2008-2017 

United States v. Oregon 

Management Agreement 

May 2008
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page i 

2008-2017 United States v. Oregon 

MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PREAMBLE...................................................................................................................... 1

I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 2 

A. PARTICIPANTS...................................................................................................... 2 

B. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT...................................................................................... 3 

1. Nature of Agreement............................................................................................. 3 

2. ESA Section 7 Process .......................................................................................... 4 

3. Party Positions....................................................................................................... 6 

4. Court Technical Advisor ....................................................................................... 6 

5. Availability of Funds............................................................................................. 7 

6. Management Precision .......................................................................................... 7 

7. Duration of Agreement.......................................................................................... 8 

8. Modification and Withdrawal ............................................................................... 8 

9. Communication ..................................................................................................... 9 

C. United States v. Oregon FRAMEWORK............................................................... 10 

1. Technical Advisory Committee .......................................................................... 10 

2. Production Advisory Committee......................................................................... 14 

3. Strategic Work Group ......................................................................................... 16 

4. Regulatory Coordination Committee .................................................................. 17 

5. Policy Committee................................................................................................ 18 

6. Dispute Resolution Procedure............................................................................. 18 

7. Emergeny Matters .............................................................................................. 22 

D. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DISPUTES ................................................................... 23 

E. PROSECUTION REFERAL AGREEMENTS ...................................................... 24 

F. PERFORMANCE MEASURES, COMMITMENTS AND ASSURANCES........ 25 

1. General ................................................................................................................ 25 

2. Performance Evaluation ...................................................................................... 26 

 Harvest Indicator Stocks Table .......................................................................... 28 

 Abundance Indicator Stocks Table..................................................................... 29 

3. Policy Committee Consideration ........................................................................ 32 

4. Public Notice/Education about Terms of Agreement ......................................... 33 

G. DEFINITIONS....................................................................................................... 33 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page ii 

II. HARVEST................................................................................................................. 33

A. UPRIVER SPRING AND SNAKE RIVER SUMMER CHINOOK..................... 35 

1. Catch Expectations of the Parties........................................................................ 35 

2. Minimum Columbia River Treaty Indian Ceremonial and 

Subsistence Entitlement...................................................................................... 37 

3. Ocean Fisheries ................................................................................................... 38 

4. Non-Treaty Mainstem Columbia River Fisheries ............................................... 39 

5. Treaty Indian Mainstem Columbia River Fisheries ............................................ 39 

6. Review if Escapement Goals Established ........................................................... 39 

B. UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER SUMMER CHINOOK .......................................... 40 

1. Upper Columbia Summer Chinook Fishery Framework .................................... 41 

2. Ocean Fisheries ................................................................................................... 42 

3. Non-Treaty Fisheries........................................................................................... 43 

4. Treaty Indian Fisheries........................................................................................ 43 

C. SOCKEYE.............................................................................................................. 44 

1. Bonneville Dam Management Goal.................................................................... 44 

2. Non-treaty Columbia River Fisheries ................................................................. 44 

3. Treaty Indian Columbia River Fisheries ............................................................. 44 

4. Fisheries on Sockeye Returns Greater than 75,000 Adults................................. 44 

D. FALL CHINOOK .................................................................................................. 45 

1. Snake River Fall Chinook Harvest...................................................................... 45 

2. Review of Adult Conversion Rate Estimates...................................................... 45 

3. Harvest Management Objectives for Fall Chinook............................................. 46 

4. Escapement and Management Objectives........................................................... 47 

5. Ocean Fisheries ................................................................................................... 50 

6. Non-treaty Columbia River Fisheries ................................................................. 51 

7. Treaty Indian Fisheries........................................................................................ 52 

8. In-Season Review................................................................................................ 52 

E. STEELHEAD ......................................................................................................... 53 

1. Management Principles ....................................................................................... 53 

2. Steelhead Escapement Goals............................................................................... 53 

3. Non-treaty Columbia River Harvest ................................................................... 53 

4. Treaty Indian Zone 6 Harvest.............................................................................. 54 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page iii 

F. COHO ..................................................................................................................... 54

1. Management Principles ....................................................................................... 54 

2. United States v. Oregon Harvest Sharing Principle ............................................ 55 

3. Responsibilities for Costs.................................................................................... 55 

4. Escapement Objectives ....................................................................................... 56 

5. Fisheries Management......................................................................................... 56 

G. WHITE STURGEON............................................................................................. 57 

1. Management Goals.............................................................................................. 57 

2. Management Measures........................................................................................ 58 

H. SHAD..................................................................................................................... 59

I. WALLEYE AND OTHER NON-NATIVE SPECIES............................................ 60 

J. LAMPREY .............................................................................................................. 60 

K. RESEARCH AND MONITORING ...................................................................... 61 

1. Current Needs...................................................................................................... 62 

2. Additional Needs................................................................................................. 62 

III. PRODUCTION ACTIONS .................................................................................... 62 

A. MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES ........................................................................... 62 

1. General Statement ............................................................................................... 62 

2. Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation................................................................ 63 

3. Marking ............................................................................................................... 64 

4. Broodstock, Facility and Funding Needs for Production Programs.................... 66 

5. Mitchell Act Funding .......................................................................................... 67 

6. Non-Mitchell Act Funding.................................................................................. 68 

B. SPRING CHINOOK PRODUCTION.................................................................... 69 

C. SUMMER CHINOOK PRODUCTION ................................................................ 69 

D. SOCKEYE PRODUCTION................................................................................... 69 

E. FALL CHINOOK PRODUCTION ........................................................................ 70 

1. Snake River Fall Chinook Supplementation Program ........................................ 70 

2. Other Fall Chinook Production ........................................................................... 74 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page iv 

F. STEELHEAD PRODUCTION............................................................................... 74 

1. Steelhead Production for Brood Years 2009-2018 ............................................. 74 

2. Monitoring Adult Composition........................................................................... 74 

G. COHO .................................................................................................................... 75 

1. Purpose of Program Modifications ..................................................................... 75 

2. Upriver Coho Production for 2008-2017 Brood Coho........................................ 75 

3. Grande Ronde Program....................................................................................... 75 

4. Priority for Upriver Programs ............................................................................. 76 

5. Contingency ........................................................................................................ 76 

H. PRODUCTION ISSUES REQUIRING FURTHER DEVELOPMENT............... 77 

1. Table B1, Spring Chinook Salmon ..................................................................... 77 

2. Table B2, Summer Chinook Salmon................................................................... 78 

3. Table B3, Sockeye Salmon ................................................................................. 78 

4. Table B5, Fall Chinook Salmon.......................................................................... 79 

5. Table B6, Steelhead............................................................................................. 79 

6. Table B7, Coho Salmon ...................................................................................... 80 

I. PROCESSES FOR ONGOING OR FUTURE REVIEWS AFFECTING 

PRODUCTION PROGRAMS, AND FOR HIGH PRIORITY PRODUCTION 

ITEMS THAT WILL REQUIRE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT, COOPERATIVE 

PLANNING, AND RESOLUTION........................................................................ 80 

1. Process for Ongoing or Future Reviews Affecting Production Programs .......... 80 

2. Process for High Priority Production Items That Will Require Further 

Development, Cooperative Planning, and Resolution........................................ 81 

Schedule A: Schedule for Committee Activities........................................................... 84 

Annual TAC Schedule ................................................................................................. 84

Annual PAC Schedule ................................................................................................. 85

Annual Policy Committee Schedule ............................................................................ 86

Table 1. Lead management entities for each sub-basin ............................................. 88 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page v 

HARVEST RATE SCHEDULES.................................................................................. 89

Table A1. Spring Management Period Harvest Rate Schedule ................................... 89 

Table A2. Summer Management Period Chinook Harvest Rate Schedule.................. 90 

Table A3. Fall Management Period Chinook Harvest Rate Schedule......................... 92 

Table A3. Fall Management Period Steelhead Harvest Rate Schedule ....................... 93 

ATTACHMENT A ...................................................................................................... 94 

ATTACHMENT B ...................................................................................................... 95 

PRODUCTION SCHEDULES...................................................................................... 96

Table B1. Spring Chinook Production For Brood Years 2008-2017........................... 96 

Table B2. Summer Chinook Production For Brood Years 2008-2017...................... 101 

Table B3. Sockeye Production For Brood Years 2008-2017..................................... 103 

Table B4A & B4B. Snake River Fall Chinook For Brood Years 2008-2017............ 104 

Table B5. Fall Chinook Production For Brood Years 2008-2017 ............................. 108 

Table B6. Steelhead Production For Brood Years 2008-2017................................... 111 

Table B7. Coho Production For Brood Years 2008-2017.......................................... 116 

ATTACHMENT C .................................................................................................... 119 

GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. 120 

SIGNATURES .............................................................................................................. 133 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 1 

2008-2017 United States v. Oregon

MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT 

PREAMBLE 

The purpose of this Management Agreement is 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-treaty fisheries. 

 The primary goals of the Parties are to rebuild weak 

runs to full productivity and fairly share the harvest of 

upper river runs between treaty Indian and non-treaty 

fisheries in the ocean and Columbia River Basin. 

 As a means to accomplish this purpose, the Parties 

intend to use (as herein specified) habitat protection 

authorities, enhancement efforts, and artificial production 

techniques as well as harvest management to ensure that 

Columbia River fish runs continue to provide a broad range 

of benefits in perpetuity. 

 By this Agreement, the Parties have established 

procedures to facilitate communication and to resolve 

disputes fairly. It is the intent of the Parties that 

these procedures will permit the Parties to resolve 

disputes outside of court and that litigation will be used 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 2 

only after good faith efforts to settle disagreements 

through negotiation are unsuccessful.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. PARTICIPANTS

In their status as Parties to United States v. Oregon, 

Civil No. 68-513-KI (D. Or.), the State of Washington, the 

State of Oregon, the State of Idaho, the United States, the 

Shoshone Bannock Tribes, the Confederated Tribes of the 

Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes 

of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe, 

and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, 

the latter four, hereinafter referred to as "the Columbia 

River Treaty Tribes," (collectively, the Parties) enter 

into this Agreement, the 2008-2017 United States v. Oregon

Management Agreement. The state of Idaho joins only in 

Parts I and III of this Agreement. The Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribes joins only in Part I of this Agreement. The 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have filed a complaint in 

intervention in United States v. Oregon but have not taken 

any action on this complaint. The Parties agree that the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ participation in any of the forums 

set forth in this Agreement in no way represents an 

admission, determination, settlement, or adjudication of 

any legal or factual issues related to the nature and scope 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 3 

of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ off-reservation fishing 

rights under the Fort Bridger Treaty of July 3, 1868. 15 

Stat. 673. In the event the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes pursue 

litigation on their complaint in intervention or any other 

claims they may have concerning the Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribes’ Fort Bridger Treaty of July 3, 1868, the Parties 

reserve the right to assert any and all defenses they may 

have to the claims of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in Civil 

No. 68-513, and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ participation 

in any of the forums set forth in this Agreement shall not 

be construed as a waiver or abandonment of any Party’s 

claims or defenses. 

B. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT

1. Nature of Agreement

This Agreement will be submitted as a stipulated order 

in United States v. Oregon, Civil No. 68-513-KI (D. Or.). 

If approved by the Court, this Agreement shall be binding 

on the Parties as a decree of the Court. The fishing 

regimes and production actions described in this Agreement 

neither set precedent nor prejudice any future allocation 

arrangements or production actions. Nothing in this 

Agreement limits the positions the Parties may take in any 

forum regarding harvest actions or production actions other 

than those expressly agreed to herein. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 4 

2. ESA Section 7 Process

The Parties recognize that the United States has 

obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that 

will require the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA 

Fisheries), United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to consult on 

some of the actions set out in this Agreement. NOAA 

Fisheries is expected to complete a biological opinion on 

the joint fishery proposal contained in the Agreement and 

further described in a biological assessment to be prepared 

by the Technical Advisory Committee. 

In Part III and Tables B1-B7 of this Agreement, the 

Parties have identified certain production programs which 

will be used to support the joint fishery proposal and 

support the intent of the Parties to not impede and in some 

cases contribute to ESA recovery. NOAA Fisheries, USFWS 

and the BIA will continue to review the production programs 

contained in this Agreement and undertake ESA consultations 

as appropriate. The Parties may request modifications to 

the schedule to give priority to those consultations that 

the Parties deem to be of greatest urgency. NOAA 

Fisheries, USFWS and the BIA agree to use their best 

efforts to accommodate such requests. 

The Parties recognize that NOAA may recommend 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 5 

modifications to the production actions in this Agreement 

based on the results of these consultations. In the event 

that any of the production programs set forth in this 

Agreement are affected by NOAA’s recommendations in a 

manner that would affect the joint fishery proposal, the 

Parties agree to meet and discuss the resulting impacts on 

the valuable exchange of consideration reflected in this 

Agreement. The Parties agree to make a good faith effort 

to work collaboratively on any necessary modification to 

this Agreement. In so doing, the concerns and needs of all 

Parties will be accounted for to the extent possible. 

Should the Parties agree to modify any of the production 

programs in this Agreement, the Parties will monitor and 

evaluate the effects of such modifications on adult returns 

and fishery opportunities. 

Notwithstanding the good faith efforts discussed 

above, the Parties recognize that NOAA Fisheries may issue 

a Biological Opinion or Opinions that necessitate changes 

to the production programs of this Agreement and that such 

Biological Opinions or changes are not subject to the 

provisions of Parts I.B.8 and I.C.6. The Tribes reserve 

their rights to seek judicial relief in United States v. 

Oregon with respect to any federal action concerning 

production programs that may affect the number of fish 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 6 

returning to tribal usual and accustomed fishing places, or 

that otherwise impact their Treaty-reserved fishing rights. 

All Parties reserve any and all rights and defenses that 

they may have. 

The Parties will work, to the extent they deem 

appropriate, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the 

Bonneville Power Administration, the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA 

Fisheries as necessary to facilitate the implementation of 

the hatchery provisions set forth in this Agreement. 

3. Party Positions

The Tribes maintain that tribal fisheries are subject 

to limitations only under the conservation necessity 

standards in federal case law, including case law governing 

the United States v. Oregon litigation. Other Parties, 

including the States, disagree. 

4. Court Technical Advisor

The Court has appointed a court technical advisor to 

assist in technical matters related to this case (Docket 

Nos. 1072, 1719). Parts I.C.1.c and I.C.2.c of this 

Agreement provide that the court technical advisor may 

participate in certain meetings of the Technical Advisory 

Committee and the Production Advisory Committee to 

facilitate resolution of technical issues, at the Parties’ 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 7 

request. When the Parties ask the court technical advisor 

to act as a facilitator at a meeting, USFWS, NOAA 

Fisheries, and the states of Idaho, Oregon and Washington 

will share the costs of such facilitation. USFWS and NOAA 

Fisheries will jointly be responsible for one-half of the 

cost. The states of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington will 

jointly be responsible for one-half of the cost. 

5. Availability of Funds

This Agreement shall not be interpreted as binding 

federal agency or state parties to expend in any one fiscal 

year any sum in excess of appropriations made by Congress 

or a state party’s legislature, and available for purposes 

of this Agreement for that fiscal year, or as involving the 

United States or a state party in any contract or other 

obligation for the further expenditure of money in excess 

of such appropriations. 

6. Management Precision

Careful monitoring and a conservative in-season 

management philosophy will be employed to minimize the risk 

that harvest management objectives are not met due to 

inadvertent management error. The Parties recognize that 

even using the best available data in-season the actual 

harvest rates may differ due to management imprecision. 

Adult trapping will be conducted at Bonneville Dam, Priest 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 8 

Rapids Dam and Lower Granite Dam to facilitate in-season 

management, run reconstruction, and/or broodstock 

collection. 

7. Duration of Agreement 

This Agreement becomes effective upon the issuance of 

the biological opinion on the joint fishery proposal 

referred to in Part I.B.2 above, or upon the signature of 

the Regional Administrator of NOAA Fisheries, whichever 

occurs later. This Agreement covers the winter, spring, 

summer, and fall season Columbia River fisheries and 

includes agreed-to production measures. The harvest 

provisions in Part II of this Agreement shall terminate on 

December 31, 2017. The production provisions for spring, 

summer and fall Chinook, sockeye and coho in Part III of 

this Agreement shall terminate with the release of the 2017 

brood year production identified herein and for steelhead 

with the release of the 2018 brood year production. 

8. Modification and Withdrawal

a. Modification. Any Party may at any time 

seek a modification of any provision of this 

Agreement. Where consideration and approval of such 

modification is otherwise subject to a specific 

process under this Agreement, the process specified in 

the applicable provision shall be followed. In all 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 9 

other instances, the Party shall provide written 

notice to the other Parties of the modification being 

sought and any changed conditions necessitating such 

modification, and if an agreement on modification 

cannot be reached, the Party seeking modification may 

invoke dispute resolution as provided in Part I.C.6 in 

order to achieve consensus. This Agreement, if 

adopted by the Court, shall be modified only by 

written agreement of all Parties. 

b. Withdrawal. Any Party may withdraw from 

this Agreement at any time by serving written notice 

to the Court and the other Parties. The notification 

shall include a description of any changed conditions 

necessitating withdrawal. At the request of any 

Party, the Parties shall meet to discuss the 

withdrawal. Upon withdrawal of any Party, any 

remaining Party may withdraw upon notice to the Court 

and other Parties. Withdrawal of one or more Parties 

shall not preclude the remaining Parties from 

continuing the Agreement. 

9. Communication

The Parties agree to continue to communicate in good 

faith, consistent with the Court's Stipulated Order, dated 

April 16, 1998 (Docket No. 2153). 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 10 

C. United States v. Oregon FRAMEWORK

For purposes of implementing this Agreement, the 

Parties will continue to utilize the Technical Advisory 

Committee (TAC), the Production Advisory Committee (PAC), 

the Policy Committee, and Dispute Resolution as described 

below. TAC and PAC will provide the technical information 

outlined in Schedule A: Annual Schedule for Committee 

Activities. In addition, the Parties establish two 

workgroups, the Strategic Work Group and the Regulatory 

Coordination Work Group as described below. 

1. Technical Advisory Committee

A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is hereby 

established to develop, analyze, and review data pertinent to 

this Agreement and to make reports and technical 

recommendations regarding harvest management. Members shall 

be qualified fisheries scientists familiar with harvest 

management of Columbia River fish runs. TAC shall be 

composed of designated technical representatives of each of 

the following entities: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, USFWS, 

NOAA Fisheries, the BIA, the Warm Springs Tribe, the Umatilla 

Tribes, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Yakama Nation, and the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The Parties agree to seek funding 

sources to assist TAC and its representatives in the 

performance of their functions. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 11 

a. TAC shall choose from among its members a 

Chair. Unless otherwise agreed, the entity represented 

by the Chair shall be responsible for providing 

administrative and logistical support to the TAC. TAC 

shall meet and provide technical information in 

accordance with Schedule A, or any then-applicable 

replacement schedule, or as otherwise needed. 

 b. Prior to the earliest contemplated or 

requested opening of any fishery that is subject to the 

requirements of this Agreement, and continuously 

thereafter until the close of such fishery and the final 

compilation of catch and escapement data for runs 

affected by such fishery, each Party shall promptly and 

continuously make available to each other Party copies 

of data, information, forecasts, estimates, forecasting 

procedures, methods, models, and other information 

available to or used by such Party in determining 

management policies and the timing, location, scope or 

conditions of any contemplated or requested fishery that 

would be subject to the provisions of this Agreement. 

Included in the foregoing shall be any materials 

pertaining to Columbia River stocks of fish furnished by 

such Party to the United States Section of the Pacific 

Salmon Commission, the Pacific or North Pacific Fishery 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 12 

Management Councils or the Department of Commerce. The 

materials shall be exchanged through TAC or through such 

representative as a Party has specified in writing as 

its agent for this purpose when the circumstances do not 

allow for timely communication through TAC. Prior to 

any Party's distribution to any management entity of a 

report concerning potential fishing regulations on any 

fishery subject to this Agreement, TAC shall, to the 

extent that time permits, exchange all relevant data and 

review the management entities’ respective 

recommendations for fisheries. 

c. The TAC shall endeavor to reach consensus on 

its reports and technical recommendations. If TAC is 

unable to achieve consensus upon a technical issue, the 

TAC Chair shall advise the TAC that the court technical 

advisor will be asked to attend the next TAC meeting to 

review the various technical conclusions. 

(i) The role of the court technical advisor shall 

be that of a facilitator, not an arbitrator. The 

technical advisor shall preside over the discussion and 

endeavor to facilitate resolution of the unresolved 

issue. 

(ii) When the TAC is unable to achieve consensus 

on a report or recommendation, the TAC Chair shall cause 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 13 

a written report to be made and provide it to the Policy 

Committee. The report shall include a consensus summary 

of both the resolved and unresolved technical issues. 

The report shall also include the TAC minutes, if any; 

documents or other materials submitted to or considered 

by TAC; for unresolved technical issues, a description 

of the Parties’ respective positions along with data and 

information offered in support of the Parties’ 

positions; and any independent views or recommendations 

by the court technical advisor not contained in TAC 

report. 

d. Distribution of Reports. The reports 

required by the attached Schedule A and this section 

shall be submitted by the TAC Chair to the Parties 

through their Policy Committee representatives. If 

there are issues where TAC did not reach a consensus the 

report shall conform with Part I.C.1.c.(ii) above with 

respect to those non-consensus issues. TAC shall make 

good faith efforts to ensure timely compilation and 

distribution of reports to the Parties. Except in cases 

of emergencies which preclude such advance distribution, 

all reports and recommendations shall be distributed to 

all Policy Committee representatives at least ten days 

prior to the Policy Committee meeting at which a report 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 14 

or recommendations are to be considered. 

2. Production Advisory Committee

Coordination of production and harvest management is 

essential to the successful implementation of this Agreement. 

Accordingly, a Production Advisory Committee (PAC) is hereby 

established to coordinate information, review and analyze 

existing and future natural and artificial production 

programs pertinent to this Agreement and to submit 

recommendations to the management entities. Members shall be 

qualified fisheries scientists familiar with Columbia River 

artificial and/or natural fish production. PAC shall be 

composed of designated technical representatives of each of 

the following entities: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, USFWS, 

NOAA Fisheries, the BIA, the Warm Springs Tribe, the Umatilla 

Tribes, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Yakama Nation, and the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The Parties agree to seek funding 

sources to assist PAC and its members in the performance of 

its functions.

a. PAC shall select from among its members a 

Chair, however the PAC Chair shall not represent the 

same entity as the TAC Chair. Unless otherwise agreed, 

the entity represented by the Chair shall be responsible 

for providing administrative and logistical support to 

PAC. PAC shall meet and provide technical information 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 15 

in accordance with Schedule A, or any then-applicable 

replacement schedule, or as otherwise needed. 

 b. The reports and recommendations of PAC shall 

be summarized in writing, and shall express the 

consensus views and recommendations of its members 

whenever possible. 

 c. If PAC is unable to achieve consensus upon a 

technical issue, the PAC Chair shall advise the PAC that 

the court technical advisor will be asked to attend the 

next PAC meeting to review the various technical 

conclusions. 

(i) The role of the court technical advisor shall 

be that of a facilitator, not an arbitrator. The 

technical advisor shall preside over the discussion and 

endeavor to facilitate resolution of the unresolved 

issue. 

(ii) When the PAC is unable to achieve consensus 

on a report or recommendation, the PAC Chair shall cause 

a written report to be made and provide it to the Policy 

Committee. The report shall include a consensus summary 

of both the resolved and unresolved technical issues. 

The report shall also include the PAC minutes, if any; 

documents or other materials submitted to or considered 

by PAC; for unresolved technical issues, a description 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 16 

of the Parties’ respective positions along with date and 

information offered in support of the Parties’ 

positions; and any independent views or recommendations 

by the court technical advisor not contained in PAC 

report. 

 d. Distribution of Reports. The reports 

required by the attached Schedule A and this section 

shall be submitted to the Parties through their Policy 

Committee representatives. If there are issues where 

PAC did not reach a consensus, the report shall conform 

with Part I.C.2.c.(ii) above with respect to those nonconsensus issues. PAC shall make good faith efforts to 

ensure timely compilation and distribution of reports to 

the Parties and relevant management entities. Except in 

cases of emergencies which preclude such advance 

distribution, all reports and recommendations shall be 

distributed to all Policy Committee representatives at 

least ten days prior to the meeting at which 

recommendations are to be considered. 

3. Strategic Work Group

The Strategic Work Group (SWG) is created to assist 

the Policy Committee by reviewing technical information, 

evaluating potential solutions to particular problems 

arising over the implementation of this Agreement from a 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 17 

biological and policy perspective, and proposing 

alternative courses of action to the Policy Committee. The 

SWG will address those issues assigned from time to time by 

the Policy Committee. The SWG shall be composed of persons 

designated to represent the Parties’ varied interests in 

the particular issue assigned to the group, and may vary 

from issue to issue. Persons assigned to the group should 

possess either technical or policy expertise, or both, as 

necessary to evaluate potential solutions from different 

perspectives with the aim of finding a common approach to 

resolving the practical difficulties of implementing this 

agreement. 

4. Regulatory Coordination Committee

The Regulatory Coordination Committee will be composed 

of one person designated by each Party who shall serve as 

that Party’s point of contact for providing regulations 

adopted by the Party with respect to the Agreement to the 

other Parties and for receiving such regulations when 

adopted by another Party. The Regulatory Coordination 

Committee will convene as necessary to review the 

regulations with the goal of identifying inconsistencies or 

inaccuracies, and will notify the Parties of potentially 

conflicting regulations to assure consistency with the 

Agreement and each other. In addition, the Regulatory 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 18 

Coordination Committee shall set guidelines, provide 

suggestions and distribution for the prosecution referral 

agreements described below in Part I.E. 

5. Policy Committee

A Policy Committee, composed of a policy and a legal 

representative appointed by each Party signatory to this 

Agreement, is hereby established. The purpose of the Policy 

Committee is to facilitate cooperative action by the Parties 

with regard to fishing regulations, policy issues or 

disputes, and the coordination of the management of fisheries 

on Columbia River runs and production and harvest measures. 

The Policy Committee may make assignments to the technical 

committees described in this Agreement to assist it. 

 The Policy Committee shall designate a Chairman and meet 

in accordance with Schedule A or at such times as are 

appropriate to conduct the business described in this 

Agreement. The Chairman shall provide all Parties with 

notice of meetings. The Committee may adopt appropriate 

rules to govern its proceedings. 

6. Dispute Resolution Procedure

a. A Party must raise a formal “point of 

disagreement” to initiate the dispute resolution 

processes of this Agreement. A Party raising a formal 

point of disagreement shall provide all other Parties 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 19 

written notice that it is raising a formal point of 

disagreement. That written notice shall include a 

summary of the disagreement, the Party’s position on the 

appropriate resolution(s) of the disagreement, and any 

documents or supporting materials that assist in 

describing the disagreement and/or supporting the 

Party’s position on an appropriate resolution. If the 

Party raising the point of disagreement believes that 

emergency circumstances make it impossible to employ the 

full dispute resolution process, a complete explanation 

of the emergency shall be included. All Parties shall 

strive to provide notice of a point of disagreement at 

the earliest possible time. Points of disagreement shall 

be referred for dispute resolution as herein prescribed 

unless the Parties agree on other means for resolving 

them. 

b. Technical Disputes – 

 (i) In the course of developing reports 

identified in Schedule A and in completing any other 

tasks assigned by the Policy Committee, the TAC and PAC 

shall employ the procedures prescribed in Part I.C.1. 

and Part I.C.2. above to attempt to resolve technical 

disputes prior to referring a non-consensus report or 

recommendation to the Policy Committee. If TAC or PAC 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 20 

is unable to achieve consensus, the TAC or PAC report 

conforming with the requirements of Part I.C.1. or C.2. 

will be provided to the Policy Committee for its review 

and consideration. 

 (ii) Non-consensus among TAC and PAC does not 

ripen into a formal point of disagreement unless and 

until a Policy Committee representative notifies all 

other Parties through their Policy Committee 

representatives that it is raising a formal point of 

disagreement as provided in Part I.C.6.a. above. 

(iii) When a point of disagreement arising out of 

technical non-consensus is raised by a Party for Policy 

Committee consideration, the Policy Committee shall 

review the reports and materials submitted by TAC or 

PAC. In the course of considering a point of 

disagreement, the Policy Committee may identify 

additional technical issues and data needs related to 

the specific point of disagreement as to which further 

documentation is deemed necessary and ask the PAC or TAC 

to do additional analysis. 

c. Policy Disputes 

(i) Policy points of disagreement must be raised 

by a Party’s Policy Committee representative. If a TAC 

or PAC representative believes that a policy dispute is 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 21 

preventing a consensus on a technical TAC or PAC report 

or recommendation, that person should review the matter 

with its Policy Committee representative to determine if 

that Policy Committee representative should raise a 

policy-based point of disagreement. 

(ii) Upon notice of a point of disagreement, the 

Policy Committee Chairman shall establish a date and 

place for the Policy Committee to consider the dispute, 

taking into consideration any emergency circumstances. 

The Chairman’s notice setting a date and place for 

consideration of the point of disagreement shall include 

an invitation for any Party to submit documents or 

supporting materials relevant to the point of 

disagreement that they believe should also be considered 

by the Policy Committee. 

(iii)The Policy Committee shall discuss and 

attempt to resolve the point of disagreement. Unless 

the Committee unanimously agrees otherwise, its 

deliberations and discussions shall remain confidential 

except for the documents or other materials submitted to 

or considered by it. The Policy Committee Chairman 

shall compile a complete record of written materials 

considered by the Policy Committee in its deliberations 

on a point of disagreement. On points of disagreement 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 22 

over which the Policy Committee is unable to reach a 

consensus decision, any Party may provide to a non-Party 

management entity or other person a statement in support 

of its position on the disputed issue. The statement 

shall identify the data and other information that 

supports the Party’s position but may be abbreviated as 

required to permit timely action by the entity or 

person. Any such statement shall be submitted to the 

Policy Committee for inclusion in its record related to 

the dispute. 

d. The Parties recognize that the entities 

charged with making decisions and resolving disputes 

must be given the opportunity to examine competing 

positions of the Parties and the factual basis for their 

positions prior to rendering such decisions. They 

therefore will use their best efforts to share fully all 

relevant data and information and to present their 

positions and the factual basis therefor prior to 

seeking judicial review. 

7. Emergency matters 

Emergency matters may require immediate judicial action 

without compliance with this Section, and nothing in Part 

I.C.6.a-d. shall be construed as limiting a Party’s right to 

seek such relief when those emergency matters arise. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 23 

However, the Parties shall make every reasonable effort to 

use the foregoing dispute resolution procedures prior to 

initiating judicial action, and the Party seeking immediate 

judicial relief shall have the burden of establishing the 

existence of an emergency. 

D. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DISPUTES 

1. In the event that a dispute arises concerning this 

Agreement and after compliance with the foregoing Part I.C.6, 

to the extent required thereunder, a Party may petition the 

Court in Case No. 68-513 for a determination of the dispute. 

Unresolved disputes over matters that are not within the 

retained jurisdiction in Case No. 68-513, may be submitted to 

any court having subject matter and personal jurisdiction. 

2. The Parties expect and intend that review by the 

Court in Case No. 68-513 of any dispute that has been subject 

to a Policy Committee proceeding under the foregoing Part 

I.C.6. will be limited to documents or other written 

materials submitted to or considered by the Policy Committee. 

The Parties understand that the Court may consider other 

documents or materials where good cause is shown why such 

documents or materials were not submitted to the Policy 

Committee during its deliberations. A Party may present oral 

testimony, declarations or affidavits concerning any 

documents and materials before the Court. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 24 

E. PROSECUTION REFERRAL AGREEMENTS 

1. The Columbia River Treaty Tribes, Oregon and 

Washington agree that the Tribes should bear primary 

responsibility for enforcing agreed-upon regulations 

applicable to mainstem Treaty Indian fisheries. 

2. To carry out this responsibility, the Columbia 

River Treaty Tribes agree to commit, to the maximum extent 

possible, the police, prosecutorial, and judicial resources 

necessary to ensure compliance with Tribal regulations 

governing mainstem fisheries. 

3. To assist the Columbia River Treaty Tribes in 

carrying out this responsibility, Oregon and Washington may 

negotiate with each tribe for agreements to refer to the 

tribes for prosecution under tribal law those tribal 

fishermen cited by state enforcement officers for violating 

agreed upon mainstem fishing regulations and to cooperate 

with tribal authorities in making evidence and testimony 

available in tribal court proceedings. As part of each 

referral agreement, the tribe shall report the disposition of 

the tribal prosecution to the state law enforcement agency 

making the referral. The enforcement referral agreements 

filed with the Court on May 8, 1992 (Docket No. 1964) may 

provide models for implementation of this paragraph. 

4. Unless specified otherwise in the referral 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 25 

agreements entered into under this Part I.E., the states of 

Oregon and Washington shall retain authority to prosecute 

violations of applicable laws or regulations in state court. 

5. If Oregon or Washington believes that a tribe or 

tribes is not carrying out its responsibilities under this 

section to enact and enforce agreed-upon mainstem fisheries 

regulations, it may refer the matter to the Policy Committee 

for dispute resolution as provided in Part I.C.6.c. 

F. PERFORMANCE MEASURES, COMMITMENTS AND ASSURANCES 

1. General

The Parties enter this Agreement based, in part, on 

their expectation that the measures in Parts II and III 

will help upriver stocks rebuild over time. The Parties 

also recognize that other laws and processes outside the 

scope of the Agreement, as well as the actions of public 

and private entities not signatory to this Agreement, may 

affect their ability to fulfill rebuilding and harvest 

sharing objectives. The Parties anticipate that their 

efforts will focus primarily on implementation of the 

specific measures in Parts II and III. This section 

establishes procedures to monitor progress toward 

rebuilding and to seek consensus on actions to address the 

circumstances where activities that are beyond the scope of 

the Agreement may affect the achievement of rebuilding and 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 26 

sharing goals. 

2. Performance Evaluation 

The Parties agree to establish performance measures 

that will be used to monitor progress toward rebuilding the 

upriver stocks of salmon and steelhead that presently 

constrain fisheries. Should rebuilding not progress as 

expected, the Parties further commit to a process to 

identify why stocks are not rebuilding and to take actions 

available within the scope of the Parties’ joint and 

separate authorities to address the underlying problem and 

reestablish a positive rebuilding trend for those stocks. 

a. Performance Measures. The Parties will 

monitor progress toward rebuilding by tracking trends 

in the status of the indicator stocks listed below. 

The Parties have selected these indicator stocks 

because of their geographic distribution, and because 

of the current availability of data sets that the 

Parties can use to establish a base against which to 

compare the future status of these stocks. 

The Parties have identified two types of 

indicator stocks. Harvest indicator stocks are those 

used directly for managing the fisheries. Abundance 

indicator stocks provide more detailed information 

about natural-origin stocks or populations that 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 27 

currently limit fisheries. Neither the indicator 

stocks nor the performance measures listed below shall 

preclude the Parties from considering other indicators 

or performance measures that may be developed in the 

future, or that may be necessary to determine the 

status of a particular stock of concern. 

The Parties will compare the status of indicator 

stocks to the 1988-2007 “base period,” which 

represents the status of stocks before completion of 

this Agreement. The Parties will use the performance 

measures and base period data as reference points for 

gauging progress. 

TAC will update the indicator stock summaries 

annually and provide a report to the Policy Committee 

annually. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 28 

Harvest Indicator Stocks 

Stock Performance Measure 

Upriver spring/summer Chinook 

Upriver spring and Snake 

River spring/summer Chinook 

Number of returning adults at 

Columbia River mouth 

Natural-origin Snake River 

spring/summer Chinook 

Number of returning adults at 

Columbia River mouth 

Natural-origin Upper Columbia 

spring Chinook 

Number of returning adults at 

Columbia River mouth 

Upper Columbia Summer Chinook 

Upper Columbia Summer Chinook Number of returning adults at 

Columbia River mouth 

Sockeye 

Combined Upper Columbia River 

and Snake River sockeye 

Number of returning adults at 

Columbia River mouth 

Summer Steelhead 

Skamania natural-origin A-run

steelhead 

Number of returning adults at 

Bonneville Dam 

Natural-origin A-Index 

steelhead 

Number of returning adults at 

Bonneville Dam 

Natural and Hatchery-origin 

B-Index steelhead 

Number of returning adults at 

Bonneville Dam 

Fall Chinook 

Upriver Bright fall Chinook Number of returning adults at 

Columbia River mouth 

Snake River natural-origin 

fall Chinook 

Number of returning adults at 

Columbia River mouth 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 29 

Abundance Indicator Stocks 

Stock Performance Measure 

Upriver spring/summer Chinook 

Snake River natural-origin 

spring/ summer Chinook 

Number of returning adults at 

Lower Granite Dam 

Upper Columbia River naturalorigin spring Chinook Number of returning adults at 

Priest Rapids Dam 

Upriver Columbia River 

natural-origin spring Chinook 

stocks (Wenatchee, Entiat, 

Methow) 

Sub-basin run size 

Snake River spring/summer 

Chinook index stocks (Bear 

Valley, Marsh, Sulphur, 

Minam, Catherine Cr., Imnaha, 

Poverty Flats, Johnson) 

Redd counts 

John Day natural-origin 

spring Chinook 

Redd counts 

Warm Springs natural-origin 

spring Chinook 

Number of returning adults at 

Warm Springs NFH weir 

Upper Columbia Summer Chinook 

Upper Columbia River summer 

Chinook 

Priest Rapids Dam counts 

Sockeye 

Snake River Number of returning adults at 

Lower Granite Dam 

Lake Wenatchee natural-origin Number of returning adults at 

Tumwater Dam 

Okanogan natural-origin Number of returning adults at 

Wells Dam 

Snake River Number of adults returning to 

Stanley Basin 

Summer Steelhead 

Methow River natural-origin 

steelhead 

Redd counts 

Wenatchee River naturalorigin steelhead Redd counts 

Select populations/groups of 

Snake River natural-origin Arun steelhead 

Juvenile and adult abundance 

indices for groups that are 

monitored regularly 

Select populations/groups of 

Snake River natural-origin Brun steelhead 

Juvenile and adult abundance 

indices for groups that are 

monitored regularly 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 30 

Abundance Indicator Stocks 

Stock Performance Measure 

Natural-origin Snake River ARun Steelhead Adults returning to Lower 

Granite Dam 

Natural-Origin Snake River BRun Steelhead Adults returning to Lower 

Granite Dam 

Joseph Cr A-run steelhead Redd counts 

John Day natural-origin 

steelhead 

Redd counts 

Umatilla natural-origin 

steelhead 

Threemile Dam counts 

Klickitat River naturalorigin steelhead Data developed in accordance 

with the recommendations in 

Rawding, D. 2007 

Warm Springs natural-origin 

steelhead 

Number of returning adults at 

Warm Springs NFH weir 

Fall Chinook 

Hanford natural-origin adult 

fall Chinook 

Population estimates 

Snake River adult fall 

Chinook 

Number of hatchery and 

natural adults at Lower 

Granite Dam 

Snake River adult fall 

Chinook 

Redd counts between Lower 

Granite Dam and Hells Canyon 

Dam and in Clearwater River 

Deschutes River naturalorigin adult fall Chinook Population estimates 

Additional Stocks and Performance Measures 

TAC will add additional abundance indicator stocks and 

performance measures to this table as directed by the 

Parties and as data become available. It is the intent of 

the Parties to update, add to, and revise the abundance 

indicator groups as needed to assess progress toward salmon 

and steelhead recovery. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 31 

(b) Analysis of Decline. If the performance measure 

of any indicator stock declines for three consecutive 

years relative to the base period, any Party to this 

Agreement may request the Policy Committee to direct 

TAC to TAC to complete an Analysis of Decline. TAC 

shall complete the Analysis of Decline within one year 

of receiving Policy Committee direction. The Parties 

will exercise their best efforts to provide the 

resources necessary for a timely and thorough 

analysis. 

The Analysis of Decline shall identify factors 

leading to the decline in the stock’s performance, and 

shall assess the overall significance of the decline 

with respect to the achievement of rebuilding for the 

stock. The Analysis of Decline shall identify which 

factors are within the Parties’ control, such as the 

activities described in Parts II and III of this 

Agreement, and which are not, such as ocean 

conditions. As part of its analysis, TAC may rely on 

any Assessment or review conducted by the Salmon 

Technical Team or Habitat Committee of the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council under Section 3.2.3.2 of 

the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (revised May 2000). 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 32 

Based on its findings, TAC shall recommend any 

modifications to Parts II and III of this Agreement 

that in TAC’s judgment are needed to promote 

achievement of rebuilding, or may recommend 

adjustments to the rebuilding or performance measures. 

The TAC recommendations may also include suggestions 

for habitat restoration or enhancement measures. TAC 

may identify whether special programs, research, or 

analyses by experts who are not TAC members are needed 

to promote the long-term rebuilding of the stock in 

question. 

TAC shall submit the Analysis of Decline to the 

Policy Committee for consideration. 

3. Policy Committee Consideration 

After receiving the Analysis of Decline, the Policy 

Committee shall convene. After review of the Analysis of 

Decline Report, the Policy Committee may make 

recommendations for modification of the Agreement. The 

Parties may thereafter modify Parts II and III of this 

Agreement, or the performance measures, consistent with the 

Policy Committee’s recommendations. Provided, however, 

that only the Agreement as modified by such amendments will 

create additional legal obligations on Parties to the 

Agreement. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 33 

If the Policy Committee determines that no 

modifications to Parts II and III of this Agreement, or to 

the performance measures, can reasonably be expected to 

provide benefits to the stock in question, the Policy 

Committee may identify actions of other entities that may 

be needed to promote rebuilding of the stock. Examples 

might include habitat restoration and enhancement measures, 

or adjustments in fisheries outside the Columbia River 

Basin. The Policy Committee shall make and communicate 

recommendations to those other entities concerning such 

actions. Examples could be recommendations about fish 

habitat or access to habitat, fisheries regimes, data 

collection, or research. 

 4. Public Notice/Education about Terms of Agreement

The Parties will use their best efforts to make all 

members of their respective governments aware of the 

commitments in this Agreement. 

G. DEFINITIONS 

Terms defined in the Glossary shall have the meaning 

given therein wherever they are used in this Agreement. 

II. HARVEST

The Parties, through this Agreement, in recognition of 

the Columbia River Treaty Tribes’ federally secured rights, 

the conservation requirements, and the rights of other 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 34 

fishermen to fishery resources under applicable federal 

law, have proposed fisheries as set out below. 

Tribal harvest in mainstem treaty fisheries with 

subsistence gear shall be consistent with any harvest 

guidelines identified herein. Mainstem treaty subsistence 

fisheries shall be open on a year round basis and shall not 

be restricted by the States or the United States, except 

for conservation purposes. The Columbia River Treaty 

Tribes shall manage mainstem treaty subsistence fisheries 

in good faith to remain within harvest guidelines, in 

coordination with other Parties. 

This Agreement describes specific provisions for 

managing mainstem fisheries and certain tributary 

fisheries. Harvest plans for the Parties’ other tributary 

fisheries will be developed cooperatively by the management 

entities with primary management responsibility in the 

respective sub-basin (as specified in Table 1: Lead 

Management Entities for each Sub-Basin). Other Parties may 

be affected by, and therefore may have an interest in, 

tributary harvest plans, and therefore shall be provided an 

opportunity to review and comment on the development of 

such plans. 

 The Parties have previously directed TAC to establish 

a schedule for investigating all upriver escapement goals, 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 35 

management goals and rebuilding objectives. Some progress 

has been made on this effort. The Parties recognize the 

importance of this information. Accordingly, the Parties 

will work with TAC to identify and prioritize their work, 

including development of upriver escapement goals, 

management goals and rebuilding objectives. 

A. UPRIVER SPRING AND SNAKE RIVER SUMMER CHINOOK 

Mainstem Columbia River salmon fisheries occurring 

from January 1 through June 15 will be managed depending on 

the abundance of upriver spring Chinook and Snake River 

summer Chinook. Upriver spring Chinook include all natural 

and hatchery spring Chinook stocks originating from the 

Columbia River and its tributaries upstream of Bonneville 

Dam. Snake River summer Chinook include all natural and 

hatchery summer Chinook stocks originating from the Snake 

River watershed. 

1. Catch Expectations of the Parties

The Parties recognize that Table A1, Harvest Rate 

Schedule for Chinook in Spring Management Period sets 

limits on the percentage of natural origin upriver spring 

Chinook and SR summer Chinook that can be taken in mainstem 

fisheries. The Parties recognize that non-treaty fisheries 

may use mark-selective fishing techniques that allow for a 

higher harvest rate on marked hatchery fish compared to 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 36 

unmarked fish. Mark rates for hatchery fish subject to 

those fisheries will be determined in accordance with Part 

III.A.3. The Parties agree that the fish to be allocated 

among treaty and non-treaty fisheries are all upriver 

spring Chinook and Snake River summer Chinook. In agreeing 

to Table A1, the Parties expect that mainstem fisheries on 

upriver spring Chinook and Snake River summer Chinook will 

achieve catches roughly matching those shown in the U.S. v. 

Oregon Upriver Spring Chinook Catch Balance Model 

(Attachment B). The Parties will monitor whether those 

expectations are being met, as follows: 

a. Each year, the States of Oregon and Washington 

and the Columbia River Treaty Tribes will monitor 

mainstem fisheries from January 1 through June 15, and 

will compare how actual performance compares with 

predicted performance as shown in Attachment B as part 

of the annual run reconstruction process; 

b. As part of the annual run reconstruction process, 

the States of Oregon and Washington will monitor and 

report to the Parties the mark rate in the fishery; 

the number of fish retained or landed; the number of 

unmarked fish released; the number of marked fish 

released; the stock composition of the mortalities; 

and other information as agreed upon. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 37 

c. If the annual run reconstruction reveals that the 

Parties’ catch balance expectations are widely 

divergent from the results, the Parties agree to meet 

and discuss whether modifications to the U.S. v. 

Oregon Upriver Spring Chinook Catch Balance Model 

should be made. 

d. In addition, in 2012, TAC will conduct a 

comprehensive review of the prosecution of upriver 

spring Chinook and Snake River summer Chinook 

fisheries governed by this Agreement, and report to 

the Policy Committee. The Policy Committee will 

consider the TAC report to evaluate whether the catch 

expectations shown in Attachment B are being met. If 

they are not, the Parties will discuss whether to 

modify this Agreement so as better to meet those catch 

expectations.

2. Minimum Columbia River Treaty Indian Ceremonial 

and Subsistence Entitlement

There is a minimum mainstem treaty Indian ceremonial 

and subsistence entitlement to the Columbia River Treaty 

Tribes of 10,000 spring and summer Chinook. It is 

anticipated that the majority of this entitlement will be 

taken during the January 1 through June 15 management 

period. Tributary harvest of spring and summer Chinook is 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 38 

not included in this entitlement. It is understood that if 

the total mainstem Columbia River treaty Indian harvest of 

spring and summer Chinook is greater than or equal to 

10,000 spring and summer Chinook, then this entitlement has 

been met. If the total mainstem Columbia River treaty 

Indian harvest of spring and summer Chinook is less than 

10,000, then the difference will be distributed to the 

tribes from spring Chinook hatcheries below Bonneville Dam 

as first priority. If spring Chinook are not available 

from hatcheries below Bonneville Dam, or by agreement of 

the Parties, the entitlement may be filled from other 

hatchery sources of equivalent quantity and quality. 

3. Ocean Fisheries 

The Parties assume based on available information that 

ocean harvest of upriver spring and Snake River summer 

Chinook in the Pacific Ocean south of the southwesterly 

projection of the United States-Canada boundary between 

British Columbia and Washington is, and will continue to be 

minimal. If new information becomes available related to 

this assumption, the Parties agree to further discussion 

and consideration of management adjustments. If non-treaty 

ocean fisheries are proposed that would increase fishery 

related mortalities on upriver spring and Snake River 

summer Chinook above minimal levels assumed herein, the 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 39 

estimated ocean harvest of upriver spring and Snake River 

summer Chinook shall be reviewed by TAC and shall count 

toward the total allowable harvest for non-treaty fisheries 

(Table A1). 

4. Non-Treaty Mainstem Columbia River Fisheries

Impacts to natural-origin upriver spring and Snake 

River summer Chinook in non-treaty commercial and 

recreational fisheries will be managed according to Table 

A1 of this Agreement. 

5. Treaty Indian Mainstem Columbia River Fisheries

Fisheries conducted by the Columbia River Treaty 

Tribes will be managed according to Table A1 of this 

Agreement. 

6. Review if Escapement Goals Established

If during the term of this Agreement TAC recommends 

specific escapement goals to the Policy Committee and the 

Policy Committee adopts those escapement goals, and if it 

appears that either the treaty or the non-treaty fisheries 

governed by this Agreement are not being accorded an 

opportunity to attempt to take a fair and equitable share 

of upriver spring Chinook and Snake River summer Chinook, 

the Parties will review the Harvest Rate Schedule for 

Chinook in Spring Management Period (Table A1) and discuss 

whether to modify it so as to achieve fair sharing. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 40 

B. UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER SUMMER CHINOOK 

Mainstem Columbia River Chinook fisheries occurring 

from June 16 through July 31 will be managed based on the 

abundance of upper Columbia River summer Chinook as 

provided in Table A2. The Parties agree to manage upper 

Columbia River summer Chinook based on an interim 

management goal of 29,000 hatchery and natural origin 

adults as measured at the Columbia River mouth. The 

management goal is based on an interim combined spawning 

escapement goal of 20,000 hatchery and natural adults. The 

following table lists the component of the interim 

escapement goal. Mainstem fisheries will not be managed 

for these individual components. The Parties agree to 

consider new information related to the escapement goals as 

it becomes available. 

Upper Columbia Summer Chinook Interim Goals 

Stock Group Spawning Objective Components 

Wenatchee/Entiat/Chelan 

Natural 

13,500 

Methow/Okanogan Natural 3,500 

Hatchery 3,000 

The Northwest Power and Conservation Council has 

recommended that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) 

fund the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 41 

hatchery near the base of Chief Joseph Dam, along with 

associated facilities, that would produce summer Chinook 

and other fish. The Parties recognize that, should Chief 

Joseph Hatchery be constructed, the Chief Joseph Hatchery 

Program may be approved and implemented during the term of 

this Agreement. Following any such Program approval, the 

Parties will instruct TAC to calculate appropriate 

adjustments to the upper Columbia River summer Chinook 

interim escapement goals to address the aggregate 

broodstock and escapement needs of the upper Columbia 

summer Chinook programs. TAC will present its recommended 

adjustments to the Policy Committee. 

Concerns have been identified by the federal Parties 

regarding the development of a better data set to monitor 

and evaluate natural origin and hatchery stock status of 

upper Columbia summer Chinook as part of the integrated 

management approach. The Parties direct TAC to review 

options regarding upper Columbia summer Chinook natural 

origin and hatchery stock status monitoring and to make 

recommendations for future consideration by the Parties. 

1. Upper Columbia Summer Chinook Fishery Framework

The following table describes the framework for 

managing fisheries targeting upper Columbia summer Chinook. 

Table A2 provides the harvest rate schedule for these 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 42 

fisheries. 

Upper Columbia Chinook Fishery Framework 

Run Size at River 

Mouth 

Allowed Treaty 

Harvest 

Allowed Non-Treaty 

Harvest 

<5,000 5% <100 Chinook 

5,000-<16,000 5% <200 Chinook 

16,000-<29,000 10% 5% 

29,000-<32,000 10% 5-6% 

32,000- <36,250 

(125% of 29,000 

goal) 

10% 7% 

36,250-50,000 50% of total 

harvestable1

50% of total 

harvestable1

>50,000 50% of 75% of 

margin above 50,000 

plus 10,5002

50% of 75% of 

margin above 50,000 

plus 10,5002

1

The total number of harvestable fish is defined as the run 

size minus 29,000 for run sizes of 36,250 to 50,000. 

2

For the purposes of this Agreement, the total number of 

harvestable fish at run sizes greater than 50,000 is to be 

determined by the following formula: (0.75 * (runsize50,000)) + 21,000. 

2. Ocean Fisheries

The ocean harvest of Upper Columbia summer Chinook is 

tracked and assessed annually through the Pacific Salmon 

Treaty process. If ocean harvest of summer Chinook raises 

a concern related to achievement of the rebuilding and 

enhancement goals of this Agreement or catch sharing, the 

Parties shall review all harvest data, including ocean 

fishery interceptions. This review shall be completed in 

sufficient time prior to the opening of the ocean fisheries 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 43 

to allow for any necessary modifications of regulations and 

production or other enhancement and rebuilding agreements 

and activities for that year. As a result of this review, 

the Parties may negotiate a modification to this Agreement 

as appropriate. For allocation purposes, harvest in the 

Pacific Ocean south of the southwesterly projection of the 

United States-Canada boundary between British Columbia and 

Washington will be counted towards catch sharing. 

3. Non-Treaty Fisheries

Non-treaty commercial and recreational impacts in the 

summer management period will be managed according to the 

framework and harvest rate schedule in Table A2 of this 

Agreement. These fisheries include commercial and 

recreational fisheries in the ocean south of the U.S.-

Canada border at run sizes greater than 29,000, commercial 

and recreational fisheries in the mainstem and tributaries, 

and ceremonial and subsistence fisheries conducted by the 

Wanapum Band and the Colville Tribes. 

4. Treaty Indian Fisheries

Fisheries conducted by the Columbia River Treaty 

Tribes will be managed according to the framework and 

harvest rate schedule in Table A2 of this Agreement. These 

fisheries include mainstem and tributary fisheries. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 44 

C. SOCKEYE 

1. Bonneville Dam Management Goal

The management goal for upper Columbia River sockeye 

is 65,000 adult sockeye as measured at Priest Rapids Dam 

which, under average migration conditions, requires a 

75,000 run over Bonneville Dam. 

2. Non-treaty Columbia River Fisheries

Non-treaty commercial and recreational impacts on 

listed sockeye will be minimized to the degree possible, 

but the total impact shall not exceed 1% of the river mouth 

run of listed Snake River sockeye. 

3. Treaty Indian Columbia River Fisheries

Fisheries conducted by the Columbia River Treaty 

Tribes will be managed according to the following schedule; 

all fishery impacts on sockeye will be included in the 

specified harvest rates: 

Upriver Sockeye Run Size Harvest Rate on Upriver 

Sockeye 

<50,000 5% 

50-75,000 7% 

>75,000 7% with further discussion 

4. Fisheries on Sockeye Returns Greater than 75,000 

Adults

If the upriver sockeye run size is projected to exceed 

75,000 adults over Bonneville Dam, any party may propose 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 45 

harvest rates exceeding those specified in Part II.C.2. or 

Part II.C.3. of this 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 NOAA Fisheries for consultation under 

Section 7 of the ESA. 

D. FALL CHINOOK 

1. Snake River Fall Chinook Harvest

Fall season fisheries in the Columbia River Basin 

below the confluence of the Snake River will be managed 

according to the abundance based harvest rate schedule 

shown in Table A3. Upriver bright stock Chinook harvest 

rates will be used as a surrogate for Snake River fall 

Chinook harvest rates unless TAC develops and the Policy 

Committee approves a new methodology that makes it possible 

to manage fisheries based on stock-specific Snake River 

fall Chinook harvest rates. 

 2. Review of Adult Conversion Rate Estimates

 The Fall Management Period Chinook Harvest Rate 

Schedule, Table A3, provides that harvest rates may 

increase or decrease from the status quo of recent years 

depending on the abundance of Upriver Bright and natural 

origin Snake River fall Chinook. There is currently some 

uncertainty regarding estimates of adult conversion rate 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 46 

that are necessary for preseason forecasting. The Parties 

agree to complete a comprehensive review of all information 

to determine the best method for estimating the conversion 

rate of adult fall Chinook by no later than December 2008. 

In 2009 and thereafter the Parties will use the estimates 

of conversion rate resulting from this review for 

forecasting the abundance of Snake River fall Chinook. The 

Parties agree to continue to update estimates of conversion 

rate as additional information becomes available through 

the duration of this Agreement. 

3. Harvest Management Objectives for Fall Chinook

The Parties have agreed that the following fishery 

regimes and management measures will be implemented for 

fall Chinook fisheries: 

a. TAC will annually produce a fall season 

fishery model output that provides the information for 

the annual model known as Attachment A. The Parties 

shall implement fisheries in approximate accordance 

with this modeled fishery output. The model will 

include expected river mouth run sizes and Bonneville 

Dam passage along with overall harvest rates based on 

river mouth run sizes of fall Chinook, summer 

steelhead, coho and chum. For fisheries management, 

the Parties agree to use Attachment A as a template 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 47 

for fishery models. 

b. This Agreement contemplates that in the 

implementation of the non-treaty fisheries, Oregon and 

Washington agree to manage their fisheries in a manner 

that will not exceed an URB harvest rate shown in 

Table A3. If mark selective fisheries are implemented 

that impact upriver fall Chinook, the non-treaty ocean 

and in-river fisheries may not harvest more than 50% 

of the harvestable surplus of upriver fall Chinook, 

consistent with the applicable federal allocation 

caselaw. 

c. This Agreement contemplates that in the 

implementation of the tribal fisheries, the Columbia 

River Treaty Tribes agree to manage their fisheries in 

a manner that will not exceed an URB harvest rate 

shown in Table A3. 

d. 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. 

4. Escapement and Management Objectives 

a. McNary Dam: The Parties agree that the 

minimum combined Columbia River and Snake River 

upriver bright management goal at McNary Dam is 60,000 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 48 

adult fall Chinook, which includes both hatchery and 

natural production for all areas above McNary Dam. 

The 60,000 McNary Dam goal will be used as part of the 

annual calculation of harvestable surplus and 

allocation shares. The Parties also agree that the 

minimum Upriver Bright adult escapement to meet the 

combined Hanford Reach, lower Yakima River, and 

mainstem Columbia River above Priest Rapids Dam 

natural spawning goal, as well as the current Priest 

Rapids Hatchery production goal is 43,500 adult fall 

Chinook (this historically included a minimal run to 

the Snake River). In the event of anticipated low 

returns of upriver bright fall Chinook to the Hanford 

Reach, notwithstanding the provisions of Table A3, 

ocean and in-river fisheries will be managed at the 

discretion of the Parties to help achieve the 

escapement goal. If future hatchery production is 

modified as a result of mitigation agreements or new 

production programs, then the Parties will instruct 

TAC to calculate appropriate adjustments to the McNary 

Dam management goal to address program adjustments and 

natural production needs for this area. TAC will 

present its recommended adjustments to the Policy 

Committee. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 49 

b. Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery (NFH): 

The Spring Creek NFH escapement necessary to meet the 

full hatchery program requirements is 7,000 adult fall 

Chinook (4,000 females) which is expected to produce a 

15 million smolt release. Ocean and in-river 

fisheries will be managed to help achieve this 

escapement in accordance with the fishing regimes 

described herein. 

c. Klickitat Hatchery: The Klickitat Hatchery 

program production needs of 2,400 adult bright fall 

Chinook shall not be a management constraint. Until 

the Klickitat Hatchery implements a broodstock 

collection program, the broodstock need for Klickitat 

Hatchery fall Chinook shall be made up from bright 

fall Chinook returning to Little White Salmon NFH or 

other appropriate hatchery that is above base program 

needs. In the event base program needs cannot be met, 

the Parties agree to develop a program, which will 

address the shortfall. 

d. Little White Salmon NFH: The number of 

bright fall Chinook adults necessary to meet the full 

production program, including the on-station release 

program of 2.0 million smolts, the 1.7 million 

transfer to the Yakima River, and the Klickitat 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 50 

Hatchery program need, is 4,400 fish (2,200 females). 

The Little White Salmon NFH escapement goal shall not 

be a management constraint. 

e. Mid-Columbia Fall Chinook: The Parties have 

used the interim escapement goals recommended by TAC 

for Mid-Columbia tributaries for the purposes of 

developing the annual fishery model known as 

Attachment A. Mid-Columbia bright fall Chinook 

escapement is not a management constraint for 

fisheries. 

f. Deschutes River: The Deschutes River fall 

Chinook stock is of special management concern. If a 

Deschutes River mouth sanctuary closure to fall 

Chinook fishing is determined to be necessary, then 

the Parties commit to conducting on the water 

monitoring and enforcement of any steelhead 

subsistence or sport fishing occurring in the closed 

area for the purpose of determining the incidental 

mortality of Chinook in those fisheries. 

5. Ocean Fisheries

The Parties recognize that the Secretary of Commerce 

adopts regulations recommended by the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (PFMC) that annually establish a Chinook 

catch quota for all fisheries south of the U.S.-Canada 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 51 

border. The ESA ocean fishery management criteria 

currently requires a 30 percent reduction of the total 

harvest impact on Snake River fall Chinook from the 1988-93 

base period for all ocean fisheries combined (including 

Canadian and S.E. Alaskan fisheries). The Parties 

acknowledge that all U.S. ocean fisheries will be managed 

consistent with the ESA ocean fishery management criteria 

and applicable case law under United States v. Oregon. If 

NOAA Fisheries modifies the ESA ocean fishery management 

criteria, the Parties will discuss whether it is 

appropriate to reconsider criteria for in-river fisheries. 

6. Non-treaty Columbia River Fisheries

Fall season Non-treaty fall season fisheries will be 

managed in approximate accordance with modeling summary 

results annually described in Attachment A and Part II.D.3 

of this Agreement. Non-treaty fisheries shall be managed 

to not exceed the over-all URB Chinook harvest impacts 

listed in modeling summary results annually described in 

Attachment A. It is the intent of the Parties that conduct 

of the Hanford sport fishery will not in any manner 

constrain the treaty Indian fishery unless the tribes have 

already achieved the treaty tribal fisheries' share as 

described in modeling summary results provided in 

Attachment A. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 52 

7. Treaty Indian Fisheries

The fall season treaty Indian fishery shall be managed 

in approximate accordance with modeling summary results 

annually described in Attachment A and Part II.D.3 of this 

Agreement. Commercial fishing in Zone 6 of the Columbia 

River shall remain an exclusive treaty Indian fishery. The 

actual fishing dates, gear restrictions, and other shaping 

measures with respect to this fishery shall be defined by 

the tribes in-season as the fishery progresses. 

8. In-Season Review

The Parties shall meet in-season to review run size 

updates and the fisheries that have occurred up to that 

point. If that review suggests that the States of Oregon 

and Washington or the Columbia River Treaty Tribes will be 

unable to achieve the fisheries or harvest sharing 

objectives described in Part II of this Agreement by 

continuing to adhere to the harvest rates set forth in Part 

II.D.3.b. and c. or Part II.E.3 and 4, the Parties may, by 

agreement, adjust those harvest rates. The total URB 

harvest rate resulting from such an adjustment shall not 

exceed those shown in Table A3. The total Group B index 

steelhead fall season harvest rate resulting from such an 

adjustment shall not exceed the rates shown in the 

abundance based harvest rate schedule shown in Table A4. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 53 

E. STEELHEAD 

1. Management Principles

The Parties have discussed the concerns identified by 

the tribes regarding the appropriateness of Group A and B 

steelhead stock separation as applied to fisheries 

management relative to non harvest activities. Information 

and harvest management criteria will be established to 

address steelhead management issues. The Parties direct 

TAC to make recommendations to the Policy Committee for 

further studies as needed to address steelhead management 

issues. For the purposes of this Agreement, Group B index 

steelhead are defined as any steelhead measuring at least 

78cm fork length and passing Bonneville Dam between July 1 

and October 31. 

 2. Steelhead Escapement Goals

TAC has completed a review of Snake River steelhead 

escapement information. The Parties will consider the 

information in monitoring management activities. 

3. Non-treaty Columbia River Harvest

Non-treaty fisheries in the mainstem Columbia River 

will be managed in approximate accordance with modeling 

summary results annually described in Attachment A. These 

fisheries will result in a harvest rate that is no greater 

than that shown in Table A4. Non-treaty fisheries for 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 54 

steelhead in the mainstem Columbia River and its 

tributaries will be managed consistent with United States 

v. Oregon and United States v. Washington case law 

principles regarding harvest sharing. All Non-treaty 

fisheries outside the Snake River basin will be managed not 

to exceed 2% harvest impact for natural origin Group B 

index steelhead. Oregon and Washington will provide catch 

estimates annually. The harvest impacts will be estimated 

for Group A and Group B index steelhead. 

4. Treaty Indian Zone 6 Harvest

Zone 6 Treaty Indian fall season fisheries will be 

managed in approximate accordance with modeling summary 

results annually described in Attachment A. These 

fisheries will result in a harvest rate that is no greater 

than that shown in Table A4. The tribes will employ 

standard management tools, at their discretion, to stay 

within the steelhead guideline while achieving the fall 

Chinook allocation. 

F. COHO 

1. Management Principles

An important aspect of this Agreement is to define an 

understanding among the Parties regarding procedures and 

schedules for mass marking of Columbia River hatchery coho 

originating from state and federal facilities, for 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 55 

clarifying releases above Bonneville Dam, and for 

subsequent fishery management. The Parties recognize that 

the actions defined in this Agreement reflect the Parties' 

best efforts at reaching a negotiated agreement to protect, 

rebuild, and enhance upper Columbia River coho while 

providing harvests for both treaty Indian and non-treaty 

fisheries. 

2. United States v. Oregon Harvest Sharing Principle

The Parties agree to implement fisheries in the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) and Columbia 

River Compact fora that provide treaty Indian and nontreaty fisheries the opportunity to each harvest 50 percent 

of the upriver adult coho available for harvest south of 

the U.S.-Canada border. The provision for 50 percent of 

the defined upriver adult coho run size to non-treaty 

fisheries shall include any catches in sport fisheries 

above Bonneville Dam as well as sport and commercial 

fisheries below Bonneville Dam and in the ocean. The 

upriver coho run is comprised of both early and late 

stocks. 

3. Responsibilities for Costs

This agreement does not commit the tribes to 

additional costs directly related to mass marking and a 

selective fisheries plan. These envisioned costs 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 56 

specifically include providing for equipment use and 

maintenance, costs for marking and tagging operations and 

increases in staff for coded-wire tag sampling, if any are 

required. The parties sponsoring and conducting mass 

marking will carry out this responsibility by providing 

equipment and technical assistance when needed. 

4. Escapement Objectives

Non-treaty fisheries will be managed to achieve at 

least the collective brood stock escapement necessary to 

fulfill Columbia River hatchery production goals, including 

hatchery programs both above and below Bonneville Dam. TAC 

shall provide a recommended spawning escapement goal 

analysis to the Policy Committee. The Parties intend to 

gather information for developing a coho spawning 

escapement goal and/or a management goal (in Bonneville Dam 

equivalents). In the event of agreement on a natural 

spawning escapement goal for upriver coho, the 50 percent 

sharing agreement shall apply to that portion of the run 

size in excess of the agreed natural spawning escapement 

goal. 

5. Fisheries Management 

The Parties agree that all fisheries, including 

selective and non-selective types, affecting upper Columbia 

River coho, will be implemented as a result of the co-
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 57 

management process that includes the North of Cape Falcon 

Forum, the PFMC, the Columbia River Compact, and United 

States v. Oregon Columbia River tributary jurisdictions. 

The Parties recognize that the Secretary of Commerce will 

adopt regulations recommended by the PFMC that establish 

ocean salmon fisheries for all areas south of the U.S.-

Canada border. Upriver coho impacts in ocean and Columbia 

River Basin fisheries shall be described annually. Catchand-release mortalities associated with non-treaty 

selective fisheries will be included in calculations of the 

total upriver run size and the harvest sharing provisions 

of Part II.F.2 of this Agreement. The Parties agree that 

selective and non-selective fishery options will be 

evaluated on their merits consistent with the management 

objectives and fishery sharing provisions stated in this 

Agreement and there is no assurance that selective 

fisheries will occur simply because marking has occurred. 

The Parties acknowledge that coho fisheries will be managed 

consistent with the harvest sharing principles. Fisheries 

adjustments in-season will also be made accordingly. 

G. WHITE STURGEON 

 1. Management Goals

 The intent of the Parties is to manage sturgeon 

populations in the Zone 6 fishing area to provide long term 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 58 

sustainable harvest opportunities for Indian and non-treaty 

fisheries. The current status of the sturgeon population is 

the key factor in determining appropriate harvest levels. 

The Parties commit to continue ongoing studies to estimate 

present and optimum population levels, life history 

characteristics, recruitment, spawning potential and 

appropriate sturgeon fishing sanctuaries. 

 2. Management Measures

 Oregon, Washington and the Columbia River Treaty 

Tribes have established a joint Sturgeon Management Task 

Force. They will continue to meet regularly in that forum 

to review sturgeon management issues and set harvest 

guidelines for the upcoming year. Information to be 

reviewed includes recreational, commercial and subsistence 

landings for each reservoir between Bonneville and McNary 

Dam. Estimates of encounters in non-retention recreational 

activities will also be provided. The Sturgeon Management 

Task Force shall determine the harvest guidelines for each 

reservoir annually. The effectiveness of harvest management 

shall be measured relative to a three-year rolling average 

of the guidelines. Annual harvest guidelines may be 

adjusted to account for cumulative overages/underages. The 

treaty catch may be taken in gillnet, setline, platform or 

hook-and-line fisheries. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 59 

 Oregon, Washington, and the Columbia River Treaty 

Tribes agree to undertake a review of sturgeon management 

regulations. The effect of size limits, sanctuaries and 

other regulations on the harvest guidelines will be 

estimated. 

 The Parties commit to pursuing enhancement activities, 

along with the necessary funding, for sturgeon populations 

in the Zone 6 fishing area. Activities considered will 

include, but not be limited to, artificial propagation, 

transplantation from other areas and flow augmentation. The 

Parties agree that funding for ongoing studies to estimate 

present and optimum population levels, life history 

characteristics, recruitment, spawning potential and 

appropriate sturgeon fishing sanctuaries is essential to 

successfully managing these populations. 

H. SHAD 

Shad runs have been sufficiently large to allow for 

major expansion of harvest. However, markets are limited and 

need to be developed for this species. Development of catch 

methods shall be pursued to promote a sufficient catch of 

shad while minimizing the catch of other species. The 

Parties shall seek to minimize the harvest of salmon 

incidental to treaty Indian and non-treaty shad fisheries as 

set forth in Part II, Sections A.4 and 5, B.3 and 4, and C.2 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 60 

and 3. The incidental shad catch during treaty Indian 

fisheries for anadromous fish may be sold or otherwise 

utilized. The tribes may also implement directed shad 

fisheries using traps or other appropriate gear. All 

incidental impacts to salmon and steelhead will be accounted 

for as part of applicable harvest guidelines. 

I. WALLEYE AND OTHER NON-NATIVE SPECIES

The incidental catch of walleye and other fish species 

not native to the Columbia River during treaty Indian 

fisheries for anadromous fish may be sold or otherwise 

utilized. Non-treaty fisheries on walleye shall continue 

under state regulation, which prohibits the sale of walleye. 

J. LAMPREY

 The Parties recognize the depressed status of lamprey 

populations originating from upstream of Bonneville Dam. 

The Parties acknowledge that factors other than harvest 

have been the major cause of population decline. The 

Parties commit to jointly support efforts to identify and 

implement projects to restore lamprey populations above 

Bonneville Dam. 

 There shall be no commercial harvest of lamprey in the 

Columbia River and its tributaries. This does not prevent 

trade or barter among Indian Tribes, or harvest for 

personal use by non-Indians, if otherwise permitted. The 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 61 

Parties recognize that opportunities for harvest of lamprey 

are extremely limited. In recent years, the primary 

opportunity for harvest of lamprey has been at Willamette 

Falls. Annual take levels will be determined through a 

process that includes discussions between the State of 

Oregon and the tribes. 

K. RESEARCH AND MONITORING 

The United States v. Oregon Parties have agreed to a 

series of species-specific harvest management regimes 

described in Part II. Implementing those management 

regimes requires continuation of essential monitoring 

activities. Additional research and monitoring is needed 

to improve the accuracy and precision of management. 

Important components of a comprehensive research and 

monitoring program include, but are not limited to, those 

described below. The Parties agree that maintaining a 

vigorous research and monitoring program is essential to 

continued implementation of the harvest regimes as 

envisioned in this Agreement. The Parties therefore agree 

to work together to maintain funding for current programs, 

and seek additional funding that are considered essential 

to increase certainty in the conservation effectiveness of 

the harvest strategies contained within this Agreement. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 62 

1. Current Needs

a. Fisheries sampling for stock composition 

including impacts to natural origin fish. 

b. Fishery effort accounting. 

c. Natural spawning escapement enumeration. 

d. Run reconstruction and forecasting. 

e. Observer programs and test fisheries. 

f. Dam passage sampling. 

2. Additional Needs

a. Snake River fall Chinook run reconstruction 

and forecasts. 

b. Enhanced natural spawning escapement 

enumeration. 

c. PIT tag sampling. 

d. Increase sampling effort to maintain 

necessary fishery sampling rates. 

e. Evaluate genetic stock identification 

methods to further improve stock identification. 

III. PRODUCTION ACTIONS

A. MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES

1. General Statement

The Parties have responsibilities with regard to the 

conservation, rebuilding, and/or enhancement of the 

anadromous salmonids of the upper Columbia River Basin. The 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 63 

Parties also recognize the existing Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council’s interim rebuilding goal to increase 

total adult salmon and steelhead runs above Bonneville Dam 

by 2025 to an average of 5 million annually in a manner 

that supports tribal and non-tribal harvest (Council 

Document 2000-19, III.C.2.). The Parties intend to use 

artificial production techniques where appropriate, among 

other strategies, to assist in rebuilding weak runs and 

mitigating for lost production. The Parties' stated intent 

to implement the production actions described in this 

Agreement is an important consideration to the Tribes. 

These production actions, in conjunction with other 

enhancement efforts, habitat protection, hydrosystem 

management, and harvest management, are intended to ensure 

that Columbia River fish runs continue to provide a broad 

range of benefits in perpetuity. 

2. Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation

The Parties will work in cooperation to continue 

developing monitoring and evaluation programs for the 

production actions contained in this Agreement and for any 

production program modifications implemented under Part 

I.B.2 and III.A.1. Monitoring and evaluation programs for 

production shall be consistent with the research and 

monitoring activities for harvest described in Part II.K, 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 64 

and may use some of the same tools. Therefore, the Parties 

commit to retain flexibility as they develop monitoring and 

evaluation programs, to use their best efforts to maintain 

current funding for monitoring and evaluation programs, and 

to secure additional funding to address information needs. 

The Parties will integrate information gained from 

monitoring and evaluation with the production strategies in 

this Agreement so as to increase certainty in their 

conservation effectiveness. 

3. Marking

The Parties recognize and have discussed the concerns 

identified by the Parties regarding marking protocols for 

various production programs identified in this Agreement. 

Marking scenarios identified in this Agreement are expected 

to occur during the period of this Agreement. It should 

not be interpreted that each marking program has the full 

support of all Parties or that any Party waives any rights 

it may have with regard to any marking protocol. Nothing 

in this Agreement shall be interpreted as setting precedent 

for future marking programs or as preventing Parties from 

reaching other agreements on individual marking programs 

which may be implemented during or after termination of 

this Agreement; provided, however, that notice of such 

agreements shall be given to the other Parties. All 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 65 

Parties commit to make a good faith effort to continue 

discussions and negotiations on individual marking issues 

during the period of this Agreement. 

In regards to spring Chinook programs described as TBD 

in Table B1, the Parties agree to engage in a “basin by 

basin” approach to develop marking protocols. The Parties 

will evaluate releases in all tributaries within a subbasin. The Parties will take into account the purpose of 

the releases and the interests of the appropriate Parties, 

and accommodate all Party interests to the extent possible. 

The Parties will place particular emphasis on evaluating 

the marking protocols and allowable harvest rates that 

affect the harvest sharing principles embodied in this 

Agreement. 

Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to 

prevent the federal Parties and/or states from mass marking 

fish required to be marked under Section 113 of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (PL 110-161) or other 

Congressional acts directing the mass marking of Chinook, 

coho, and steelhead intended for harvest which are released 

from federally operated or financed hatcheries. In the 

event USFWS and/or states mark fish inconsistent with 

Tables B1-B7, nothing in this Agreement prevents any party 

from challenging these acts. In the event of insufficient 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 66 

funding to carry out such marking, the federal Parties will 

consult with the other Parties to review and revise the 

priorities in any marking plan provided for under this 

Agreement. The federal Parties will, to the extent required 

by law, consider the other Parties’ recommendations and the 

United States’ trust and treaty responsibility to the 

Tribes before deciding marking priorities. 

4. Broodstock, Facility and Funding Needs for 

Production Programs

The Parties hereby commit to a good faith effort to 

meet the juvenile release programs identified in Tables B1, 

B2, B3, B4(A or B), B5, B6, and B7. However, juvenile 

release levels will be dependent on obtaining adequate 

returns of broodstock, maintaining adequate facility 

rearing space, and funding to accomplish the agreed-to 

production programs. The Parties recognize that much of 

the funding for the production programs central to this 

Agreement is the responsibility of entities that are not 

Parties to this Agreement (e.g., BPA, BOR, COE, PUDs and 

private entities) as mitigation for Columbia River Basin 

water development projects. All the Parties agree to work 

cooperatively to provide the necessary facility rearing 

space and to make a good faith effort to secure the 

necessary funding for these production programs. In the 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 67 

event that production program goals are not achievable, the 

Parties will negotiate contingencies on a case-by-case 

basis through the United States v. Oregon Policy Committee 

and Dispute Resolution process. 

For production programs that are not included in 

Tables B1-B7, the Parties commit annually to provide their 

individual production plans for review and discussion by 

the PAC. As a result of this review, the PAC will 

determine if there are issues that should be forwarded to 

the Policy Committee. Any such issues will be discussed 

annually at the Mid-Winter Meeting or otherwise designated 

negotiation session. 

5. Mitchell Act Funding

The Parties agree to request, and to use their best 

efforts to secure, sufficient funding to carry out 

production management measures set forth in Tables B1-B7. 

If appropriations through the duration of this Agreement 

contain sufficient funding to carry out current Mitchell 

Act programs, the Parties agree to implement the Mitchell 

Act production actions as set forth in this Agreement 

subject to compliance with all applicable laws. If there 

is insufficient funding to maintain current Mitchell Act 

programs, then, consistent with the Anti-Deficiency Act, 

the United States cannot commit to fund any particular 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 68 

Mitchell Act program. In the event of such insufficiency 

in Mitchell Act appropriations to meet all of the Parties' 

desires, the United States will consult with the Tribes and 

the States to review and revise the Mitchell Act program in 

light of the actual Fiscal Year appropriations, and, the 

United States will give good faith consideration to all 

Parties' recommendations, the United States' trust 

responsibility to the tribes, and Mitchell Act history 

before deciding which Mitchell Act program actions will be 

funded. It is not the Parties’ intent to eliminate or 

substantially reduce any Mitchell Act programs, however the 

upriver releases identified in this Agreement have priority 

over lower river releases. The Parties understand that 

options for any program changes will be considered pursuant 

to Part I.C. 

6. Non-Mitchell Act Funding

Implementation of other non-Mitchell Act funded 

production measures in this Agreement may involve new costs 

that are funded by government and non-government entities. 

For programs funded by the federal agency signatories, nonMitchell Act production measures are subject to obtaining 

funding sufficient to implement the measures and are 

subject to compliance with all applicable laws. The 

Parties agree to request, and to use their best efforts to 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 69 

secure, sufficient funding to carry out production 

management measures set forth in Tables B1-B7. If there is 

insufficient funding to implement non-Mitchell Act programs 

funded by a federal agency signatory, the Parties will 

consult to review and revise the program measures in light 

of the funding for that year. The United States will give 

good faith consideration to all Parties’ recommendations, 

the United States’ trust responsibility, and the purpose 

and history of the program before deciding which programs 

will be funded. 

B. SPRING CHINOOK PRODUCTION

The Parties agree to implement spring Chinook 

production programs described in Table B1: Spring Chinook 

Production for Brood Years 2008-2017. In developing 

marking protocols, the Parties agree to take a “basin by 

basin” approach as described in Part III.A.3. 

C. SUMMER CHINOOK PRODUCTION

The Parties agree to implement summer Chinook 

production programs described in Table B2: Summer Chinook 

Production for Brood Years 2008-2017. 

D. SOCKEYE PRODUCTION

The Parties agree to implement sockeye production 

programs described in Table B3: Sockeye Production for 

Brood Years 2008-2017. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 70 

E. FALL CHINOOK PRODUCTION

1. Snake River Fall Chinook Supplementation Program

a. The Parties all have an interest in the 

current Snake River (SR) fall Chinook production 

program, its effects on SR fall Chinook abundance and 

productivity, and the magnitude or relative impact of 

the current production program compared to other 

actions and conditions that influence SR fall Chinook 

abundance and productivity. With the implementation 

of the SR fall Chinook supplementation program, the 

abundance of natural origin SR fall Chinook has 

significantly increased thereby effectively reducing 

the near-term risk to the population’s persistence. 

The Parties agree that the effect of the current 

supplementation strategy on SR fall Chinook abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity, and 

the magnitude or relative impact of the current 

production program to other actions that influence SR 

fall Chinook will continue to be evaluated over the 

course of this Agreement. If, during the course of 

this Agreement, additional data or changed 

circumstances arise associated with the SR fall 

Chinook, then the Parties agree to consider options to 

address the issue identified, including whether to 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 71 

modify the current supplementation program or consider 

other management responses. 

In the event that NOAA seeks to revise the SR 

fall Chinook supplementation program utilizing its ESA 

authorities, or another event triggers ESA-based reconsideration of the SR fall Chinook supplementation 

program during the term of this Agreement, NOAA shall 

meet with all the Parties to analyze the SR fall 

Chinook supplementation program compared to other 

actions and conditions that influence SR fall Chinook 

abundance, productivity, spatial structure and 

diversity, as well as legal principles, including but 

not limited to the Tribes’ treaty rights, the States’ 

interests, the Secretarial Order on ESA and Tribal 

Treaty rights, the conservation necessity principles 

and the ESA.

b. The Parties agree to implement Snake River 

fall Chinook production programs described in Table 

B4A or B4B: Snake River Fall Chinook Production for 

Brood Years 2008-2017 pursuant to action defined 

above. 

c. The Parties will meet annually prior to 

September 15 of each year to develop broodstock 

collection protocols needed to implement Table B4A or 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 72 

B4B. In the case of broodstock shortages, priorities 

outlined in Table B4A or B4B (whichever is in effect) 

will be followed. Annual plans for the respective 

fall Chinook brood year will be provided to PAC by 

October 1 of each year. 

d. Trapping of adult fall Chinook at Lower 

Granite Dam will occur at a fixed percentage rate 

agreed upon by the fishery managers prior to 

initiation of trapping at the dam. Trapping is to 

provide for broodstock collection (hatchery and 

natural origin), accurate run reconstruction, and for 

removal of non-Snake origin fish. 

e. The Parties will work cooperatively to seek 

and maintain adequate funding to operate the Lower 

Granite Dam trap to further the goals of the Snake 

River production programs. 

f. A monitoring and evaluation implementation 

plan remains in development as part of the long term 

production plan for SR fall Chinook to support 

conservation and harvest programs. In the interim, an 

appropriate number of fish will be coded-wire tagged 

for evaluation purposes as identified in Table B4A or 

B4B. The tagging/marking technique shall allow for 

the adult returns of the off-site released juvenile 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 73 

Lyons Ferry Hatchery fall Chinook to pass the Lower 

Granite Dam trap because it is the Parties’ intent 

that current trapping protocols at Lower Granite Dam 

will ensure that the majority of supplementation fish 

will pass upstream of Lower Granite Dam to spawn 

naturally. Unless the Parties agree otherwise, the 

adult returns from juvenile SR fall Chinook releases 

that are surplus to broodstock needs shall be allowed 

to pass Lower Granite Dam to spawn naturally. 

g. The Parties shall coordinate the use of 

Lyons Ferry subyearling production for supplementation 

and research. To facilitate research review, the 

Parties shall consider research proposals through 

existing research review forums. In order to protect 

the integrity of the Parties’ production commitments 

with regard to SR fall Chinook contained in this 

Agreement, research proposals are subject to review 

and agreement of the Parties. Such agreement shall 

not be unreasonably withheld. 

h. The PAC shall provide an annual update 

report of SR fall Chinook adult returns and expected 

egg-take by November 1. The PAC shall also provide an 

actual egg-take and juvenile production estimate 

report by January 15 of each year. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 74 

2. Other Fall Chinook Production

The Parties agree to implement other fall Chinook 

production programs described in Table B5: Fall Chinook 

Production for Brood Years 2008-2017. The Parties will 

finalize and present to US Army Corps of Engineers their 

agreed-to position for appropriate John Day and The Dalles 

Dams Mitigation levels by December 2008. The Parties will 

coordinate changes associated with these production 

programs. 

F. STEELHEAD PRODUCTION

1. Steelhead Production for Brood Years 2009-2018

Hatchery steelhead from the 2009-2018 brood (fish that 

return to the Columbia River in 2008-2017 and will spawn in 

2009-2018) shall be implemented as described in Table B6: 

Steelhead Production for Brood Years 2009-2018. The 

Parties agree to continue a monitoring and evaluation 

program for the mass marking and selective fisheries 

program in the Columbia River Basin. A purpose of the 

program is to evaluate catch and release mortalities to 

unmarked steelhead. 

2. Monitoring Adult Composition

The Parties commit to seek funding for a program to 

monitor the composition of adult steelhead returning above 

Bonneville, Lower Granite, and Priest Rapids dams. The 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 75 

Parties commit to working with US Army Corps of Engineers 

to improve sampling at Bonneville Dam. This program is 

expected to include the collection of scales from adult 

steelhead at Bonneville, Lower Granite, and Priest Rapids 

dams to assist in monitoring hatchery and natural origin 

adult escapement to the Snake River and upper Columbia 

River areas. 

G. COHO

1. Purpose of Program Modifications

The coho program modifications described below are a 

result of a negotiated agreement between the Parties to 

address mass marking, the selective fisheries program, and 

the Parties’ desire to restore upriver coho runs. 

2. Upriver Coho Production for 2008-2017 Brood Coho

The Parties agree to implement upriver coho production 

and reintroduction programs described in Table B7: Coho 

Production for Brood Years 2008-2017. 

3. Grande Ronde Program

The Parties understand that new funding will be 

necessary for this program. If funding is obtained, the 

Parties will develop a reintroduction plan and agree to 

release numbers, acclimation location (Wallowa Hatchery), a 

marking plan, and a monitoring and evaluation plan. If the 

final release number in the Wallowa /Grande Ronde River is 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 76 

less than 500,000 smolts, the balance of the production 

will revert back to release in the Umatilla River. 

4. Priority for Upriver Programs

Except as described in Table B7, for each respective 

brood year, the upriver releases identified in this 

Agreement have priority over lower river releases. The 

states of Oregon and Washington and the United States shall 

manage lower river hatchery programs such that upriver 

release levels will meet the coho release goals described 

in Table B7. In the event of a juvenile rearing 

catastrophe, the Parties agree to consider alternative 

release strategies, which may include but are not limited 

to making up the shortfall in subsequent broodyears. 

5. Contingency

The Parties recognize that disease, weather disasters, 

or other unforeseen events might impact non-mass marked 

upriver coho programs and result in a situation where 

already mass-marked lower river coho are the only fish 

available to be reprogrammed for an upriver release to meet 

the release goals identified in this Agreement. Therefore, 

if a shortfall in non-mass marked coho for upriver programs 

occurs after mass marking is completed, the Parties will 

meet and agree on how best to address the shortfall. 

 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 77 

H. PRODUCTION ISSUES REQUIRING FURTHER DEVELOPMENT 

 The Parties acknowledge that on-going hatchery 

reviews, production planning, and other factors complicate 

the Parties’ ability to finalize some of the production 

programs described in tables B1-B7. The Parties commit to 

good faith efforts to continue the development of 

production plans, including descriptions of issues 

requiring policy guidance, analyses of technical issues, 

and identification of funding mechanisms, in order to reach 

consensus on outstanding issues that prevent the 

finalization of Tables B1-B7. 

 The following list of production issues is recognized 

as being of high priority for resolution by the Parties but 

is not intended to exclude other production issues that may 

arise during the term of this Agreement. The Parties commit 

to good faith effort to better define and/or resolve issues 

and engage in cooperative planning for the implementation 

of the following programs: 

 1. Table B1, Spring Chinook Salmon

 a. Leavenworth NFH complex spring Chinook 

program levels, release locations, development of 

locally adapted broodstocks, and marking protocols. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 78 

 b. Kooskia NFH spring Chinook integrated 

broodstock management and smolt release guidelines to 

reimplement supplementation in Clear Creek. 

 c. Sawtooth FH spring Chinook, Pahsimeroi FH 

summer Chinook, and McCall FH summer Chinook 

integrated broodstock management guideline and release 

protocols to reimplement supplementation. 

d. Yankee Fork spring Chinook development of 

locally adapted broodstock for supplementation and 

production planning that also considers the Sawtooth 

FH program. 

 e. Review of options for initiating a Lemhi 

River spring Chinook supplementation program. 

2. Table B2, Summer Chinook Salmon

 a. Turtle Rock, Eastbank, and Wells FH summer 

Chinook development of new acclimation facilities and 

marking protocols. 

 b. Yakima River summer (early fall) Chinook 

reintroduction. 

 c. Johnson Creek summer Chinook reassessment of 

program size. 

3. Table B3, Sockeye Salmon

 a. Stanley Basin sockeye program expansion. 

 b. Wallowa Lake sockeye reintroduction program. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 79 

 c. Lake Cle Elum sockeye reintroduction 

program. 

4. Table B5, Fall Chinook Salmon

a. Spring Creek NFH fall Chinook reprogramming 

and John Day mitigation program. 

b. Klickitat fall Chinook salmon master plan 

and implementation. 

 c. Priest Rapids Hatchery fall Chinook marking 

protocols (Grant County PUD mitigation program). 

5. Table B6, Steelhead 

 a. Wenatchee, Methow, Okanogan steelhead 

development of new acclimation facilities and marking 

protocols. 

 b. Methow River/Winthrop NFH and Okanogan River 

steelhead management plan developed by January 2009. 

 c. Walla Walla, Touchet, Tucannon, and lower 

Grande Ronde River steelhead management plan developed 

for broodyear 2010. 

 d. South Fork Clearwater River and Lolo Creek 

steelhead local broodstock transition and production 

planning for broodyear 2010. 

e. Yankee Fork of the Salmon River steelhead 

local broodstock transition and production planning 

for broodyear 2010. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 80 

 f. Klickitat Basin Steelhead Master Plan. 

6. Table B7, Coho Salmon 

 a. Entiat NFH coho development of 

implementation guidelines for program objectives, 

size, release locations, and marking protocols. 

 b. Wallowa FH coho reintroduction. 

 c. Klickitat Basin Coho Master Plan. 

I. PROCESSES FOR ONGOING OR FUTURE REVIEWS AFFECTING 

PRODUCTION PROGRAMS, AND FOR HIGH PRIORITY PRODUCTION 

ITEMS THAT WILL REQUIRE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT, 

COOPERATIVE PLANNING, AND RESOLUTION 

 

1. Process for Ongoing or Future Reviews Affecting 

Production Programs

The Parties recognize that ongoing or future reviews 

of hatchery management programs and policies may affect the 

production Programs described in this Agreement. Program 

modifications recommended by NOAA as a result of the ESA 

Section 7 Process are addressed in Section I.B.2 of this 

Agreement. Program modifications proposed by any other 

Party, will be considered by the U.S. v. Oregon Parties on 

a case-by-case basis, and the following specifics shall 

apply consistent with the general modification provision in 

Section I.B.8 of this Agreement. The Parties will consider 

the relationship of the proposed modification to the 

overall Agreement and the valuable exchange of 

consideration the Agreement represents. After considering 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 81 

any modification, the Parties may agree to modify the 

Agreement, renegotiate the Agreement, or pursue any and all 

options they may have, including but not limited to dispute 

resolution pursuant to this Agreement, withdrawal from this 

Agreement, or initiating legal action. The Parties commit 

to monitor and evaluate the effects of program 

modifications on adult returns and fishery opportunity as a 

condition of agreement to a modification. 

2. Process for High Priority Production Items That 

Will Require Further Development, Cooperative 

Planning, and Resolution

The Parties have identified a list of high priority 

production items set forth in Part III.H that will require 

further development, cooperative planning, and resolution 

during the course of this Agreement and could result in 

modification of tables B1-B7. 

The Parties agree that additions, deletions, or 

modifications to tables B1-B7, aside from those subject to 

Part I.B.2, may be made by agreement of the Parties at any 

time during the term of this Agreement. The following 

specific process shall apply to the extent feasible 

consistent with the general modification provision of 

Section I.B.8. 

a. The Party proposing any such modification is 

responsible for supplying to other Parties all 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 82 

relevant information and rationale supporting a 

proposal. All proposals must be submitted to PAC by 

the relevant co-managers or Parties for technical 

analysis and eventual recommendation to the Policy 

Committee. 

b. Planning efforts in connection with the 

proposal will occur at a sub-basin level, and 

appropriate Parties (as identified in Table 1) for 

each production program proposal will make a good 

faith effort to participate in and contribute to the 

planning effort. 

c. Each Party shall advise and update its PAC 

representative regarding progress on production 

program planning efforts. An annual progress report 

will be provided by the PAC to the Policy Committee on 

each production item after coming under active 

consideration by the Parties. 

d. In the event PAC cannot reach a consensus 

recommendation, an issue paper will be prepared for 

Policy Review which describes the issue preventing 

consensus and contains relevant facts of the dispute. 

If the Policy Committee cannot reach consensus, any 

Party may elect to invoke the Dispute Resolution 

procedure in Part I.C.6. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 83 

e. If the Parties reach consensus on a proposed 

modification, they shall incorporate the modification 

into this Agreement. 

 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 84 

Schedule A: Schedule for Committee Activities 

Annual TAC Schedule 

Report/Activity Information Dates/Deadlines 

 Spring/summer season 

management 

 (spring, summer, sockeye) 

Post-season run reconstruction 

Pre-season run forecasts 

November – December 

Mid-December 

Steelhead Post-season run reconstruction 

Pre-season Forecasts 

December-January 

January 

Fall season management 

(TAC works with Joint State Staff 

to accomplish these tasks) 

Post-season run reconstruction 

(all managed fall Chinook stock groups 

including Snake River Fall Chinook) 

Pre-season forecasts 

November- February 

February 

Winter Season Joint Staff Report 

Sturgeon/Smelt 

(TAC works with Joint State Staff) 

Stock status/management guidelines 

Fishery review/recommendations 

TAC review of document 

Final document available 

mid- December 

Early December 

Winter/Spring Season Joint Staff 

Report and Spring Chinook / 

Steelhead 

(TAC works with Joint State Staff) 

Stock status/Run forecasts, Management 

guidelines, Fishery review/recommendations 

TAC review of document 

Final document available 

January 

Early January 

Fall Season Joint Staff report 

Fall Chinook, coho, steelhead 

(TAC works with Joint State Staff) 

Stock status/run forecasts, Management 

guidelines, Fishery review/recommendations 

TAC review of document 

Final document available 

Mid-July 

Early July 

Annual Summary Report 

(for Policy Committee) 

Final Post-season impacts from all fisheries 

compared to targets in Management 

Agreement for previous year. Includes Spring 

Catch Balance report, Fall summary report, 

Indicator Stock summary Report, and ESA 

Impact report. 

March/April 

In-season spring management Assist Joint State staff with Compact Fact 

Sheet development 

Run size updates 

Fishery updates 

Weekly 

February – May 

Pre-season fall management Run forecasts 

Fall fishery planning/PFMC/NOF 

Mid-February 

March – April 

In-season summer management Assist Joint State staff with Compact Fact 

Sheet development 

Run size updates 

Fishery updates 

Weekly 

June-July 

Post-season spring/summer 

season summary report for Policy 

Committee 

Fishery Impact Summary for spring and 

summer season fisheries 

August-October 

In-season fall management Compact Fact Sheet development 

Run size updates/fishery updates 

Weekly 

August – October 

Post-season fall season summary 

report for Policy Committee 

Fishery Impact Summary for fall season 

fisheries 

November-December 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 85 

Annual PAC Schedule 

Report/Activity Information Dates/Deadlines 

Production plan 

modifications based on 

preseason forecast 

Spring/summer Chinook 

Fall Chinook/coho/ 

Steelhead 

Early April 

Early August 

Preliminary 

tributary escapements 

Spring/summer/fall 

Chinook 

Coho 

Steelhead 

Early November 

Early December 

Mid-June 

Determine Lower Granite 

trapping and broodstock 

collection protocols 

Fall Chinook August 

Post-season escapement 

and identification of 

production changes 

Spring/summer/fall 

Chinook 

Coho 

Steelhead 

Early December 

Early December 

Early May 

Note: Columbia Basin production activities involve a wide number of agencies 

and staff. Different agencies, including parties to this agreement, delegate 

aspects of the above responsibilities to staff who may not be members of PAC. 

PAC will involve itself as needed to ensure these tasks are accomplished and 

PAC will work with state, federal agency staff and tribal staff as needed to collect 

appropriate information regarding the above activities and report it to the Policy 

Committee. PAC will share information regarding current production programs 

not included in Tables B1-B7. PAC is directed by the Policy Committee to assist 

in resolution of any disputes regarding production programs included in this 

agreement and report any issues requiring policy resolution. TAC and PAC will 

provide additional data and analysis as requested in order to implement this 

Agreement. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 86 

Annual Policy Committee Schedule 

Report/Activity Information Dates/Deadlines 

 Mid-Winter Meeting

- Specified negotiation 

topics 

 

- Fall fisheries post-season 

review 

 

- Spring and summer 

management period fishery 

preview 

- Sturgeon Management 

Task Force meeting 

- Production review and 

annual decision point for 

(non-steelhead) production 

program issues 

Briefing papers 

TAC post-season fall 

season fishery report 

TAC pre-season fishery 

report (Summary of Forecasts 

and Joint Staff Report) 

Staff/TAC sturgeon 

technical 

reports/abundance data 

Proposed production 

modifications 

January-February 

 Mid-Spring Meeting

- Specified discussion 

topics 

- Potential Non-Party 

Interaction 

- Fall management period 

fishery preview 

- Mid-spring season fishery 

update 

- Review Annual Indicator 

Summary Report 

Briefing papers 

Issue Papers 

TAC pre-season fishery 

report (Summary of 

PFMC/NOF and in-river fishery 

modeling)

TAC spring season update 

TAC Annual Indicator 

Summary Report 

April-May 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 87 

Report/Activity Information Dates/Deadlines 

Mid/Late Summer Meeting

- Specified discussion 

topics 

- Spring/summer fisheries 

post-season review 

- Fall Season Management 

Issues 

- Production review and 

annual decision point for 

steelhead production 

program issues 

Briefing papers 

TAC post-season 

spring/summer season 

fishery report 

TAC report 

PAC report 

August-September 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 88 

Table 1. Lead management entities for each sub-basin.* 

Sub-Basin Fishery 

Management 

Entities 

Sub-Basin Fishery 

Management 

Entities 

Wind River WDFW, YIN Little White 

Salmon River 

WDFW, YIN 

Big White Salmon 

River 

WDFW, YIN Klickitat River WDFW, YIN 

Yakima River WDFW, YIN Wenatchee River WDFW, YIN 

Entiat River WDFW, YIN Methow River WDFW, YIN 

Hood River ODFW, 

CTWSOR 

Deschutes River ODFW, CTWSRO 

John Day River ODFW, 

CTWSRO, 

CTUIR 

Umatilla River ODFW, CTUIR 

Walla Walla River ODFW, CTUIR, 

WDFW 

Tucannon River WDFW, CTUIR, 

NPT 

Grande Ronde ODFW, WDFW, 

NPT, CTUIR 

Imnaha River ODFW, NPT, 

CTUIR 

Clearwater River IDFG, NPT Salmon River IDFG, NPT, SBT** 

Snake River 

Mainstem 

WDFW, ODFW, 

IDFG, CTUIR, 

NPT 

Columbia River, 

Upper Mainstem 

(Confluence of 

Snake R. to Chief 

Joseph Dam) 

WDFW, YIN, 

CTUIR 

* The lead management entities will consult with USFWS and NOAA 

Fisheries as necessary when fish listed under the Endangered Species Act 

inhabit a sub-basin and/or when the USFWS funds or has a production 

facility in the sub-basin. 

** The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes shall be deemed a management entity for 

purposes of those portions of the Salmon River sub-basin which concern 

those lands and streams outside the Nez Perce Reservation originally 

established by the Nez Perce Treaty of 1855 where the Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribes exercise treaty-secured fishing rights, and such other sub-basin areas 

as may subsequently be agreed upon by the affected parties hereto. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 89 

Table A1. Spring Management Period Harvest Rate Schedule 

 

 Harvest Rate Schedule for Chinook in Spring Management Period 

 

Total Upriver 

Spring and 

Snake River 

Summer 

Chinook Run 

Size6

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% 

 

Footnotes for Table A1. 

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 TriCities 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 Washington-Idaho 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. 

6. If the total in river run is predicted to exceed 380,000, the Parties agree to consider increasing 

the total allowed harvest rate and to reinitiate consultation with NOAA Fisheries if necessary. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 90 

Table A2. Summer Management Period Chinook Harvest Rate Schedule. 

 

River Mouth 

Run Size 

Max Treaty 

Total Harvest 

Rate 

Treaty 

Harvest 

Max NonTreaty Total 

Harvest Rate 

Non-Treaty 

Harvest 

Escapement 

Past Fisheries 

 5,000 5.0% 250 2.0% <100 4,650 

 7,500 5.0% 375 2.7% <200 6,925 

 10,000 5.0% 500 2.0% <200 9,300 

 12,500 5.0% 625 1.6% <200 11,675 

 15,000 5.0% 750 1.3% <200 14,050 

 16,000 10.0% 1,600 5.0% 800 13,600 

 17,500 10.0% 1,750 5.0% 875 14,875 

 20,000 10.0% 2,000 5.0% 1,000 17,000 

 22,500 10.0% 2,250 5.0% 1,125 19,125 

 25,000 10.0% 2,500 5.0% 1,250 21,250 

 27,500 10.0% 2,750 5.0% 1,375 23,375 

 29,000 10.0% 2,900 5.0-6.0% 1,450-1,740 ≥24,360 

 30,000 10.0% 3,000 5.0-6.0% 1,500-1,800 ≥25,200 

 32,500 10.0% 3,250 7.0% 2,275 26,975 

 35,000 10.0% 3,500 7.0% 2,450 29,050 

 36,250 10.0% 3,625 10.0% 3,625 29,000 

 37,500 11.3% 4,250 11.3% 4,250 29,000 

 40,000 13.8% 5,500 13.8% 5,500 29,000 

 42,500 15.9% 6,750 15.9% 6,750 29,000 

 45,000 17.8% 8,000 17.8% 8,000 29,000 

 47,500 19.5% 9,250 19.5% 9,250 29,000 

 50,000 21.0% 10,500 21.0% 10,500 29,000 

 52,500 21.8% 11,438 21.8% 11,438 29,625 

 55,000 22.5% 12,375 22.5% 12,375 30,250 

 57,500 23.2% 13,313 23.2% 13,313 30,875 

 60,000 23.8% 14,250 23.8% 14,250 31,500 

 62,500 24.3% 15,188 24.3% 15,188 32,125 

 65,000 24.8% 16,125 24.8% 16,125 32,750 

 67,500 25.3% 17,063 25.3% 17,063 33,375 

 70,000 25.7% 18,000 25.7% 18,000 34,000 

 72,500 26.1% 18,938 26.1% 18,938 34,625 

 75,000 26.5% 19,875 26.5% 19,875 35,250 

 77,500 26.9% 20,813 26.9% 20,813 35,875 

 80,000 27.2% 21,750 27.2% 21,750 36,500 

 82,500 27.5% 22,688 27.5% 22,688 37,125 

 85,000 27.8% 23,625 27.8% 23,625 37,750 

 87,500 28.1% 24,563 28.1% 24,563 38,375 

 90,000 28.3% 25,500 28.3% 25,500 39,000 

 92,500 28.6% 26,438 28.6% 26,438 39,625 

 95,000 28.8% 27,375 28.8% 27,375 40,250 

 97,500 29.0% 28,313 29.0% 28,313 40,875 

 100,000 29.3% 29,250 29.3% 29,250 41,500 

 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 91 

Footnotes for Table A2. (Upper Columbia River Summer Chinook Harvest Rate 

Schedule): 

1. Fisheries included are all Non-treaty fisheries in the Columbia River mainstem 

below McNary Dam and all Treaty fisheries in Zone 6 between June 16 and July 

31 along with any treaty and non-treaty fisheries impacting upper Columbia River 

summer Chinook in the mainstem Columbia and tributaries above McNary Dam. 

Wanapum and Colville fisheries are included in the non-treaty share. Non-treaty 

ocean fisheries south of the U.S.-Canada border are included in the non-treaty 

share at run sizes above 29,000. At run sizes below 29,000, the non-treaty 

harvest impacts shown are for in-river fisheries. 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. 

2. The river mouth interim management goal is 29,000 fish. This equates to a 

20,000 natural and hatchery escapement goal. 

3. For runs less than 16,000, the treaty harvest on the total summer period Chinook 

river mouth run size will be no more than 5%. 

4. For runs less than 5,000, the non-treaty harvest on the total summer period 

Chinook river mouth run size will be less than 100 Chinook. 

5. For runs sizes of 5,000, but less than 16,000, the non-treaty total harvest rate on 

summer period Chinook will be less than 200 Chinook. 

6. For run sizes of 16,000 to 36,250 (125% of the 29,000 goal), the treaty harvest 

rate will be limited to 10%. For run sizes of 16,000 to 28,999, the non-treaty 

harvest will be limited to 5%. For run sizes of 29,000-36,249, the non-treaty 

harvest rate will be stepped. For run sizes of 29,000 to 32,499, the non-treaty 

harvest rate will be limited to 5-6%. For run sizes of 32,500 to less than 36,249, 

the non-treaty harvest rate will be limited to 7%. 

7. For run sizes of 36,250 to 50,000, the treaty and non-treaty harvest rates will 

each be 50% of the total harvestable number of fish calculated as the river mouth 

run size minus 29,000. 

8. For run sizes above 50,000, higher numbers of fish will be allowed to escape 

fisheries. The harvestable number of fish will be adjusted to include 75% of the 

margin of fish above 50,000. The treaty and non-treaty harvest rates will each be 

50% of the total harvestable number of fish calculated by the following formula: 

(0.75 *(Runsize – 50,000)) + 21,000. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 92 

Table A3. Fall Management Period Chinook Harvest Rate Schedule 

 

Expected 

URB 

River 

Mouth 

Run Size 

Expected 

River 

Mouth 

Snake 

River 

Natural 

Origin 

Run Size 

1

Treaty 

Total 

Harvest 

Rate 

NonTreaty 

Harvest 

Rate 

Total 

Harvest 

Rate 

Expected 

Escapement 

of Snake R. 

Natural 

Origin Past 

Fisheries 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 Footnotes for Table. 

 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. 

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

31. 

 

3. 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. 

 4. 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. 

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

 

6. 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. 

 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 93 

Table A4. Fall Management Period Steelhead Harvest Rate Schedule. 

 

Forecast 

Bonneville 

Total B 

Steelhead Run 

Size 

River Mouth 

URB Run 

Size 

Treaty 

Total B 

Harvest 

Rate 

NonTreaty 

Natural 

Origin B 

Harvest 

Rate 

Total 

Harvest 

Rate 

 <20,000 Any 13% 2.0% 15.0% 

 20,000 Any 15% 2.0% 17.0% 

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

 

 

B Run Steelhead are defined as steelhead measuring ≥78 cm 

 

Footnotes for Table A4: 

This harvest rate schedule applies to fall season fisheries only. These fisheries 

include all mainstem fisheries below the mouth of Snake River from August 1 

through October 31 and for mainstem fisheries from The Dalles Dam to the 

mouth of the Snake River from November 1 through December 31. Also 

included are fall season treaty fisheries in Drano Lake and tributary mouth sport 

fisheries in Zone 6 that impact Snake River steelhead. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 94 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 95 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 96 

Table B1. Spring Chinook Production For Brood Years 2008-2017 

Basin Columbia River Above McNary

Release Site Rearing Facility Stock Life stage 

Target Release 

Number Mark 1

Non-AdClipped 2 Primary Pr

Purpo

Yakima River (Various Release Sites) Cle Elum Hatchery Yakima Yearling 810,000 100% Ad-CWT 0 Suppleme

Twisp River Acc. Site 3 Methow Twisp Yearling 183,000 

100% CWT 

only 4 183,000 4 Suppleme

Chewuch River Acc. Site 3 Methow Methow Composite Yearling 184,000 

100% CWT 

only 4 184,000 4 Suppleme

On Station 3 Methow Methow Composite Yearling 183,000 

100% CWT 

only 4 183,000 4 Suppleme

On Station 5 Winthrop NFH Methow Composite Yearling 600,000 TBD TBD Fishe

Suppleme

Chiwawa R. Acc. Site 3 Eastbank Chiwawa Yearling 672,000 TBD 4 TBD 4 SupplemeWenatchee Basin (Various Release Sites) 3 New Grant PUD facility Chiwawa/Nason Yearling 250,000 TBD 4 TBD 4 SupplemeWhite River / Lake Wenatchee 3 Little White Salmon/Willard NFH White River Yearling 150,000 100% CWT and Body tags 150,000 Conserv

Suppleme

On Station 5 Leavenworth NFH Carson Yearling 1,200,000 200K Ad-CWT, 100% Ad-Clip 0 FisheWalla Walla River 6 Carson NFH Carson Yearling 250,000 100% Ad-Clip, 50K Ad-CWT 0 SupplemeSubtotal 4,482,000 700,000 

Basin Snake River 

Release Site Rearing Facility Stock Life stage 

Target Release 

Number Mark 1

Non-AdClipped 2 Primary Pr

Purpo

Tucannon Tucannon/Lyons Ferry Tucannon Smolt 225,000 100%CWT 225,000 Suppleme

Asotin TBD TBD Smolt TBD TBD TBD SupplemeMeadow Creek (Selway) NPTH Clearwater/RR Parr 400,000 100% CWT 400,000 SupplemeLolo Creek NPTH Clearwater/RR Presmolt 150,000 100% CWT 150,000 SupplemeNewsome Creek NPTH Clearwater/RR Presmolt 75,000 100% CWT 75,000 Suppleme
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 97 

Table B1. Snake River Spring Chinook – Continued 

Clearwater River/NPTH 7 NPTH/Clearwater Anad. FH Clearwater/RR Smolt 200,000 60,000 Ad w/ some CWT 140,000 Supplemen

Fishe

Upper Selway-Magruder Clearwater Anad. FH Clearwater/RR Parr 300,000 Oxytet 300,000 SupplemeLower Selway Clearwater Anad. FH Clearwater/RR Smolt 300,000 

66% Ad, 33% CWT/No Ad 100,000 

Supplemen

Fishe

Powell Pond (Lochsa) Clearwater Anad. FH Clearwater/RR Smolt 400,000 100% Ad-Clip 0 FishePowell Pond (Lochsa) Clearwater Anad. FH Clearwater/RR Presmolt 8 235,000 100% Ad-Clip 0 FisheCrooked R. Pond (S.F. Cl) Clearwater Anad. FH Clearwater/RR Smolt 700,000 100% Ad-Clip 0 FisheRed R. Pond (S.F.Cl) Clearwater Anad. FH Clearwater/RR Smolt 400,000 100% Ad-Clip 0 FisheRed R. /Crooked R. (S. FK. Cl) Clearwater Anad. FH Clearwater/RR Presmolt 100,000 100% CWT 100,000 SupplemeOn Station 9 Kooskia NFH Kooskia/Clearwater /RR Smolt 600,000 500,000 Ad- Clip, CWT 50,000 10 Fishe

Suppleme

On Station Dworshak NFH 

Dworshak/ Clearwater/RR Smolt 1,050,000 

120K Ad-CWT, 100% Ad-Clip 0 Fishe

On Station Rapid River Rapid River Smolt 2,500,000 100% Ad-Clip 0 FisheLittle Salmon River Rapid River Rapid River Smolt See footnote 11 100% Ad-Clip 0 FisheHells Canyon –Snake R. Rapid River Rapid River Smolt See footnote 11 100% Ad-Clip 0 FisheOn Station Upper Salmon R.12 Sawtooth FH Upper Salmon River Smolt 1,000,000 100% Ad-Clip See footnote 12 Fishe

Suppleme

Yankee Fork 13 Sawtooth/TBD Upper Salmon River/Yankee Fork Smolt TBD TBD TBD SupplemeLemhi 14 TBD Lemhi Smolt TBD TBD TBD SupplemeCatherine Creek 15 Lookingglass/Captive Brood Catherine Creek Smolt 150,000 See footnote16 See footnote16 Supplemen

Fishe

Upper Grande Ronde 15 Lookingglass/Captive Brood U. Grande Ronde Smolt 250,000 See footnote16 See footnote16 Supplemen

Fishe

Lostine River Lookingglass/Captive Brood Lostine Smolt 250,000 TBD TBD 

Supplemen

Fishe

Lookingglass Creek Lookingglass/Captive Brood Catherine Creek Smolts 250,000 See footnote16

See 

footnote16 Fishe

Reintrodu

Imnaha River sub-basin Lookingglass Imnaha Smolt 490,00017 TBD TBD Supplemen

Fishe

Subtotal +10,525,000 +1,540,000
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 98 

Table B1. Spring Chinook - Continued Basin Columbia River, Bonneville to McNary

Release Site Rearing Facility Stock Life stage

Target Release 

Number Mark 1

Non-AdClipped 2 Primary 

Purp

Hood River 17 Round Butte Deschutes/Hood Yearling 150,000 100% ADRMCWT 0 Reintro

Fis

On Station Warm Springs NFH Deschutes Yearling 750,000 100% Ad-CWT 0 FisOn Station Round Butte Deschutes Yearling 320,000 100% Ad-CWT 0 FisUmatilla River Umatilla Umatilla/Carson Yearling 810,000 

690K Ad, 120K Ad-CWT+Vent 0 

Supplem

Fish

Klickitat 18 Klickitat Klickitat Yearling 600,000 100% Ad-Clip, 200KCWT 0 Supplem

Fish

Klickitat (above Castile) 18 Klickitat Klickitat Adult Outplants 0 Evaluation Mark SupplemOn Station (Drano Lake) Little White Salmon NFH Carson Yearling 1,000,000 

75K Ad-CWT, 100% Ad-Clip 0 Fis

Captive Brood Program 3 Little White Salmon NFH White River Egg to Adult TBD NA ConseOn Station 6 Carson NFH Carson Yearling 1,170,000 75K Ad-CWT, 100% Ad-Clip 0 FisSubtotal 4,800,000 0 

Grand Total Spring Chinook 19,807,000 2,240,000
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 99 

Footnotes for Table B1: Spring Chinook Salmon 

1. The category ‘Mark’ may include fish that are adipose fin clipped (Ad-Clip), regardless of funding source. The tribes do 

concept of mass marking production using an adipose fin clip for anything other than evaluation purposes. Non-treaty 

use mark-selective fishing techniques in spring Chinook fisheries that allow for a higher harvest rate on hatchery fish m

fin clip compared to fish not so marked. Non-tribal Parties also recognize that mass marking by adipose clipping facilit

management and hatchery/natural origin stock assessment. In agreeing to Table A1 (Spring Chinook Harvest Rate Sc

expect that mainstem fisheries on upriver spring Chinook will achieve catches roughly matching those shown in Catch described in Part II, Section A.1, the Parties will monitor whether those expectations are being met. If they are not, the 

whether to modify this Agreement so as better to meet those catch expectations. 

2. The category “Non-Ad-Clipped” may include fish marked by other means such as CWT, PIT, or VIE tags. Nothing in t

interpreted to prevent the federal Parties and/or states from mass marking fish required to be marked under Section 11Appropriations Act, 2008 (PL 110-161); or other Congressional acts directing the mass marking of Chinook, coho, and from federally operated or financed hatcheries. In the event USFWS and/or states mark fish inconsistent with Tables B

Agreement prevents any Party from challenging these acts. In the event of insufficient funding to carry out such markinwill consult with the other Parties to review and revise the priorities in any marking plan provided for under this Agreem

Parties will, to the extent required by law, consider the other Parties’ recommendations and the United States’ trust and 

the Tribes before deciding marking priorities. 

3. These production programs will be implemented and/or adjusted based on mid-Columbia HCP’s and Settlement Agree

Parties are pursuing new funding for acclimation facilities tied to these existing programs. 

4. For Brood Year 2008 and beyond, Ad-clipping and tagging will be decided by Parties consistent with the HCP/Settleme

processes. 

5. The Leavenworth NFH complex is currently undergoing hatchery program review. It is anticipated that there may be ch

during the period of this Agreement including program levels, release location, development of locally adapted broodst

protocols to meet specific objectives. The Parties will collaboratively develop implementation guidelines per Part III.H oYakima Nation agrees to the reduction in spring Chinook production from 1.625 Million (2005-2007) to 1.2 Million as an achieve the current objectives with respect to present USFWS concerns over water quality, fish health, hatchery infrast

ESA straying risks. Restoration back to the 1.625 Million 2005-2007 Interim Agreement program level is the goal of the with resolution of these issues. The Parties anticipate that the proposed Chief Joseph Hatchery is likely to begin operathis agreement. The Parties Agree to develop options for providing up to 1.2 million spring Chinook salmon eggs to ini

program when it comes on line.

6. The Parties support implementation of a 250,000 Walla Walla spring Chinook smolt release program with production a

interim and the NPCC master planning process for a new Walla Walla Hatchery program at the 500,000 fish level in the program is expanded under the NPCC process then the 250,000 production would shift back to Carson NFH. Confirmstraying into the Tucannon River is not occurring at levels of concern prior to expansion of the program. 

7. NPTH smolt production will occur pending availability of funding and broodstock. 8. The Parties will review culture opportunities to rear the presmolts to smolts and if feasible, will implement the smolt rea

resources are available at Powell Pond (Lochsa) in the Clearwater Basin. 

9. The NPT, IDFG, and USFWS have agreed to utilize ISS and other supplementation information to develop an integrate

management guideline to reimplement supplementation in Clear Creek. Planning will occur in 2008 with broodstock m
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 100 

be implemented with BY09. Kooskia stock will be utilized for supplementation of Clear Creek. Fish production will be p

50,000 (non ad-clipped) allocated for supplementation of Clear Creek, the next 500,000 (ad-clipped) for fishery purpos

of 550,000 will be discussed by the Parties to allocate to supplementation or fisheries. The Parties are working to assesmolt production from Kooskia Hatchery either through programmatic changes or facility modifications. As a result, the 

may change during the course of this Agreement. 

10. The number of non ad-clipped or ad-clipped fish at Kooskia NFH may be greater than 50,000 pending Party discussion 

production greater than 550,000 smolts. 

11. Production at Rapid River Hatchery above 2.5M will be split between Hells Canyon Dam and the Little Salmon River – 

100,000 to Hells Canyon and 50,000 to Little Salmon River. For example: 1) 2,500,000 million Rapid River; 2) 100,000 

Canyon Dam; 3) 50,000 Little Salmon; 4) 100,000 Snake River/Hells Canyon Dam; 5) 50,000 Little Salmon, etc. until a

allocated. If production is less than 3 million, Parties will discuss options. The Parties agree that recent smolt releases do not provide adequate and consistent mitigation for adult returns at loca

Power Company's Hells Canyon Complex and its operations. Several Parties also are actively participating in the re-licComplex. Idaho Power Company's mitigation responsibilities, including production numbers and release locations of Rchinook, are a subject of these discussions. The interim target production numbers and release locations of Rapid Rivspecified herein shall not affect any Party's right to pursue alternative production and release locations in connection w

a long-term agreement and/or in connection with the Hells Canyon re-licensing process. 

12. The Parties have agreed to utilize ISS and other supplementation information to develop an integrated broodstock man

Sawtooth Hatchery to reimplement supplementation. Planning will occur in 2008 with broodstock management protoco

with BY09. Upper Salmon River broodstock release could be up to 1.6 million depending on egg take and facility logisabove 1.0 million, the Parties will discuss disposition of these fish. 

13. Parties commit to completing an HGMP for Yankee Fork prior to BY09 for program implementation which also address

Sawtooth program. 

14. Parties commit to reviewing options for the Lemhi River to initiate program and develop details for program objective, r

facilities, release numbers, and mark plan. 

15. Maintain a safety net/captive broodstock program for Catherine Creek and Upper Grande Ronde River as part of curre

funding is provided.

16. The marking guidelines for the Upper Grande Ronde, Catherine Creek, and Lookinglass Creek are as described in the 

Chinook Marking Guidelines found in Attachment C and referenced in the CTUIR-NPT-ODFW letter agreement dated A

17. Current capacity at Lookingglass Hatchery does not allow production of 490,000 yearlings. The Parties have agreed in 

360,000 yearlings. If capacity becomes available or following the construction of NEOH on the Lostine River, productio

18. The current Hood River production through 2010 is 125,000 produced at Round Butte Hatchery of Deschutes/Hood sto

acclimated and volitionally released in Hood River tributaries as follows: 30k in Middle Fork and 95k in West Fork with 

marking. Primary purpose is for supplementation. Funding is provided by BPA. During 2010, 150k will be released fro

in the West Fork Hood River for fishery production. Pending results of post-supplementation investigations during 201

evaluate the need to resume supplementation with increased production from a to-be-determined facility. 

19. Klickitat Basin Spring Chinook Master Plan is in development and may include changes to the current program. The m

to be submitted in 2008. The YKFP will collaborate per Part III.H of this Agreement on proposed changes to this progr
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 101 

Table B2. Summer Chinook Production for Brood Years 2008-2017. 

Basin Columbia River Above McNary

Release Site Rearing Facility Stock Life stage 

Target Release 

Number Mark1 Non-Ad-Clipped2 P

On Station 3,4 Turtle Rock Wells SubYearling 1,078,000 3 400K Ad-CWT 678,000 

On Station 4 Turtle Rock Wells Yearling 200,000 200K Ad-CWT 0 Dryden Ponds 4 Eastbank Wenatchee Yearling 864,000 TBD6 0 SCarlton Rearing Pond 4Eastbank Met./Okan/Wells 5 Yearling 200,000 TBD6 0 SCarlton Rearing Pond 4 Eastbank Met./Okan/Wells 5 Yearling 200,000 TBD6 0 SOkanogan/ Similkameen Rivers 4 Eastbank Met./Okan/Wells 5 Yearling 576,000 TBD6 0 SWells or other locations 4 Wells Wells Yearling 200,000 100% Ad-Clip 0 On Station 4 Wells Wells Yearling 320,000 100% Ad-Clip 0 On Station 4 Wells Wells SubYearling 484,000 100% Ad-Clip 0 Yakima Basin TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 

P

Subtotal 4,122,000 678,000 

Basin Snake River 

Release Site Rearing Facility Stock Life stage 

Target Release 

Number Mark 1 Non-Ad-Clipped 2 P

Johnson Creek 7 McCall Hatchery Johnson Cr. Smolt 100,000 7 100% CWT-VIE 100,000 Su

Knox Bridge 8 McCall Hatchery South Fork Smolt 1,000,000 100% Ad-Clip TBD FiPahsimeroi Ponds 8 Pahsimeroi Pahsimeroi Smolt 1,000,000 100% Ad-Clip TBD FiDollar Creek 9 McCall Hatchery South Fork eyed egg 300,000 300,000 SuSubtotal 2,100,000 smolts 100,000 (smolts) 

Grand Total Summer Chinook 6,222,000 778,000 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 102 

Footnotes for Table B2: Summer Chinook Salmon 

1. The category ‘Mark’ may include fish that are adipose fin clipped (Ad-Clip), regardless of funding source. The tribes do 

concept of mass marking production using an adipose fin clip for anything other than evaluation purposes. Non-treaty 

use mark-selective fishing techniques in summer Chinook fisheries that allow for a higher harvest rate on hatchery fish 

adipose fin clip compared to fish not so marked. Non-tribal Parties also recognize that mass marking by adipose clipp

broodstock management and hatchery/natural origin stock assessment. 

2. The category “Non-Ad-Clipped” may include fish marked by other means such as CWT, PIT, or VIE tags. Nothing in t

interpreted to prevent the federal Parties and/or states from mass marking fish required to be marked under Section 11Appropriations Act, 2008 (PL 110-161); or other Congressional acts directing the mass marking of Chinook, coho, and from federally operated or financed hatcheries. In the event USFWS and/or states mark fish inconsistent with Tables B

Agreement prevents any Party from challenging these acts. In the event of insufficient funding to carry out such marki

will consult with the other Parties to review and revise the priorities in any marking plan provided for under this AgreemParties will, to the extent required by law, consider the other Parties’ recommendations and the United States’ trust and 

the Tribes before deciding marking priorities.

3. The Parties may agree to mark up to 1,078,000 subyearlings with an adipose fin clip to facilitate implementation of the 

this Agreement. The Parties have agreed to convert the Turtle Rock 1,078,000 subyearling releases to 400,000 yearli2010. Marking will be determined by the Parties after the production changes to a yearling program, and may include 

up to 400,000 yearlings. 

4. These production programs will be implemented and/or adjusted based on mid-Columbia HCP’s and Settlement Agree

Parties are pursuing new acclimation facilities tied to these existing programs. 

5. If there is insufficient numbers of Methow/Okanogan broodstock available then Wells stock will be used to make up sh

6. The Parties will establish a protocol to ad-clip and CWT this production for evaluation, broodstock, and other managem

7. Based on existing assessment of Johnson Creek and other Snake Basin supplementation efforts, re-assess appropria

logistics for Johnson Creek program. Smolt production necessary for rebuilding and supported by broodstock availabi

smolt rearing locations along with McCall FH for program growth will be based on this assessment. 

8. The Parties have agreed to utilize ISS and other supplementation information to develop an integrated broodstock man

reimplement supplementation for Pahsimeroi and McCall Hatcheries. Planning will occur in 2008 with broodstock man

be implemented with BY09. 

9. The Parties will discuss any additional use of adults for supplementation outplants in Dollar Creek through the Annual 

process. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 103 

Table B3. Sockeye Production for Brood Years 2008-2017. 

Basin Columbia River and Snake River Above McNary 

Release Site Rearing Facility Stock Life stage 

Target Release 

Number Mark 1 Non-Ad-Clipped 2 

Lake Wenatchee Net Pen 3 Eastbank Wenatchee Smolt 280,000 100% Ad-Clip 0 

Skaha Lake 3 Shuswap River Hat. Okanogan Fry 1.2-2.0 M Stanley Basin See footnote 4 Snake River Smolt 1,000,000 TBD TBD Wallowa Lake See footnote 5 TBD TBD TBD TBD Lake Cle Elum/Yakima Basin Lakes See footnote 6 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 

Grand Total Sockeye +2,480,000 TBD 

Footnotes for Table B.3: Sockeye Salmon 

1. The category ‘Mark’ may include fish that are adipose fin clipped (Ad-Clip), regardless of funding source. The tribes do 

concept of mass marking production using an adipose fin clip for anything other than evaluation purposes. Non-treaty 

use mark-selective fishing techniques that allow for a higher harvest rate on hatchery fish marked with an adipose fin cso marked. Non-tribal Parties also recognize that mass marking by adipose clipping facilitates broodstock manageme

origin stock assessment. 

2. The category “Non-Ad-Clipped” may include fish marked by other means such as CWT, PIT, or VIE tags. Nothing in t

interpreted to prevent the federal Parties and/or states from mass marking fish required to be marked under Section 11

Appropriations Act, 2008 (PL 110-161); or other Congressional acts directing the mass marking of Chinook, coho, and from federally operated or financed hatcheries. In the event USFWS and/or states mark fish inconsistent with Tables B

Agreement prevents any Party from challenging these acts. In the event of insufficient funding to carry out such marki

will consult with the other Parties to review and revise the priorities in any marking plan provided for under this AgreemParties will, to the extent required by law, consider the other Parties’ recommendations and the United States’ trust and 

the Tribes before deciding marking priorities.

3. These production programs will be implemented and/or adjusted based on mid-Columbia HCP’s and Settlement Agree4. Parties commit to expanding Snake River sockeye production and as part of the planning process will develop options 

space and logistics. Implementation of full production dependent on funding and broodstock availability. 

5. Parties commit to developing a plan for reintroduction of sockeye in Wallowa Lake should funds become available. Re

release numbers, and marks will be determined in this planning process. Parties commit to implementation of this plan availability. 

6. The Parties commit to developing a plan for reintroduction of sockeye in Lake Cle Elum (and possibly other historic soc

the Yakima Basin) should funds become available. Rearing facilities, stock, release numbers, and marks will be deterprocess. Parties commit to implementation of this plan pending funding availability.
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 104 

Table B4A. Snake River fall Chinook salmon production priorities for the Lower 

Snake River Compensation Program (LSRCP) at Lyons Ferry Hatchery, the Fall 

Chinook Acclimation Program (FCAP), the Idaho Power Program (IPC) and the fall 

Chinook transportation evaluation study – for Brood Years 2008-2017. 

(For Other Fall Chinook Production, see Table B5) 

 

Production Program 

Priority Rearing Facility Number Age Release Location(s) Marking a

1 Lyons Ferry 450,000 1+ On station 225KAdCWT+VIE 

225K CWT +VIE 

2 Lyons Ferry 150,000 1+ Pittsburg Landing 70K AdCWT 

80K CWT only 

3 Lyons Ferry 150,000 1+ Big Canyon 70K AdCWT 

80K CWT only 

4 Lyons Ferry 150,000 1+ Captain John Rapids 70K AdCWT 

80K CWT only 

5 Lyons Ferry 200,000 0+ On station 200K AdCWT 

6 

Lyons 

Ferry/Irrigon/ 

Dworshak 

328,000 b 0+ Transportation Study c,d 328K PIT tag only 

7 Lyons Ferry 500,000 0+ Captain John Rapids 

100K AdCWT 

100K CWT only 

300K Unmarked 

8 Lyons Ferry 500,000 0+ Big Canyon 

100K AdCWT 

100K CWT only 

300K Unmarked 

9 Lyons Ferry 200,000 0+ Pittsburg Landing 100K AdCWT 

100K CWT only

10 Oxbow 200,000 0+ Hells Canyon Dam 200K AdCWT 

11 Lyons Ferry 200,000 0+ Pittsburg Landing 200K Unmarked 

12 Lyons Ferry 200,000 0+ Direct stream evaluation 

Near Captain John Rapids 200K AdCWT 

13 Lyons Ferry e 200,000 0+ Grande Ronde River 200K AdCWT 

14 Umatilla 200,000 0+ Hells Canyon Dam 200K AdCWT 

15 Lyons Ferry e 200,000 0+ Grande Ronde River 200K Unmarked 

16 Umatilla 600,000 0+ Hells Canyon Dam 600K Ad only 

TOTAL Yearlings 900,000 

Subyearlings 3,528,000 (of which 328,000 are for Transportation Study) 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 105 

Footnotes for Table B4A: Snake River Fall Chinook 

a/ The Parties expect that fisheries conducted in accordance with the harvest provisions of this 

Agreement will not compromise broodstock acquisition. If broodstock acquisition is nevertheless 

compromised by the current mark strategy and as a result of implementation of mark selective fisheries 

for fall Chinook in the ocean or Columbia/Snake River mainstem, the Parties will revisit the marking 

strategy during the course of this Agreement. 

b/ All of the U.S. v Oregon Parties, on October 19, 2007, conveyed their endorsement for the package of 

tasks and activities represented in the Snake River Fall Chinook Consensus Research Proposal. In 

2009, or any year thereafter, if the lower river component identified in the Consensus Research 

Proposal, Table 1, as the Hanford Reach, Deschutes River, and Little White Salmon NFH components 

is not adequately represented with PIT tags, or the transportation study is completed, then the priority 

for allocation of available Snake River fall Chinook fish shall be adjusted as shown in table B4B. 

c/ Production of transportation study surrogates is in effect for five years. After this group of fish has been 

provided for five brood years the transportation study group will be removed from the table and the 

groups of fish below will move up one step in priority. If eggs available for subyearling production are 

1.2M or less, production of the transportation study surrogate group will be reduced to 250K or be 

deferred for that year. The PAC will review broodstock collected and projected egg take and make a 

recommendation to the policy group on whether to provide 250,000 fish or defer by November 1. 

d/ USACOE Transportation Study natural-origin surrogate groups direct stream released into the 

Clearwater near Big Canyon Creek and mainstem Snake River near Couse Creek. 

e/ For logistical purposes, fish may be reared at Irrigon (LSRCP). 

Table B4A cont. Snake River fall Chinook salmon production priorities for Nez 

Perce Tribal Hatchery – for Brood Years 2008-2017. 

Production Program 

Priority Number Age Life History Release Location(s) Marking 

1 500,000 0+ Standard On station 

100K AdCWT 

200K CWT only 

200K Unmarked 

200,000 0+ Early-spawning Luke’s Gulch 100K AdCWT 

100K CWT only 2 

200,000 0+ Early-spawning Cedar Flats 100K AdCWT 

100K CWT only 

3 500,000 0+ Standard North Lapwai Valley 

100K AdCWT 

200K CWT only 

200K Unmarked 

TOTAL 1,400,000 Subyearlings 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 106 

Table B4B. Snake River fall Chinook salmon production priorities for the Lower 

Snake River Compensation Program (LSRCP) at Lyons Ferry Hatchery, the Fall 

Chinook Acclimation Program (FCAP), the Idaho Power Program (IPC) and the fall 

Chinook transportation evaluation study – for Brood Years 2008-2017. 

Production priority if lower Columbia River groups of fish not PIT tagged. 

(For Other Fall Chinook Production, see Table B5) 

Production Program 

Priority Rearing Facility Number Age Release Location(s) Marking a

1 Lyons Ferry 450,000 1+ On station 225KAdCWT+VIE 

225K CWT +VIE 

2 Lyons Ferry 150,000 1+ Pittsburg Landing 70K AdCWT 

80K CWT only 

3 Lyons Ferry 150,000 1+ Big Canyon 70K AdCWT 

80K CWT only 

4 Lyons Ferry 150,000 1+ Captain John Rapids 70K AdCWT 

80K CWT only 

5 Lyons Ferry 200,000 0+ On station 200K AdCWT 

6 Lyons Ferry 500,000 0+ Captain John Rapids 

100K AdCWT 

100K CWT only 

300K Unmarked 

7 Lyons Ferry 500,000 0+ Big Canyon 

100K AdCWT 

100K CWT only 

300K Unmarked 

8 Lyons Ferry 200,000 0+ Pittsburg Landing 100K AdCWT 

100K CWT only

9 Oxbow 200,000 0+ Hells Canyon Dam 200K AdCWT 

10 Lyons Ferry 200,000 0+ Pittsburg Landing 200K Unmarked 

11 Lyons Ferry 200,000 0+ Direct stream evaluation 

Near Captain John Rapids 200K AdCWT 

12 DNFH/Irrigon 250,000 0+ Transportation Studyb, c 250K PIT tag only 

13 Lyons Ferryd 200,000 0+ Grande Ronde River 200K AdCWT 

14 DNFH/Irrigon 78,000 0+ Transportation Studyb, c 78K PIT tag only 

15 Umatilla 200,000 0+ Hells Canyon Dam 200K AdCWT 

16 Lyons Ferryd 200,000 0+ Grande Ronde River 200K Unmarked 

17 Umatilla 600,000 0+ Hells Canyon Dam 600K Ad only 

TOTAL Yearlings 900,000 

Subyearlings 3,528,000 (of which 328,000 are for Transportation Study) 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 107 

Footnotes for Table B4B: Snake River Fall Chinook 

a/ The Parties expect that fisheries conducted in accordance with the harvest provisions of this 

Agreement will not compromise broodstock acquisition. If broodstock acquisition is nevertheless 

compromised by the current mark strategy and as a result of implementation of mark selective fisheries 

for fall Chinook in the ocean or Columbia/Snake River mainstem, the Parties will revisit the marking 

strategy during the course of this Agreement. 

b/ Production of transportation study surrogates is in effect for five brood years. After this group of fish 

has been provided for five years the transportation study group will be removed from the table and the 

groups of fish below will move up one step in priority. If eggs available for subyearling production are 

1.2M or less, production of the transportation study surrogate group will be reduced to 250K or be 

deferred for that year. The PAC will review broodstock collected and projected egg take and make a 

recommendation to the policy group on whether to provide 250,000 fish or defer by November 1. 

c/ USACOE Transportation Study natural-origin surrogate groups direct stream released into the 

Clearwater and mainstem Snake River. 

 

d/ For logistical purposes, fish may be reared at Irrigon (LSRCP). 

Table B4B cont. Snake River fall Chinook salmon production priorities for Nez 

Perce Tribal Hatchery – for Brood Years 2008-2017. 

Production Program 

Priority Number Age Life History Release Location(s) Marking 

1 500,000 0+ Standard On station 

100K AdCWT 

200K CWT only 

200K Unmarked 

200,000 0+ Early-spawning Luke’s Gulch 100K AdCWT 

100K CWT only 2 

200,000 0+ Early-spawning Cedar Flats 100K AdCWT 

100K CWT only 

3 500,000 0+ Standard North Lapwai Valley 

100K AdCWT 

200K CWT only 

200K Unmarked 

TOTAL 1,400,000 Subyearlings 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 108 

Table B5. Fall Chinook Production for Brood Years 2008-2017 (Several programs may change outcome of John Day Mitigation discussions. The Parties will discuss and agree to any changeimplementation. For Snake Basin production, see Table B4A and B4B). Basin Columbia River Above McNary

Release Site Rearing Facility Stock Life stage 

Target Release 

Number Mark 1 Non-Ad-Clipped 2 

Marion Drain (Yakima) 3 Prosser URB-Local Subyearling 50,000 CWT-only 3 50,000 

Prosser Prosser URB-Local Subyearling 320,000 TBD 320,000 On Station Prosser 3 Little White Salmon NFH URB Subyearling 1,700,000 3

200K Ad-CWT 

100% Ad-Clip 0 

On Station Ringold Bonneville URB Subyearling 3,500,000 

100% Ad-Clip 

430KAd-CWT 0 

On Station Priest Rapids 4 Priest Rapids Hatchery URB Subyearling 6,000,000 400-600K Ad-CWT TBD Priest Rapids Reservoir 4 Priest Rapids Hatchery URB Fry 1,000,000 TBD TBD On Station Priest Rapids Priest Rapids Hatchery URB Subyearling 1,700,000 

100% Ad-Clip 

CWT –TBD 0 

Subtotal 14,270,000 370,000 Basin Columbia Bonneville to McNary 

Release Site Rearing Facility Stock Life stage 

Target Release 

Number Mark 1 Non-Ad-Clipped 2 

On Station Little White Salmon NFH MCB Subyearling 2,000,000 

200K Ad-CWT 

200K CWT only 

1.6 M Ad-Clip 200,000 

Umatilla River (1⁄2 direct, 1⁄2 Thornhollow Acclimation Site) 5 Umatilla MCB Subyearling 600,000 100% Ad-CWT 0 Umatilla River (Thornhollow, Pendleton Acclimation Sites) 5 Bonneville MCB Yearling 480,000 

50K Ad-CWT, 

430K Ad-BWT 6 0 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 109 

Table B5 Continued. Fall Chinook 

Release Site Rearing Facility Stock Life stage 

Target Release 

Number Mark 1 Non-Ad-Clipped 2 

Klickitat 7 Klickitat Hatchery MCB Subyearling 4,000,000 650K Ad-CWT 100% Ad-Clip 0 On Station Spring Creek NFH Tule Subyearling 15,000,000 

450K Ad-CWT 

450K CWT only 

14.1M Ad-Clip only 450,000 

Subtotal 22,080,000 650,000 

Grand Total 36,350,000 1,020,000 

Footnotes for Table B5: 

1. The category ‘Mark’ may include fish that are adipose fin clipped (Ad-Clip), regardless of funding source. The tribe

concept of mass marking production using an adipose fin clip for anything other than evaluation purposes. Non-tre

mark-selective fishing techniques that allow for a higher harvest rate on hatchery fish marked with an adipose fin c

so marked. Non-tribal Parties also recognize that mass marking by adipose clipping facilitates broodstock managehatchery/natural origin stock assessment. 

2. The category “Non-Ad-Clipped” may include fish marked by other means such as CWT, PIT, or VIE tags Nothing i

be interpreted to prevent the federal Parties and/or states from mass marking fish required to be marked under SeConsolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (PL 110-161); or other Congressional acts directing the mass marking of Csteelhead released from federally operated or financed hatcheries. In the event USFWS and/or states mark fish inB1-B7, nothing in this Agreement prevents any Party from challenging these acts. In the event of insufficient fundi

marking, the federal Parties will consult with the other Parties to review and revise the priorities in any marking plathis Agreement. The federal Parties will, to the extent required by law, consider the other Parties’ recommendation

States’ trust and treaty responsibility to the Tribes before deciding marking priorities. 

3. Yakima Basin Fall Chinook Master Plan is in development and may include changes to the current program. The 

to be submitted in 2008. 

4. The Parties recognize that fall Chinook from Grant PUD-funded releases may, in some years, provide the principa

fall Chinook available to non-treaty fisheries under Part II of this Agreement. The Parties may agree to mass mark Chinook releases with an adipose fin clip to facilitate implementation of the fall Chinook harvest provisions of this A
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 110 

5. Future changes to these programs may be negotiated after they have gone through the current Hatchery Scientific 

review process. 

6. BWT are “Agency Only” tags. 7. Klickitat Basin Fall Chinook Master Plan is in development and may include changes to the current program. The 

to be submitted in 2008. The current plan is to provide eggs from Little White NFH for this program. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 111 

Table B6. Steelhead Production for Brood Years 2009-2018 (parents returning to freshwater in 

Basin Columbia River Above McNary 

Release Site Rearing Facility Stock Life stage 

Target Release 

Number Mark 1 Non-Ad-Clipped2,3 P

Wenatchee Basin, various locations 4 Eastbank/Chiwawa Wenatchee Smolt 400,000 TBD TBD 

Methow River, various locations 4,5 Wells Wells/Methow Smolt 350,000 TBD TBD On Station-various locations 5 Winthrop NFH Wells/Methow Smolt 100,000 100% Ad-Clip 0 Okanogan River multiple locations 4,6 Wells Wells/Okanogan Smolt 100,000 100% Ad-Clip 0 Upper Columbia River TBD Upper Columbia Recon. Kelt 300-500 PIT Tag 300-500 Yakima River Prosser Hatchery Yakima Recon. Kelt 300-500 PIT Tag 300-500 On Station Ringold Wells Smolt 180,000 100% Ad-RVClip 0 Walla Walla River 7 Lyons Ferry Lyons Ferry A Smolt 100,000 20K CWT, 100% Ad-Clip 0 Touchet River 7 Lyons Ferry Lyons Ferry A Smolt 85,000 20K CWT, 100% Ad-Clip 0 Touchet River Lyons Ferry Touchet A Smolt 50,000 100% CWT 50,000 Subtotal 

Smolts 

Kelts

1,365,000 

600-1,000

+50,000 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 112 

Table B6. Continued – Steelhead Basin Snake River 

Release Site Rearing Facility Stock Life stage 

Target Release 

Number Mark Non-Ad-Clipped1 P

Tucannon River Tucannon/Lyons Ferry Tucannon A Smolt 50,000 100% CWT 50,000 

Tucannon River 7 Lyons Ferry Lyons Ferry A Smolt 100,000 20K CWT, 100% Ad-Clip 0 Lyons Ferry Hatchery 7 Lyons Ferry Lyons Ferry A Smolt 60,000 20K CWT, 100% Ad-Clip 0 Cottonwood Pond, Grande Ronde River 7 Lyons Ferry Wallowa A Smolt 160,000 20K CWT, 100% Ad-Clip 0 Big Sheep Creek, Imnaha Irrigon Little Sheep Cr. A Smolt 50,000-100,000 8 100% Ad-Clip, 4,000 PIT 0 Little Sheep Creek, Imnaha Irrigon Little Sheep Cr. A Smolt 165,000-230,000 8 25KCWT, 100% Ad-Clip 0 Dworshak NFH Dworshak NFH Clearwater B 9 Smolt 1,200,000 100% Ad-Clip, TBD CWT 0 Clear Ck, Middle Fork Clearwater Dworshak NFH Clearwater B 9 Smolt 300,000 100% Ad-Clip, TBD CWT 0 Lower South Fork Clearwater – Red House Hole Dworshak NFH Clearwater B 9 Smolt 400,000 100% Ad-Clip, TBD CWT 0 Lower South Fork Clearwater – Red House Hole Clearwater Clearwater B 9 Smolt 260,000 100% Ad-Clip, TBD CWT 0 Lower SF Clearwater Clearwater Clearwater B 9 Smolt 250,000 100% Ad-Clip TBD CWT 0 Crooked River, SF Clwt 10 Clearwater 

Clearwater B/South Fork Cl.9 Smolt 83,000 TBD 83,000 

Red River, SF Clearwater 10 Clearwater 

Clearwater B/South Fork Cl9 Smolt 150,000 TBD 150,000 

Newsome Ck SF Clearwater 10 Clearwater 

Clearwater B/South Fork Cl. 9 Smolt 100,000 TBD 100,000 

Lolo Creek, MF Clearwater 10 Dworshak NFH 

Clearwater B/Lolo9 Smolt 200,000 TBD 200,000 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 113 

Table B6. Steelhead - Snake River Continued 

Release Site Rearing Facility Stock Life stage 

Target Release 

Number Mark Non-Ad-Clipped1 P

East Fork Salmon 11 Magic Valley EFSR-A Smolt <=200,000 

H and N 

broodstock 

availability will 

drive mark and 

release number

H and N 

broodstock 

availability will 

drive mark and 

release number 

Yankee Fork 12 Hagerman, Magic Valley, Sawtooth Sawtooth/Yankee Fork Smolt 440,000 220K Ad-Clip, 220K TBD no Ad 220,000 Little Salmon River 

Niagara Springs, Magic Valley, Hagerman NFH Oxbow A, Pah A Smolt <=650,000 

CWT, 100% AdClip 0 

Hells Canyon Snake River Niagara Springs Oxbow A Smolt 525,000 

CWT, 100% AdClip 0 

Upper Salmon Tribs.13 Sawtooth, Pahsimeroi 

Sawtooth/ Pahsimeroi Eggs 1 million 0 

Subtotal 5,343,000 smolts 803,000 Basin Columbia Bonneville to McNary

Release Site Rearing Facility Stock Life stage 

Target Release 

Number Mark Non-Ad-Clipped1 

Umatilla River, Meacham Cr. Umatilla Umatilla Summer Smolt 50,000 

100% Ad-Clip, 

20K CWT-LV 0 

Umatilla River, Minthorn AP Umatilla Umatilla Summer Smolt 50,000 

100% Ad-Clip, 

20K CWT-LV 0 

Umatilla River, Pendleton AP Umatilla Umatilla Summer Smolt 50,000 

100% Ad-Clip, 

20K CWT-LV 0 

Klickitat 14 Skamania Skamania Summer Smolt 90,000 100% % Ad-Clip 0 

Hood River (West and Middle Forks) Oak Springs 

Hood River Summer Smolt 30,000 

100% Ad-RM/LM 

Clip 0 

Hood River (East Fork) Oak Springs Hood River Winter Smolt 50,000 

100% Ad-RV/LV 

Clip 0 

Subtotal 320,000 0 

Grand Total Steelhead 7,028,000 +853,000 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 114 

Footnotes for Table B6: Steelhead 

1. The category ‘Mark’ may include fish that are adipose fin clipped (Ad-Clip), regardless of funding source. The tribe

concept of mass marking production using an adipose fin clip for anything other than evaluation purposes. Non-tre

propose to use mark-selective fishing techniques that allow for a higher harvest rate on hatchery fish marked with acompared to fish not so marked. Non-tribal Parties also recognize that mass marking by adipose clipping facilitates 

management and hatchery/natural origin stock assessment. 

2. The category “Non-Ad-Clipped” may include fish marked by other means such as CWT, PIT, or VIE tags Nothing in 

be interpreted to prevent the federal Parties and/or states from mass marking fish required to be marked under SecConsolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (PL 110-161); or other Congressional acts directing the mass marking of Chsteelhead released from federally operated or financed hatcheries. In the event USFWS and/or states mark fish incB1-B7, nothing in this Agreement prevents any Party from challenging these acts. In the event of insufficient fundin

marking, the federal Parties will consult with the other Parties to review and revise the priorities in any marking plan 

Agreement. The federal Parties will, to the extent required by law, consider the other Parties’ recommendations an

trust and treaty responsibility to the Tribes before deciding marking priorities. 

3. The Parties' intent is that Fishery impacts on the fish identified in the table above as Non-Ad-Clipped will be similar 

origin fish. Marking/tagging for monitoring and evaluation is expected. Fish that are hatchery reared but not adiposmarked for monitoring and evaluation by other methods (including natural features such as scales and fin erosion) s

identified as hatchery produced at counting stations and in Fishery. Monitoring and evaluation plans will be develosub-basin management entities and shall be coordinated through the U.S. v. Oregon Production Advisory Committe

Production Advisory Committee shall provide an update of the monitoring and evaluation plans to the Parties. 

4. These production programs will be implemented and/or adjusted based on mid-Columbia HCPs and Settlement Ag

The Parties are pursuing new funding for acclimation facilities tied to these existing programs. 

5. Methow River/Winthrop NFH Steelhead Programs – The Methow River steelhead programs are expected to chang

covered by this Agreement. To guide this change, the Parties commit to developing a Methow River steelhead maJanuary 2009, designed to transition to a local Methow origin broodstock. The management plan will incorporate th

requirement using an integrated steelhead program, timing of the transition, fishery objectives, marking, supplemen

natural origin fish, adult management, criteria for natural origin adult collection, etc. The Parties support developmeacclimation facilities for these programs. Full implementation is subject to funding being provided by PUDs and BO

6. The Okanogan River steelhead programs are expected to change during the period covered by this Agreement. To 

Parties commit to developing a Okanogan River steelhead management plan by January 2009, designed to transiti

origin broodstock. The management plan will incorporate the hatchery mitigation requirement using an integrated stiming of the transition, fishery objectives, marking, supplementation objectives using natural origin fish, adult mananatural origin adult collection, etc. Current habitat for steelhead in the basin is limited and full implementation of the 

timing and level of improvements to habitat. Full implementation is subject to funding being provided by PUDs, BP
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 115 

7. The Parties agree on current production levels to achieve mitigation objectives for the Walla Walla, Touchet, Tucan

Ronde (Cottonwood) programs but not necessarily the stock used (non-local) or the release location. These steelh

change during the period covered by this Agreement. To guide this change, the Parties commit to developing steeplans for broodyear 2010, designed to transition to endemic stocks or segregated programs. The management plahatchery mitigation requirement, timing of the transition, fishery objectives, marking, supplementation component linimprovements on Mill Creek (Walla Walla basin), release locations, criteria to be met for collecting natural-origin ad

Walla Walla basin, marking, etc. 

8. Production from 215,000 to 330,000 smolts will be managed to meet the Little Sheep Creek share (2,000 adults) of 

goal above Lower Granite Dam. The Parties will collaborate on an annual basis to establish juvenile release target

management above the Little Sheep Creek weir and in the hatchery. If adult returns decrease the Parties have the unclipped groups of fish aimed at achieving natural escapement and broodstock goals. 

9. Under current production levels, returns of hatchery Group B steelhead are expected to be sufficient to meet egg ta

programs. In the event that hatchery Group B steelhead returns are projected to be less than 10,000 fish at Lower 

fishery on Idaho-bound hatchery steelhead would have to be restricted to meet egg take needs, the Parties shall dimeasures to respond to the shortfall in steelhead returns. Potential management measures include, but are not limreleases for the 2009-2019 brood years, restrictions on sport and/or tribal tributary fishery, additional broodstock coClearwater B steelhead in the Clearwater Basin will be prioritized over releases in the Salmon Basin. All Parties agactions to equitably address a forecasted or actual broodstock shortfall. If the Parties are unable to agree on manag

respond to the shortfall, the Parties shall modify both supplementation and fishery production actions to reflect the areturn. 

10. Parties support collecting adults returning to South Fork Clearwater River and Lolo Creek with infrastructure develo

and HGMPs to accomplish broodstock transition to locally returning adults by broodyear 2010. Parties commit to fu

supplementation options and release locations in the South Fork of the Clearwater. 

11. The Parties support continuing collection of locally returning adults to the East Fork Salmon River with infrastructure 

support, and HGMPs by broodyear 2010. The Parties commit to further discussions of supplementation options an

this local broodstock. 

12. Parties support collecting adults returning to Yankee Fork with infrastructure development, funding support, and HG

broodstock transition to locally returning adults by broodyear 2010. If surplus production from local broodstock is av

discuss release options. 

13. The Parties agree on three locations for planting these eggs including Indian Creek, Panther Creek, and Yankee Fo

local broodstock collection opportunity for transitioning the program. Releases into Indian Creek will be limited to 1

the Parties will review information from monitoring and evaluation of the program to assess effectiveness, and if eg

broodstock are available will consider expanding release locations to other streams including Basin Creek and Mor

14. Klickitat Basin Steelhead Master Plan is in development and may include changes to the current program. The ma

be submitted in 2008. The YKFP will collaborate per Part III.H of this Agreement on proposed changes to this prog
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 116 

Table B7. Coho Production for Brood Years 2008-2017. Basin Columbia River Above McNary

Release Site Rearing Facility Stock Life stage 

Target Release 

Number Mark 1 Non-Ad-Clipped 2 

Naches River Eagle Creek Eagle Cr./ Yakima Smolt 500,000 TBD 0 

Upper Yakima River Prosser Yakima/Eagle Cr. Smolt 500,000 TBD 0 Icicle Creek (at the NFH)3 Cascade/Willard Mid Col Local/Tanner Smolt 300,000 100% CWT only 300,000 Nason Creek 3 Cascade/Willard Mid Col Local/Tanner Smolt 400,000 

100% CWT and 

100% body 

tagged 400,000 

Beaver Creek 3 Cascade/Willard Mid Col Local/Tanner Smolt 100,000 

100% CWT and 

100% body 

tagged 100,000 

Wells Fish Hatchery 3,4 Cascade Mid Col Local/Tanner Smolt 150,000 100% CWT only 150,000 

Wenatchee Tribs (Nason and Beaver Cks/Entiat 3,5 Entiat NFH Mid-Col local Smolt 200,000 TBD TBD 

On Station 3 Winthrop NFH Mid Col Local Smolt 350,000 6 100% CWT only 350,000 Subtotal 2,500,000 1,300,000 

Basin Snake River 

Release Site Rearing Facility Stock Life stage 

Target Release 

Number Mark 1 Non-Ad-Clipped 2 

Clear Cr., Lapwai Cr., Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Eagle Creek Early Smolt 550,000 TBD 490,000 

Clear Creek Dworshak/Kooskia Early Smolt 280,000 100K CWT 280,000 Wallowa River 7 Cascade Early Smolt TBD up to 500,000 TBD TBD 

Subtotal +830,000 +770,000 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 117 

Table B7. Coho – Continued

Basin Columbia Bonneville to McNary

Release Site Rearing Facility Stock Life stage 

Target Release 

Number Mark 1 Non-Ad-Clipped 2 

Umatilla R (Pendleton Acclimation Pond) Cascade Early Smolt 500,000 6

50K CWT only 7

450K Ad-Clip 50,000 

Umatilla R. (Pendleton Acclimation Pond) Herman Cr. Early Smolt 500,000 

50K CWT only8 

450K Ad-Clip 50,000 

Klickitat River 9 Klickitat Hatchery Late Smolt 1,000,000 100% Ad-Clip, 45K CWT 0 Klickitat River Washougal Late Smolts 2,500,000 

100% Ad-Clip 75K Ad-CWT 0 

Subtotal 4,500,000 100,000 

Grand Total Coho 7,830,000 +2,170,000 

Footnotes for Table B7: Coho Salmon 

1. The category ‘Mark’ may include fish that are adipose fin clipped (Ad-Clip), regardless of funding source. The tribes do 

concept of mass marking production using an adipose fin clip for anything other than evaluation purposes. Non-treaty 

use mark-selective fishing techniques that allow for a higher harvest rate on hatchery fish marked with an adipose fin c

so marked. Non-tribal Parties also recognize that mass marking by adipose clipping facilitates broodstock managemenorigin stock assessment. 

2. The category “Non-Ad-Clipped” may include fish marked by other means such as CWT, PIT, or VIE tags. Nothing in 

interpreted to prevent the federal Parties and/or states from mass marking fish required to be marked under Section 11Appropriations Act, 2008 (PL 110-161); or other Congressional acts directing the mass marking of Chinook, coho, and from federally operated or financed hatcheries. In the event USFWS and/or states mark fish inconsistent with Tables B
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 118 

Agreement prevents any Party from challenging these acts. In the event of insufficient funding to carry out such markinwill consult with the other Parties to review and revise the priorities in any marking plan provided for under this Agreem

Parties will, to the extent required by law, consider the other Parties’ recommendations and the United States’ trust and 

the Tribes before deciding marking priorities. 

3. Upper Columbia Reintroduction Program is in transition from feasibility phase to long term production phase. Productio

locations may change based on agreement of the Parties. 

4. Requires formal agreement of the Wells HCP.5. The long term goal for Entiat NFH is under review and the coho production numbers will be determined based on the fe

planned. Initial experimental transition release is at the 200,000 level. The Parties will collaboratively develop implemprogram objectives, size, release locations, and marking protocols per Part III.H of this Agreement. 

6. The 350,000 smolts identified for release at Winthrop NFH includes 250,000 reared at the hatchery and 100,000 transf

Hatchery for acclimation and release. 

7. Pending funding for implementation, Parties commit to transferring Cascade Hatchery coho smolts from Umatilla River 

River. Parties will develop reintroduction plan and agree to release numbers, acclimation location (Wallowa Hatchery) 

plan. If the final release number in the Wallowa /Grande Ronde River is less than 500,000 the balance of the producti

release in the Umatilla River. 

8. The current Ad-CWT mark for Umatilla coho is 25K for each Cascade and Herman Creek release. However, the Partie

increase this to 50K Ad-CWT for each release group if funding becomes available. 

9. Klickitat Basin Coho Master Plan is in development and may include changes to the current program. The master plan 

submitted in 2008. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 119 

Attachment C

Grande Ronde Spring Chinook Marking Guidelines 

A. Interim period with Captive Brood programs at production levels

1. Upper Grande Ronde (through BY 2012) 

• Conventional CWT only 

• Captive Brood ADCWT 

• If all production is from conventional brood mark 50% AD with represented 

CWT group 

2. Catherine Creek (through BY 2010) 

• Conventional AD with represented CWT group 

• Captive Brood ADCWTVIE 

3. Lookingglass Creek (through BY 2010) 

• Conventional AD with represented CWT groups 

• CC Captive Brood ADCWT 

B. Long term period with primarily Conventional Production and captive brood 

safety net programs maintained for Upper Grande Ronde and Catherine Creek. 

1. Upper Grande Ronde 

Upper Grande Ronde sliding scale for adult escapement and fish marking 

Adult 

Escapement Marking Assumptions 

<300 Follow Interim Marking Strategy Use captive brood safety net production 

300-750 First 125,000 CWT only 

Balance Ad with represented 62.5K CWT 

751-1500 First 62,500 CWT only 

Balance Ad with represented 62.5K CWT 

>1500 Ad with represented 62.5K CWT 

 

2. Catherine Creek 

Catherine Creek sliding scale for adult escapement and fish marking 

Adult 

Escapement Marking Assumptions 

<150 Follow Interim Marking Strategy Use captive brood safety net production 

≥150 Ad with represented 62.5K CWT 

3. Lookingglass Creek

• Ad with represented 62.5KCWT group 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 120 

GLOSSARY

For the purposes of this Agreement: 

Ad-Clip or Ad means: A means of marking fish by removing 

the adipose fin. 

AEQ means: Adult equivalent. 

anadromous fish means: Fish that ascend freshwater rivers 

and streams to reproduce after maturing in the ocean. 

AOP means: Annual Operations Plan developed for an 

artificial production program. 

artificial production or artificial propagation means: 

Spawning, incubating, hatching or rearing fish in a 

facility constructed for fish production. 

BA means: A biological assessment prepared under 16 U.S.C. 

§ 1536(c). 

BIA means: Bureau of Indian Affairs, an agency of the 

United States Department of the Interior. 

BOR or BR means: United States Bureau of Reclamation, an 

agency of the United States Department of the Interior. 

BPA means: Bonneville Power Administration. 

BPH means: Bonneville Pool Hatchery; tule fall Chinook 

salmon produced in artificial production facilities between 

Bonneville and The Dalles Dams. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 121 

BUB means: Bonneville Upriver Bright; bright fall Chinook 

salmon produced in Bonneville Hatchery. 

BY means: Brood year. 

C&S means: Ceremonial and subsistence. 

ceremonial fish means: Those fish caught and used pursuant 

to tribal authorization for religious or other traditional 

Indian cultural purposes of the tribes and which may not be 

sold, bartered or offered for sale. 

COE means: United States Army Corps of Engineers. 

Columbia River Compact or Compact means: The OregonWashington Columbia River Compact, enacted in Oregon as 

1915 Or. Laws ch. 188, § 20 (codified at ORS 507.010), in 

Washington as 1915 Wash. Laws ch. 31, § 116 (codified as 

amended at RCW 77.75.010 (2006)), and ratified by Congress 

in the Act of April 8, 1918, ch. 47, 40 Stat. 515. 

Columbia River Treaty Tribes means: The Confederated 

Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the 

Nez Perce Tribe, and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of 

the Yakama Nation.

commercial fish means: Those fish that are sold or 

bartered or are caught for that purpose (except subsistence 

fish). 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 122 

conversion rate means: The estimated survival of adult 

fish during upstream migration. Conversion rates are 

calculated by dividing the count of a particular group of 

adult fish at the uppermost dam by the count of that group 

at the lowest dam. 

CTUIR means: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation. 

CTWSRO means: Confederated Tribes of the Warm Spring 

Indian Reservation of Oregon. 

CWT means: Coded Wire Tag, a means of marking fish by 

inserting numeric-coded wires into their snouts. 

DPS means: Distinct Population Segment under 16 U.S.C. 

§ 1532(16), as defined in 61 Fed. Reg. 4722 (Feb. 7, 1996). 

emergency means: Unanticipated change in fish resource 

status, abundance, timing or harvest level for which the 

relevant data was not available during preseason planning 

and which requires immediate management response to achieve 

the objectives of this Agreement. 

enhancement means: The use of artificial propagation to 

increase the abundance of fish for harvest and spawning 

purposes. 

ER means: Exploitation rate. 

ESA means: Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 123 

escapement means: The total number of adult fish that are 

passed through fisheries for purposes of artificial or 

natural production.

ESU means: Evolutionarily Significant Unit as defined in 

56 Fed. Reg. 58,612 (Nov. 20, 1991) for the purpose of 

identifying salmon “species” under 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16). 

FCRPS means: Federal Columbia River Power System. 

FH means: Fish Hatchery. 

fishery impact or harvest impact means: Incidental 

fishery-related mortalities, measured as a percentage of 

run size at some geographical point. 

FWS means: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, an 

agency of the United States Department of the Interior. 

harvestable fish means: Those fish determined pursuant to 

this Agreement to be available for harvest. 

hatchery fish means: Fish spawned, incubated, hatched or 

reared in an artificial production facility. 

HCP means: A habitat conservation plan prepared under 16 

U.S.C. § 1539. 

HGMP means: A Hatchery and Genetics Management Plan 

prepared under 50 C.F.R. § 223.203(b)(5). 

HR means: Harvest rate. 

IDFG means: Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 

IPC means: Idaho Power Company. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 124 

ISS means: Idaho Supplementation Study. 

Joint State Staff or Joint Staff means: Joint Columbia 

River Management Staff of the Oregon and Washington 

Departments of Fish and Wildlife. 

LCR means: Lower Columbia River, that portion of the 

Columbia River downstream from Bonneville Dam. 

listed means: Determined to be a threatened or endangered 

species under 16 U.S.C. § 1533. 

LM means: A means of marking fish by clipping the left 

maxillary. 

lower river means: That portion of the Columbia River 

downstream from Bonneville Dam. 

LRB means: Lower River Bright; bright fall Chinook salmon 

that spawn naturally in the Columbia River approximately 

three miles downstream of Bonneville Dam. 

LRH means: Lower River Hatchery; tule fall Chinook salmon 

produced in artificial production facilities in the 

Columbia River basin downstream of Bonneville Dam. 

LRW means: Lower River Wild; naturally-produced bright 

fall Chinook salmon from Columbia River tributaries 

downstream of Bonneville Dam. 

LSRCP means: The Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife 

Compensation Plan, initially authorized by Pub. L. No. 

94-587, § 102, 90 Stat. 2917, 2921 (1976). 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 125 

LV means: A means of marking fish by clipping the left 

ventral fin. 

MA means: Mitchell Act, Act of May 11, 1938, ch. 193, 52 

Stat. 345 (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 755-757). 

mainstem means: The Columbia River between its mouth and 

McNary Dam, except where expressly indicated otherwise. 

management entity means: The agency (tribal, state, or 

federal) having fisheries management or production 

authority over the specific area and subject matter 

involved. The Parties designate the following as their 

management entities for purposes of this Agreement: 

Idaho− Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Nez Perce Tribe− Nez Perce Department of Fisheries 

Oregon− Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes− Shoshone-Bannock Fish and 

Wildlife 

United States−

National Marine Fisheries Service (ocean fisheries) 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (National Fish 

Hatcheries) 

Umatilla Tribe− Umatilla Department of Natural 

Resources, Fisheries Program 

Warm Springs Tribe− Warm Springs Natural Resources 

Branch, Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Department 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 126 

Washington− Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Yakama Nation− Yakama Nation Fisheries Resource 

Management 

A party may change the designation by notifying the Chair 

of the Policy Committee in writing. 

management goal means: A desired adult fish run size, 

usually composed of an aggregate of individual stocks, as 

measured at a given geographic point. 

marked fish means: Fish to which humans have applied some 

external or internal means of identification. 

M&E means: Monitoring and evaluation. 

Mid Columbia fall Chinook or MCB means: Bright fall 

Chinook salmon originating from the Columbia River and its 

tributaries from about three miles downstream of Bonneville 

Dam upstream to McNary Dam. 

Mid Columbia coho means: Coho salmon originating from the 

Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow watersheds. 

Mid-Columbia HCP means: The Habitat Conservation Plans 

prepared under 16 U.S.C. § 1539 for the operation of Rock 

Island Dam, Rocky Reach Dam, and the Wells Hydroelectric 

Project. 

natural origin fish, natural spawning fish, or naturally 

produced fish means: Fish produced by spawning and rearing 

in natural habitat, regardless of the parentage of the 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 127 

spawners. 

NEOH means: Northeast Oregon Hatchery. 

NFH means: National Fish Hatchery. 

NI means: Non-Indian. 

NMFS means: The National Marine Fisheries Service, a 

subdivision of NOAA. 

NOAA means: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, a subdivision of the United States 

Department of Commerce. 

NOAA Fisheries means: The National Marine Fisheries 

Service, a subdivision of NOAA. 

non-treaty fisheries means: All fisheries within the 

United States portion of the Columbia River Basin except 

those open only to members of the Columbia River Treaty 

Tribes or the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and all ocean 

fisheries in the United States’ Exclusive Economic Zone and 

shoreward off the coasts of Washington and Oregon except 

those open only to members of the Makah, Quileute, Hoh, or 

Quinault Tribes. 

North of Falcon Forum or NOF means: A series of public 

meetings associated with the annual planning of salmon 

fisheries in Washington and Oregon north of Cape Falcon. 

NPCC means: The Northwest Power and Conservation Council 

established by 16 U.S.C. § 839b. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 128 

NPT means: Nez Perce Tribe. 

NPTH means: Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery. 

ODFW means: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

outplant means: A form of supplementation releasing adults 

in streams to increase or establish natural spawning fish 

populations. 

PCSRF means: Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, 

initially authorized by Pub. L. No. 106-113—Appendix A, 

§ 623, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-56 (1999). 

PFMC means: The Pacific Fishery Management Council 

established by 16 U.S.C. § 1852. 

PIT tag means: A means of marking fish with passive 

integrated transponders. 

point of disagreement means: A disagreement over the 

interpretation or application of this Agreement. 

PUB means: Pool Upriver Bright; artificially-produced 

bright fall Chinook salmon released in areas between 

Bonneville and McNary Dams. 

PUD means: Public Utility District. 

rebuilding means: Progress toward achieving an abundance 

of fish that meets the long-term natural production and 

harvest goals of the Parties. 

RM means: A means of marking fish by clipping the right 

maxillary. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 129 

run means: An aggregate of one or more stocks of the same 

species migrating at a discrete time. 

RV means: A means of marking fish by clipping the right 

ventral fish. 

SAB means: Select Area Bright; artificially-produced 

bright fall Chinook salmon derived from a Rogue River 

stock. 

sanctuary means: A specific location closed to fishing for 

the protection of certain fish populations that may be 

present. 

SBT means: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. 

spawning escapement means: The number of fish arriving at 

a natal stream, river, or artificial production facility to 

spawn. 

spawning escapement goal or spawning objective means: The 

numerical target for a given population, stock, or run of 

adult fish for artificial or natural production. 

SR means: Snake River. 

SRW means: Snake River Wild; natural-origin Snake River 

fall Chinook salmon, a component of upriver bright fall 

Chinook salmon. 

stock means: An aggregation of fish spawning in a 

particular stream or lake during a particular season which 

to a substantial degree do not interbreed with any group 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 130 

spawning at a different time. 

subbasin or sub-basin means: A geographic area upstream 

from Bonneville Dam containing tributaries to the Columbia 

River mainstem or to the Snake River that produce 

anadromous fish.

subsistence fish means: Those fish caught by enrolled 

members of a federally-recognized Indian Tribe or the 

Wanapum Band for the personal consumption of tribal 

members, or their immediate family, or for trade, sale or 

barter to other Indians for their consumption, or for 

consumption at a tribally approved function for which no 

admission or other fee is charged.

subsistence gear, as applied to treaty Indians, means: 

Dipnet or bagnet, spear, gaff, club, fouling hook, hook and 

line or other methods as determined by the management 

entities. 

supplementation means: The release of artificially 

propagated fish or fertilized eggs in streams to increase 

or establish natural spawning fish populations. 

tributary means: Any portion of the Columbia River system 

other than the mainstem of the Columbia River. 

unclipped fish means: Fish with all fins intact. 

upper river or upriver means: The portion of the Columbia 

River and its tributaries upstream from Bonneville Dam. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 131 

URB means: Upriver bright fall Chinook salmon. 

USACOE means: United States Army Corps of Engineers. 

USFWS means: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, an 

agency of the United States Department of the Interior. 

VIE means: Visible Implant Elastomer or Visual Implant 

Elastomer, a means of marking fish by injecting a small 

amount of colored or fluorescent material under the skin. 

WDFW means: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

YIN means: Yakama Nation. 

YKFP means: the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project that is 

the subject of a Memorandum of Understanding Between the 

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation 

and the State of Washington, dated May 19, 1994. 

Zones 1-5 means: The statistical zones of the Columbia 

River commercial fishing area downstream from Bonneville 

Dam, as defined in Section 635-042-0001 of the Oregon 

Administrative Rules. Zones 1 through 5 encompass the 

Columbia River mainstem easterly of a line projected from 

the knuckle of the south jetty on the Oregon bank to the 

inshore end of the north jetty on the Washington bank, and 

westerly of a line projected from a deadline marker on the 

Oregon bank (approximately four miles downstream from 

Bonneville Dam Powerhouse 1) in a straight line through the 

western tip of Pierce Island, to a deadline marker on the 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 132 

Washington bank at Beacon Rock. 

Zone 6 means: The statistical zone of the Columbia River 

treaty Indian commercial fishing area upstream from 

Bonneville Dam running from Bonneville to McNary Dams. 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 133 

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF 

OREGON

By: 

RON SUPPAH, SR., Chairman 

Tribal Council 

Date: 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 134 

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

By: 

ANTONE MINTHORN, Chairman 

Board of Trustees 

Date: 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 135 

NEZ PERCE TRIBE

By: 

SAMUEL N. PENNEY, Chairman 

Tribal Executive Committee 

Date: 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 136 

CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKAMA NATION

By: 

RALPH SAMPSON, Jr., Chairman 

Tribal Council 

Date: 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 137 

STATE OF WASHINGTON

By: 

JEFFREY P. KOENINGS, PH.D., Director 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Date: 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 138 

STATE OF OREGON

 By: 

 THEODORE R. KULONGOSKI, Governor 

 State of Oregon 

 Date: 

By: 

ROY ELICKER, Director 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Date: 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 139 

STATE OF IDAHO

By: 

CAL GROEN, Director 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Date: 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 140 

SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES

By: 

ALONZO COBY, Chairman 

Fort Hall Business Council 

Date: 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 141 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. Department of the Interior 

By: 

Ren Lohoefener, Regional Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Date: 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 142 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. Department of the Interior 

By: 

STAN SPEAKS, Regional Director, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest Region 

Date: 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Page 143 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. Department of Commerce 

By: 

D. ROBERT LOHN, Regional Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Date: