River and lower Snake 

River. NMFS believes that the opportunity to manage fisheries directed at Snake River sockeye 

salmon is a long term goal but the opportunity to design such fisheries will not arise until 

sometime in the future.

Because the hatchery program is expected to be tightly integrated with any developing natural 

production for an indeterminate amount of time into the future, it is unclear when harvest 

scenarios can begin to be developed that would provide for meaningful harvest directed at Snake 

River sockeye salmon. Until the viability of populations have improved to the point that harvest 

rate schedules can be devised that would not result in impediments to achieving recovery

objectives, any harvest impacts on Snake River sockeye salmon should be kept at low levels and 

should accrue only incidentally in fisheries targeting other species. The recovery plan for Snake 

River sockeye salmon may consider how limited fishery opportunity would be phased in, in 

which areas, and under which conditions. In the near future, fisheries currently incidentally 

impacting Snake River sockeye salmon should continue to be managed, with accompanying 

adequate monitoring programs, to minimize their impacts on this ESU.
Snake River Harvest Module | 42

June 2014| NOAA Fisheries | 

5. Literature Cited

Fresh, K. et al. 2014. Module for the Ocean Environment. NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center, Seattle, WA.

Koenings, J.P. and P. Sprout. 2008. Letter to the Honorable Condoleezza Rice. May 21, 2008. 

3pp. w/Amended Chapters of Annex IV of the PST.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000a. Endangered and Threatened Species: Final 

Rule Governing Take of 14 Threatened Salmon and Steelhead Evolutionarily Significant 

Units (ESUs). Federal Register 65 (132): 42422-42481, 7/10/2000.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000b. Modification to ESA 4(d) rule (protective 

regulations) for listed West Coast salmon under tribal resource management plans. Federal 

Register 65 (132): 42481, 7/10/2000.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004a. NOAA Fisheries’ approach to making 

determinations pursuant to the Endangered Species Act about the effects of harvest actions 

on listed Pacific salmon and steelhead. NMFS, Northwest Region Sustainable Fisheries 

Division. November 16, 2004.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. Endangered and Threatened Species: Final 

Listing Determinations for 16 ESUs of West Coast salmon, and Final 4(d) Protective 

Regulations for Threatened Salmonid ESUs. Final Rule. Federal Register 70 (123): 37160-

37204, 6/28/2005.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008a. Endangered Species Act - Section 7(a)(2) 

Consultation, Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. Consultation on remand for operation 

of the Federal Columbia River Power System, 11 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the 

Columbia Basin and ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) Permit for Juvenile Fish Transportation 

Program (Revised and reissued pursuant to court order, NWF v. NMFS, Civ. No. CV 01-

640-RE (D. Oregon)). National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon, 5/5/2008.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008b. Supplemental comprehensive analysis of the 

Federal Columbia River Power System and mainstem effects of the Upper Snake and other 

tributary actions. National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon, 5/5/2008.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008c. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) 

Consultation. Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation on the Approval of Revised Regimes 
Snake River Harvest Module | 43

June 2014| NOAA Fisheries | 

under the Pacific Salmon Treaty and Deferral of Management to Alaska of Certain Fisheries 

Included in those Regimes. December 22, 2008. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008d. Integrating Recovery Plan Products and 

Section 7 consultations in the NMFS Northwest Region. July 24, 2008.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011a. Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan 

Module for Salmon and Steelhead. NMFS Northwest Region. Portland, OR. Prepared for 

NMFS by the Lower Columbia River Estuary artnership (contractor) and PC Trask & 

Associates, Inc. (subcontractor). January 2011.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011b. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 

Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. Consultation on Fisheries Management 

and Evaluation Plan for IDFG Recreational Fisheries for Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon. 

October 19, 2011.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2013a. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 

Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. Consultation on the Effects of the 

three Tribal Resource Management Plans and two Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans 

on Snake River Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Species Listed Under the Endangered 

Species Act

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2013b. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 

Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. Consultation on the Effects of the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes' Tribal Resource Management Plan on Snake River Chinook 

Salmon and Steelhead Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2014. Supplemental recovery plan module for snake 

river salmon and steelhead mainstem columbia river hydropower projects. Portland, OR.

Patino, E. 2014. Memorandum to the File. ESA Impacts for US v. OR Fisheries. May 26, 2014.

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2014. Review of 2013 Ocean Salmon Fisheries: 

Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Document for the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery 

Management Plan. PFMC, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-

1384.

TAC, (U.S. v. Oregon Technical Advisory Committee). 2008. 2008 Biological assessment of 

incidental impacts on salmon species listed under the Endangered Species Act in the 2008-

2017 non-Indian and treaty Indian fisheries in the Columbia River Basin, 4/21/2008.
Snake River Harvest Module | 44

June 2014| NOAA Fisheries | 

US District Court (D. Oregon). 2005. US v. Oregon. Civil No. 68-513KI. 2005-2007 interim 

management agreement for upriver Chinook, sockeye, steelhead, coho and white sturgeon, 

5/11/2005.

Whisler, G. 2014. Average annual harvest rate of Snake River wild fall Chinook salmon since 

2007. Personal Communication to Enrique Patino (NMFS) from Geoffrey Whisler (ODFW). 

June 25, 2014.