Title of 

Environmental 

Review: 

Final Environmental Impact Statement to Analyze Impacts of NOAA’s National 

Marine Fisheries Service joining as a signatory to a new U.S. v. Oregon

Management Agreement for the Years 2018-2027. 

Responsible 

Agency and 

Official: 

Barry A. Thom, Regional Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region 

West Coast Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Building 1, 

Seattle, WA 98115-0070, 

(206) 526-6150 

Contact: Jeromy Jording 

Sustainable Fisheries Division 

National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region 

510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 103, Lacey, WA 98503-1263 

jeromy.jording@noaa.gov, (360) 753-9576 

Location of 

Proposed 

Activities: 

Columbia River and Tributaries, located in Oregon and Washington 

Cooperating 

Agencies: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Abstract: The action considered in this final environmental impact statement (FEIS) 

concerns how the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) views implementing 

salmon and steelhead fishery policies contained in a proposed U.S. v. Oregon

Management Agreement for the Columbia River Basin. Salmon and steelhead 

fishery management is complex, but in general, seeks to implement fisheries that 

are consistent with a variety of statutory and legal obligations related to resource 

conservation, economic and cultural benefits associated with resource use, and 

treaty Trust obligations. The framework management plan would be multiyear 

that specifies the conservation objectives. Each year, annual fishery plans are 

developed within the context of the framework plan to meet the year-specific 

circumstances related to the status of stocks affected by the fisheries. The federal 

action considered is Federal agency review and approval of the framework plan 

and implementation of annual fishery plans that would adhere to the framework 

and issuance of an Incidental Take Statement under the Endangered Species Act 

by NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. However, there are different 

ways to balance these objectives and different strategies that can be used that may 

provide better solutions for meeting the obligations and objectives of the 

respective framework plan. The alternatives considered in this FEIS are 

programmatic in nature and are designed to provide an overview of fishery 

management policies that can be implemented as part of the annual planning 

process. 

Date: November 2017 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
US v Oregon EIS i 2018 

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2 What is US v Oregon? 

3 United States v. Oregon (US v Oregon) is the on-going Federal court proceeding first brought in 1968 to 

4 enforce the reserved fishing rights of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of 

5 Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the 

6 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. The Shoshone-Bannock tribes have filed a 

7 complaint in intervention, but have not taken any action on this complaint. Fisheries in the Columbia 

8 River have been managed subject to provisions of US v Oregon under the continuing jurisdiction of the 

9 Federal court. 

10 What is the Management Agreement? 

11 The 2008-2017 US v Oregon Management Agreement provides the current framework for managing 

12 fisheries and hatchery programs in much of the Columbia River Basin. The current agreement expires on 

13 December 31, 2017; negotiations on a new management agreement are ongoing. The parties to the US v 

14 Oregon management agreement, hereafter “Parties”, are the State of Washington, the State of Oregon, the 

15 State of Idaho, the United States, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm 

16 Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Nez 

17 Perce Tribe, and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation.

18 What are the objectives of the Management Agreement? 

19 The management agreement accomplishes two primary objectives. First, it implements harvest policies 

20 that the Parties have agreed should govern the amount of harvest. Second, the management agreement 

21 incorporates hatchery programs that provide harvest opportunities and that are important to the 

22 conservation of salmon or steelhead runs above Bonneville Dam. The purpose of the US v Oregon

23 Management Agreement is to provide a framework within which the Parties may exercise their sovereign 

24 powers in a coordinated and systematic manner in order to protect, rebuild, and enhance upper Columbia 

25 River fish runs while providing harvests for both treaty Indian and non-treaty fisheries. The primary goals 

26 of the Parties are to rebuild weak runs to full productivity and fairly share the harvest of upper river runs 

27 between treaty Indian and non-treaty fisheries in the ocean and Columbia River Basin.

28 Which fisheries are included in the Agreement and in this document? 

29 Treaty Indian fisheries and non-treaty fisheries prosecuted in the main stem Columbia River and certain 

30 tributaries to the Columbia River are considered in the Management Agreement and in this Environmental 
US v Oregon EIS ii 2018 

1 Impact Statement (EIS). Treaty Indian fisheries are guaranteed by one or more treaties. These fisheries 

2 include both commercial as well as ceremonial and subsistence (C&S) fisheries. Non-treaty fisheries are 

3 those that do not have a treaty guaranteeing a fishing right. These include all state fisheries and certain 

4 Indian fisheries operated by tribes in the project area that are not party to US v Oregon. Non-treaty 

5 fisheries consist of both commercial and recreational fisheries. 

6 What proposed Federal action does this EIS analyze? 

7 The Proposed Action is for the Federal parties to sign the management agreement, as negotiated by the 

8 Parties to US v Oregon, and for NMFS and FWS (collectively, the “Services”) to issue an Incidental Take

Statement (ITS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) exempting take1 9 of listed species taken 

10 pursuant to implementing the management agreement. A listed species is one that is identified either as 

11 endangered or threatened under the ESA. 

12 What is the Purpose and Need? 

13 The purpose and need for the Proposed Action is three-fold: (1) to meet the Federal government’s tribal 

14 treaty rights and trust and fiduciary responsibilities; (2) to support fishing opportunities to the states of 

15 Oregon, Washington, and Idaho; and (3) to work collaboratively with co-managers to protect and 

16 conserve ESA-listed and non-listed species. 

17 The Services have an obligation to administer the provisions of the ESA and to protect ESA-listed 

18 species. They also have a Federal trust responsibility to the treaty Indian tribes, as well as a duty to 

19 support the fishing rights reserved in their treaties as defined by the Federal courts. Thus, the Services 

20 seek to harmonize the effects of fishery programs with the provision for tribal harvest. Because of the 

21 Federal government’s trust responsibility to the tribes, the Services are committed to considering the 

22 tribal co-managers’ judgment and expertise regarding conservation of trust resources. 

23 What is the purpose of this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)? 

24 The National Marine Fisheries Service has prepared this EIS under the National Environmental Policy 

25 Act (NEPA) to inform the decision to sign the new management agreement. The Fish and Wildlife

26 Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, also signatories of the management agreement, are cooperating 

27 agencies on this EIS. 

 

1 While this term is defined in the glossary using the ESA definition, readers must understand that it includes fishing 

and hatchery use.
US v Oregon EIS iii 2018 

1 What is a harvest policy? 

2 Harvest policies provide a framework designed to inform how to achieve the appropriate balance between 

3 harvest and conservation objectives. Harvest provides the benefits of catch including those related to 

4 treaty rights; conservation seeks to keep healthy stocks healthy and rebuild weak stocks so that all are 

5 sustained and can provide for the ongoing benefits of harvest. Harvest management measures are the 

6 actions or tactics implemented to harvest consistent with the overarching policy selected. This EIS 

7 focuses on the harvest policy alternatives and their effects on the environment.

8 What options do harvest policy makers have in setting harvest policy?

9 Policies depend on the availability of specific kinds of information. For example, abundance based 

10 management requires the availability of preseason or inseason abundance estimates; an effort based 

11 policy does not. Policy choices for a fishery directed at a single stock near the spawning grounds may be 

12 different than a fishery directed at a mix of many stocks in the ocean or mainstem Columbia River. 

13 Harvest policies for healthy and abundant stocks may be different than for a depressed stock that needs 

14 rebuilding. Specific options are addressed under each alternative analyzed in this EIS.

15 What alternatives are analyzed in this EIS? 

16 This EIS analyzes six alternatives for setting harvest policies:

17 Alternative 1—Extension of current agreement, meaning status quo harvest policies, for the next 

18 10 years consistent with the terms of the 2008–2017 agreement. The new agreement would use 

19 a blend of harvest policies, including a blend of abundance-based management, escapement20 based management, and harvest rate management. The blend depends on the specific salmon or 

21 steelhead stock. This alternative recognizes that the stocks have varying conservation 

22 requirements, with some providing abundant opportunity for harvest, and others requiring more 

23 protection from harvest encounters at this time. This is not “no action” in the NEPA sense, 

24 because Federal action is required (signing of a new agreement) to extend the status quo harvest 

25 policies.

26 Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management. This alternative establishes harvest levels based 

27 on the status of the fish stocks. It provides more protection when the abundance of a given 

28 stock is low and the conservation need greatest, and more harvest opportunity when abundance 

29 is high. 

30 Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate. This alternative uses a fixed harvest rate management 
US v Oregon EIS iv 2018 

1 framework that would apply a fixed harvest rate to each fishery regardless of abundance. 

2 Harvest rate refers to the ratio of fishery related mortality for a group of fish over its abundance 

3 in a defined period of time. 

4 Alternative 4—Escapement-based Management. This alternative uses an escapement-based 

5 management framework. Escapement refers to the number of fish surviving (escaping from) a 

6 given fishery at the end of the fishing season and reaching a specified location where the fish 

7 can be enumerated. In cases where the projected run size is below the escapement goal, 

8 escapement goal harvest policies are sometimes coupled with a de minimis level of harvest 

9 opportunity to meet minimal needs for tribal fisheries and limited access to other harvestable 

10 stocks.

11 Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishery curtailment. Under this alternative, the sovereign Parties 

12 voluntarily curtail harvest activities for an extended period of time. This alternative may 

13 include some very limited treaty fishing opportunity to meet base ceremonial needs of the 

14 tribes. The parties may adopt a voluntary extreme harvest curtailment policy when the 

15 continued viability of the stocks are at imminent risk. This alternative does not meet the 

16 purpose and need for the action insofar as it does not provide for meaningful tribal harvest as 

17 guaranteed by Treaty and it provides no opportunity for non-treaty harvest. This alternative 

18 provides the benchmark required by NEPA in that it represents the alternative with the lowest 

19 fishing harvest

20 Alternative 6—No Action - Uncoordinated Harvest. Under this alternative, the existing 

21 agreement would expire without a new agreement. While it is uncertain what would transpire 

22 under this situation, NMFS anticipates that the state and tribal parties would implement harvest 

23 independently according to their own uncoordinated interpretations. Theoretically, state and or 

24 tribal parties may choose to curtail harvest entirely. Alternative 5 represents the analysis of that 

25 result. On the other hand, it is more likely that the parties’ interpretation results in a level of 

26 harvest that would be very high, likely exceeding the highest historic harvest rates observed. 

27 Alternative 4 represents the analysis of that result. This alternative does not meet the purpose 

28 and need for the Proposed Action in that it does not meet the requirements of Federal parties to 

29 act in accord with other legal requirements such as the ESA or the Federal trust responsibility. 

30 This alternative provides the “no-action” alternative benchmark in that it represents the 

31 alternative of the Federal agencies doing nothing (not signing an agreement). 

32 
US v Oregon EIS v 2018 

1 What environmental resources are analyzed in this EIS? 

2 Resources that may be affected by the Proposed Action and that are analyzed in the EIS are fish, marine3 derived nutrients, wildlife, economics, cultural resources, and environmental justice. These resources 

4 were identified during the public scoping period. This scoping period was initiated with a Notice of Intent 

5 to prepare a draft EIS (NOI) that was published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 

6 43187). This NOI announced a 30-day public comment period (July 1, 2016 to August 1, 2016) to gather 

7 information on the scope of the issues and the range of alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS. 

8 Why are other resources not analyzed in this EIS?

9 The Proposed Action would not change measures or strategies that are used to implement harvest policy. 

10 These include fishing gear, locations, and timing. These are established by the states and the Indian tribes; 

11 not by the Federal government. The proposed action is therefore limited in scope—it would not affect all 

12 environmental components of the Columbia River Basin. It does not include any form of construction or 

13 demolition to bridges, dams, hydroelectric facilities, or other related infrastructure. No effects are 

14 expected on the physical environment, habitat, ecosystem component species, or environmental resources 

15 such as air quality, water quality (other than marine-derived nutrients), or sedimentation. No effects are 

16 expected on river transportation, river navigation, or historical properties (Section 106 of the National 

17 Historic Preservation Act).

18 Which fish stocks are included in the analyses?

19 Fisheries target particular groups of fish, referred to as “stocks”. Stocks targeted specifically for harvest 

20 are known as Harvest Indicator Stocks. Fisheries may also incidentally catch ESA—listed species, which 

21 are known as Abundance Indicator Stocks. Harvest Indicator Stocks are the “Management Units” of the 

22 US v Oregon management agreement and most have subcomponents that include ESA-listed stock. 

23 The following Harvest Indicator Stocks are analyzed in the EIS: Upriver spring Chinook salmon, Upper 

24 Columbia Chinook salmon, Upriver sockeye salmon, Upriver fall Chinook salmon, and Snake River B25 Index steelhead. The Abundance Indicator Stocks (ESA-listed) that are analyzed in the EIS are the natural26 origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon and natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon (part 

27 of the Upriver spring Chinook salmon Harvest Indicator Stock), Snake River sockeye salmon (part of the 

28 Upriver sockeye salmon Harvest Indicator Stock), natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon (part 

29 of the Upriver fall Chinook salmon Harvest Indicator Stock) and natural-origin Snake River B-Index (part 

30 of the Snake River B-Index steelhead Harvest Indicator Stock). The Upper Columbia summer Chinook 

31 salmon Harvest Indicator Stock does not include any Abundance Indicator Stock components. 
US v Oregon EIS vi 2018 

1 What are the results of the analyses? What are the environmental consequences of each alternative?

2 Which alternative is better?

3 Table ES-1 presents a comparison of each alternative. The effects on each resource analyzed are 

4 described below. 

5 Salmonids 

6 Fisheries impact the environment by killing target species and thereby reducing fish abundance and 

7 spawning potential. Implementing a new US v Oregon management agreement will result in the removal 

8 of salmonids from the environment for commercial, recreational, or ceremonial and subsistence (C&S) 

9 consumption. Reducing fish abundance, and subsequent spawning population potential, can lead to 

10 impacts of population parameters. At levels of high fish removal an originally stable, mature and efficient 

11 ecosystem might be deprived of nutrient input that results in the ecosystem becoming immature and 

12 stressed. This happens in various ways. By targeting and reducing the abundance of high-value predators, 

13 fisheries modify the trophic chain and the flows of biomass (and energy) across the ecosystem as well as 

14 remove the nutrients from the system that are contained within the fish carcasses themselves.

15 Each harvest policy analyzed in this EIS results in a rate at which fish may be harvested. The direct 

16 inverse result of each harvest rate is a rate at which those fish are not harvested, and instead are able to 

17 escape past the fisheries and potentially return to the spawning grounds to spawn (e.g., if a harvest rate 

18 was 40%, then the subsequent escapement rate would be roughly 60% of any particular run size). 

19 Therefore, the essential elements of each alternative analyzed are the harvest rates and escapement totals. 

20 These will vary based on the alternative and the projected fish run sizes, which fluctuate due to external 

21 factors. The sections that follow (4.1.1.1 through 4.1.1.5) describe the impacts of the alternatives on each 

22 indicator stock. Section 4.2 compares these impacts of each alternative relative to no action conditions 

23 and the other alternatives for each indicator stock.

24 The effects of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 on natural-origin Upper Columbia River spring Chinook 

25 salmon, natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, natural-origin Snake River fall 

26 Chinook salmon, and natural-origin Snake River steelhead would not impact the status quo conditions. 

27 The effects of Alternative 3 on these same resources is nearly indistinguishable from those of Alternative 

28 1 and Alternative 2, but generally provides a slight positive impact to spawning escapement. Alternative 4 

29 and Alternative 6 have the greatest effects (largest harvest) on all affected salmonid species, especially for 

30 Snake River fall Chinook salmon, natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, Upper 

31 Columbia River Chinook salmon, Snake River sockeye salmon and natural-origin Snake River steelhead. 
US v Oregon EIS vii 2018 

1 Only for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon are the effects of Alternative 4 or Alternative 6 lower 

2 than for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. This results in a high negative impact to spawning escapement for these 

3 two alternatives across all stocks. Alternative 5 has the lowest harvest impacts on all salmonid species 

4 because it involves voluntary curtailment of harvest (other than limited C&S harvest), and therefore 

5 provides a positive impact to spawning escapement across all stocks.

6 Alternative 5, however, would likely result in escapement of larger numbers of hatchery-origin adults, 

7 leading to potential negative effects from elevated levels of hatchery-origin fish spawning. These negative 

8 effects result from the high levels of unharvested hatchery fish ending up on natural spawning grounds 

9 and competing with and reproductively interacting with natural-origin (wild) fish of the same species/run. 

10 None of the alternatives, not even Alternative 5, meet the escapement goal for Snake River Sockeye 

11 salmon because of the depleted nature of the stock.

12 ESA-Listed Non-Salmonids 

13 The total past and expected annual take of ESA-listed green sturgeon associated with US v Oregon

14 fisheries was very low (0 to 14 fish annually). Therefore, the effect on green sturgeon would not change 

15 across any of the alternatives. There is no discernable effect on bycatch of bull trout or eulachon during 

16 salmon or steelhead fisheries under any of the alternatives. 

17 Other Non-Salmonids (non ESA--listed Fish Species)

18 The US v Oregon agreement has not and would not specify harvest specifications for white sturgeon, 

19 American shad, Pacific lamprey and walleye. Instead, fisheries for these species are mentioned in the 

20 agreement because very small levels of salmon or steelhead bycatch might occur in fisheries targeting 

21 these species. The direct effects of salmon and steelhead fishing on these species are minor and do not 

22 meaningfully vary across alternatives. 

23 Water Quality and Quantity — Hatchery Effects and Marine-derived Nutrients

24 Hatcheries can produce effluent (discharged water that has been used in the facility) with elevated 

25 temperature, as well as elevated levels of: ammonia, organic nitrogen, total phosphorus, biochemical 

26 oxygen demand (BOD), pH, and solids; as well as levels of chemicals used for disease treatment and 

27 disinfection. While this EIS stands separate from the Mitchell Act EIS, it incorporates data, analyses, and 

28 conclusions from the Mitchell Act EIS, as appropriate, and the impacts on these resources were disclosed 

29 in that EIS. 

30 Anadromous species such as salmon and steelhead are important components of the freshwater 
US v Oregon EIS viii 2018 

1 ecosystem, particularly for their role in transporting nutrients upstream from the marine ecosystem. Under 

2 Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 there will be a decrease in nutrients transported upstream, although the 

3 difference between these alternatives is negligible. By comparison, Alternative 5 would lead to an 

4 immediate positive effect and improvement over time relative to the other alternatives as there would be 

5 more marine derived nutrients deposited throughout the Columbia River basin. 

6 Wildlife

7 Seabirds, raptors, and other piscivorous birds prey on salmonids. Seabirds do not prey on adult salmon 

8 and no alternative examined were expected to impact seabirds. Raptors, corvids, and numerous species of 

9 gulls prey on returning adult salmonids, primarily post-spawn adults. 

10 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would have no impact change relative to status quo levels of adults 

11 available as prey to these birds. Alternative 3 would have a slightly positive impact as its average harvest 

12 is lower than that of Alternatives 1 and 2, thereby providing a larger number of prey items available. 

13 Alternative 4 and Alternative 6, with the largest harvest, would have the most noticeable negative impact 

14 on these birds by removing the largest numbers of available prey items. Alternative 5 would offer the 

15 most adult salmonids as prey since most fish would not be harvested en route to the spawning grounds, 

16 thereby providing a positive impact. This alternative would maximize post-spawn adults as a food source. 

17 Marine mammals, especially seals and sea lions, prey on the adult salmonids that are also targets of the 

18 fisheries. Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would have a negative effect on these marine mammals through 

19 reduction in adult fish available as prey via harvest removals, while Alternative 3 would have a slightly 

20 lower negative effect as it would have a lower average harvest. Alternative 4 and Alternative 6, with the 

21 largest harvest, would have the most noticeable negative effect on these marine mammals, as they remove 

22 the largest number of adults. Alternative 5 would offer the most adult salmonids as prey since fishing 

23 would be largely curtailed. 

24 There is no discernable difference between the alternatives on the effect to Southern Resident Killer 

25 Whales (SRKW) as any salmonids returning to the Columbia River would have already passed through 

26 whale’s ocean habitat. Furthermore, any increase in escapement of adult fish to terminal spawning areas 

27 does not always translate into an increase in juvenile salmonids because the capacity limit of the current 

28 spawning habitat does not allow for increased juvenile production at higher escapement numbers. 

29 Moreover, because US v. Oregon fisheries primarily target hatchery fish and hatchery production levels 

30 are independent of harvest levels, this action is not expected to substantially alter the number of adult 

31 salmon available to SRKW.
US v Oregon EIS ix 2018 

1 Economics 

2 The economic analysis focuses on analyzing effects related to commercial and recreational fishing 

3 activity directed at the five harvest indicator stocks. Under existing conditions (2016 prices and recent 

4 historic average catch), there is a moderate positive effect on the value to tribal and non-tribal commercial 

5 fishers, non-tribal recreational fishers, employment, and personal income contribution to the regional and 

6 local economy. Harvest and primary processing of salmon caught in tribal and non-tribal commercial 

7 fisheries is estimated to generate $16.2 million in personal income and 419 Full-time Equivalent (FTE) 

8 jobs. Recreational fishing activities targeting salmon and steelhead would generate an estimated $27.9 

9 million in personal income and 672 jobs. 

10 Alternative 1 would continue to maintain this moderate positive effect. By comparison, because of the 

11 change in harvest levels based on different harvest policies, Alternative 2 would have a lower positive 

12 effect and Alternative 3 a low negative effect. Alternative 4 and Alternative 6, with more aggressive 

13 fishing policy would result in a high positive effect, while Alternative 5, with curtailed fishing, would 

14 yield a high negative economic effect. 

15 Cultural Resources

16 Ceremonial and Subsistence (C&S) harvest is a priority for Indian tribes and any deficit in the harvest is 

17 taken from tribal commercial harvest. Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, Indian tribes in the project area 

18 would be able to continue their C&S harvest without substantial changes to tribal cultural viability. 

19 However, the effects of Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 would be negative. Under these two alternatives, 

20 the minimum C&S harvest in years with low runs may not be sufficient to meet C&S needs in years with 

21 low runs, thereby either directly negatively affecting the tribal cultural viability, or, more likely, reducing 

22 the available commercial harvest. Alternative 5 would result in a high negative effect as the C&S harvest 

23 would be largely curtailed. 

24 Are there any Environmental Justice effects?

25 Each alternative was evaluated to determine whether it resulted in a disproportionate adverse effect on 

26 environmental justice communities. The analysis found that Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 would result in a 

27 disproportionate adverse effect on cultural resources for Indian Tribes as it pertains to C&S fisheries. 

28 Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would not have a disproportionate adverse effect on either cultural resources or 

29 economics for Indian Tribes. Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 would also result in a disproportionate 

30 adverse economic effect on Indian tribes. Note that Alternative 5, although it largely curtails fishing, 

31 equally negatively affects Indian tribes and non-tribes as it pertains to economics and is therefore not 

32 disproportionate. 
US v Oregon EIS x 2018 

1 What are the cumulative impacts of the alternatives? 

2 The affected environment in the project area faces a number of challenges. For example, development, 

3 habitat destruction, hydropower, and climate change will continue to negatively impact the physical and 

4 biological resources in the project area. On the other hand, habitat restoration projects in the area 

5 positively influence those resources. Effects from hatcheries have a mix of positive and negative impacts. 

6 The direct effects of a harvest policy to the affected environment vary across alternatives (Table ES-2). 

7 For example, Alternative 5 (Voluntary Curtailed Fishing), in the absence of cumulative effects, would 

8 result in positive effects on the fish species, prey for birds, and marine-derived nutrients. The other 

9 alternatives all result in varying degrees of negative direct effects in that they all harvest fish (Table ES-2) 

10 Therefore, the adverse effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would be greater than Alternative 5 when 

11 combined with the net negative effects of non-harvest actions. By comparison, the cumulative adverse 

12 effects of Alternatives 4 and 6, with their high harvest rates, would be the greatest when compared to 

13 Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 5. In the context of the cumulative impacts the absence of fishing, Alternative 5 

14 (Voluntary Curtailed Fishing), has a direct effect that’s positive on salmonids and steelhead but the 

15 indirect effects caused by interaction of hatchery-origin and natural-origin populations is a net negative 

16 cumulative effect. This indicates that hatchery effects from hatchery-origin on natural-origin populations 

17 are mitigated by harvest and overall that cumulative effects attributable to any harvest alternative by 

18 themselves are therefore minor (ES-2). 

19 Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 all have a net positive effect on economics. On the other hand, the adverse 

20 effects from non-harvest actions in the area result in fewer fish. Therefore, these non-harvest actions 

21 diminish the positive cumulative effects of Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 on economics (commercial, 

22 recreational, and regional or local economic impacts). As there is no economic impact of Alternative 5 on 

23 the fisheries, there is no effect based on cumulative impacts.

24 The negative cumulative effects on cultural resources (C&S) are exacerbated proportionally to the 

25 cumulative decrease in fish stock that results from other actions in the project area. 

26 Under environmental justice, the cumulative disproportionate adverse effects on cultural resources 

27 (Alternatives 4, 5, and 6) as well as economics (Alternatives 4 and 6) as it pertains to the Indian tribes 

28 does not change when effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered. 

29 These effects remain cumulatively disproportionate. 
US v Oregon EIS xi 2018 

1 What about hatcheries? 

2 Yes, signing a new US v Oregon agreement that references levels of hatchery production supporting 

3 harvest requires the federal agencies to be informed of the effects of this hatchery production on the 

4 environment. NMFS has completed an EIS on Columbia River Hatchery Operations (Final EIS to Inform 

5 Columbia River Basin Hatchery Operations and the Funding of Mitchell Act Hatchery Programs (NMFS 

6 2014b). The Mitchell Act EIS analyzed the impacts of Basin-wide, alternative hatchery policies and 

7 resulting production levels. Therefore, NMFS will use the Mitchell Act EIS, and the analysis contained 

8 therein, where appropriate, to inform the hatchery-related effects of the harvest management alternatives

9 analyzed in this EIS. 

10 The existing 2008-2017 US v Oregon agreement includes hatchery programs that produce fish. The 

11 agreement describes the number of fish to be released, life-history of release, release location, hatchery 

12 rearing facilities, entity(s) that manages the program(s), and the responsible funding entity(s). Some of 

13 these fish are subsequently harvested in the fisheries that fall under the Agreement’s management 

14 framework. Therefore, the hatcheries are included in the Agreement both as a measure to formalize the 

15 Parties’ expectations regarding production of hatchery fish for harvest above Bonneville Dam and to 

16 identify hatchery programs that are important to the conservation of salmon or steelhead runs above 

17 Bonneville Dam. 

18 Hatcheries augment fisheries by increasing certain stock abundances, including both ESA-listed and non19 listed stocks. Certain fisheries would be able to continue without hatchery production, because these 

20 fisheries target non-listed stocks of relatively healthy natural-origin fish. In the absence of hatcheries, 

21 these fisheries would operate at different levels based solely on the abundance of natural-origin fish. 

22 Therefore, while this EIS stands separate from the Mitchell Act EIS, it incorporates data, analyses, and 

23 conclusions from the Mitchell Act EIS as appropriate.

24 Which harvest framework or policy will the Management Agreement incorporate? 

25 The final harvest framework will depend on a number of factors that include, but are not limited to, the 

26 public’s input to this EIS, the ongoing negotiations between the Parties to US v Oregon, and the 

27 consultations that are required under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These consultations lead to the 

28 publishing of a Biological Opinion and an Incidental Take Statement. Upon the completion of the NEPA 

29 and ESA processes, the decision makers will select the most appropriate harvest framework. 
US v Oregon EIS xii 2018 

1 What is the timeframe for a decision?

2 Under the NEPA process, the public had 45 days after publication in the Federal Register to comment on 

3 the Draft EIS. NMFS extended the public comment period for an additional 15 days for a total of 60 days. 

4 All of the comments were reviewed, and the analyses and EIS were adjusted as needed, and we are now 

5 publishing our Final EIS. NMFS will complete a “Record of Decision” (ROD) that captures the outcome 

6 of both the NEPA and ESA processes 30 days after publication of the ROD. 
US v Oregon EIS xiii 2018 

1 Table ES – 1. Summary of Alternatives

Alternative Meets 

Purpose 

& Need

Effects Compared to Status Quo Environmental 

Justice

Harvest

Effects on ESU-listed 

salmonids

Water 

Quality Raptors Mammals

Economics 

Cultural Economics Cultural

US v 

Oregon

Fishing 

Only

Cumulative

Effect Nutrients Prey Pinnipeds C&S Disproportionate Adverse Effect

EIS 

Section 2.1 2.1 2.1 4.2 5.3.1 4.3 4.4.2 4.4.2 4.5 4.6 4.7.2 4.7.1 

1 Extension Yes No 

Change

No 

Change No Change No Change

No 

Change

No 

Change

No 

Change

No 

Change No No

2 AbundanceBased Yes No 

Change

No 

Change No Change No Change

No 

Change

No 

Change

Slight 

Negative

No 

Change No No

3 Fixed Harvest 

Rate Yes

Slight 

Decrease 

(1)

Slight 

Positive No Change No Change

Slight 

Positive

Slight 

Positive Negative No Change No No

4 EscapementBased Yes High 

(Aggressive)

High 

Negative 

(2)

High 

Negative

No 

Change Negative Negative High Positive Negative Yes Yes

5 

Voluntary 

Fishing 

Curtailment

No No 

Harvest Positive Negative Positive Positive Positive High Negative

High 

Negative No Yes

6 

No-action. 

Uncoordinated 

Harvest

No High 

(Aggressive)

High 

Negative 

(2)

High 

Negative

No 

Change Negative Negative High Positive Negative Yes Yes

2 (1) No change for Sockeye salmon

3 (2) Except Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon for which the fishing effort is lower than the status quo resulting in a positive effect compared to the status quo.

4 There are no meaningful differences across the alternatives for resources analyzed in the EIS but not presented in the table above: ESA--listed 

5 non-salmonids, other non-salmonids that are not ESA-listed, and Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW). 
US v Oregon EIS xiv 2018 

1 Please note the following table presents the direct effects of each alternative on each resource. It differs 

2 from table ES-1 which compares the effects to the no action alternative. 

3 Table ES – 2. Summary of Alternatives’ effects.

Resource

Effects of 

Present 

Actions

(Section 5.1)

Effects of 

Future 

Actions

(Section 5.2)

Effects of Proposed 

Action (Sections 

4.2-4.7)

Cumulative

Effects (Section 

5.3)

Contribution of 

Alternative to 

Cumulative Effects

(Section 5.3)

Salmonids and Steelhead

Alt 1

Mixed Positive 

and Negative

(net negative)1

Mixed Positive 

and Negative

(net negative)1

Negative Negative

Meaningful

Alt 2

Alt 3

Alt 4 High Negative High Negative

Alt 5 Positive Negative2

Alt 6 High Negative High Negative

ESA Listed non-salmonids

Alt 1

Mixed Positive 

and Negative

Mixed Positive 

and Negative

(net negative)

Negligible Negative Minor

Alt 2

Alt 3

Alt 4

Alt 5

Alt 6

Non-Salmonids (non-ESA-listed Fish)

Alt 1

Mixed Positive 

and Negative

Mixed Positive 

and Negative

(net negative)

Negligible Negative Minor

Alt 2

Alt 3

Alt 4

Alt 5

Alt 6

Water Quality (Nutrients)

Alt 1

Mixed Positive 

and Negative

Mixed Positive 

and Negative

(net negative)

Negative

Negative

Minor Alt 2

Alt 3

Alt 4

Alt 5 Positive Non Discernable

Alt 6 Negative Minor

Raptors and other Piscivorous Birds3

Alt 1

Mixed Positive 

and Negative

Mixed Positive 

and Negative

(net negative)

Negative

Negative

Minor Alt 2

Alt 3

Alt 4

Alt 5 Positive Non Discernable

Alt 6 Negative Minor

Marine Mammals

Alt 1

Negative Low Negative

Negative

Negative

Minor Alt 2

Alt 3

Alt 4

Alt 5 Positive Non Discernable

Alt 6 Negative Minor
US v Oregon EIS xv 2018 

Resource

Effects of 

Present 

Actions

(Section 5.1)

Effects of 

Future 

Actions

(Section 5.2)

Effects of Proposed 

Action (Sections 

4.2-4.7)

Cumulative

Effects (Section 

5.3)

Contribution of 

Alternative to 

Cumulative Effects

(Section 5.3)

Economics4

Alt 1

Mixed Positive 

and Negative

(net negative)

Mixed Positive and 

Negative (net 

negative)

Positive

Less positive than 

Direct Effects

Meaningful

Alt 2 Low Positive

Alt 3 Low Negative

Alt 4 High Positive

Alt 5 High Negative High Negative

Alt 6 High Positive Less positive than 

Direct Effects

Cultural Resources

Alt 1

Mixed Negative

Low Positive Low Positive Meaningful Alt 2

Alt 3

Alt 4 

Alt 5 High Negative High Negative Meaningful

Alt 6 Low Positive Low Positive Meaningful

Environmental Justice

Alt 1

Some disproportionate effects 

depending on the action and resource

Alt 2 Not Dispr. Not Dispr. Non discernible

Alt 3

Alt 4

Dispr. 

Economic & 

Cultural

Dispr. Economic & 

Cultural Primary

Alt 5 Dispr. Cultural Dispr. Cultural Primary

Alt 6

Dispr. 

Economic & 

Cultural

Dispr. Economic & 

Cultural Primary

1 Dispr. Disproportionate adverse effect

2 1. As described in Section 5.3.1.1, the net effect of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is 

3 negative, despite the positive effects of habitat restoration. The net effects on other resources in the table (water 

4 quality nutrients, prey for wildlife, economics) follow from the net effect on salmonids and steelhead.

5 2. While the direct effect is positive on salmonids and steelhead due to a curtailment of fishing, the indirect effects 

6 caused by interaction of hatchery-origin and natural-origin populations as described in Section 5.3.1.1 result in a 

7 net negative cumulative effect.

8 3. Overall seabirds will continue to be affected by other development in the basin but no additional impacts will be 

9 added by the alternatives as described in Section 5.3.3.1.

10 4. For a summary of economic effects of the proposed action, see Table 4-66.
US v Oregon EIS xvi 2018 

1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM DRAFT EIS TO FINAL EIS

2 This final EIS incorporates revisions to the document based on comments submitted during the public 

3 review period and the identification of a preferred alternative. Below is a summary of changes made to 

4 the document. 

5 1. Preferred Alternative. NMFS has identified Alternative 1, Extension of Current Agreement, as the 

6 Preferred Alternative for this FEIS. As described in Chapter 2, the choice of harvest policies 

7 depend on the stock and fishery. The harvest policies considered in the EIS are designed to 

8 explore options for achieving the appropriate balance between harvest and conservation 

9 objectives. Therefore, NMFS believes that the most appropriate balance between harvest and 

10 conservation objectives, accounting for the status of the affected stocks and nature of available 

11 information, would require a blend of harvest policies including applications of abundance-based 

12 management, escapement-based management, and harvest rate management. This blend of 

13 harvest policies can be found in Alternative 1. 

14 2. Terminology. The terminology used in the final EIS is updated for consistency throughout the 

15 document (e.g., Project Area, fishing vs. harvest). All key terms used for the final EIS are 

16 described in the Glossary of Key Terms.

17 3. Response to draft EIS Comments. Additional information and/or corrections are made in this final 

18 EIS to respond to draft EIS public comments. Comments and NMFS’ responses to comments are 

19 provided in a new appendix (Appendix C). 

20 4. Clarified the integration of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the 

21 Cumulative Impacts section and added a new Cumulative Impacts table in the Executive 

22 Summary.

23 5. Grammatical, Numerical, and Editing Changes. Grammatical, numerical, and editing errors have 

24 been corrected where observed. 

25 6. Change from draft EIS to final EIS. Where applicable, language pertinent to the draft EIS is 

26 revised to represent the final EIS.

27 7. Added numerical value consistency to tables throughout the final EIS. 
US v Oregon EIS xvii 2018 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................... i

Summary of Changes from Draft EIS to Final EIS ................................................................................................ xvi

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................. xvii

List of Tables xxi

List of Figures xxiv

Acronyms xxv

Glossary of Key Terms ......................................................................................................................................... xxvi

1. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action....................................................................................................1

1.1. Background .............................................................................................................................................1

1.2. Description of the Proposed Action ........................................................................................................3

1.3. Project and Analysis Areas .....................................................................................................................3

1.3.1. Fisheries ..............................................................................................................................................5

1.3.1.1. Treaty Indian Fishery location and jurisdiction ..........................................................................9

1.3.1.2. Non-Treaty Fishery location and jurisdiction ...........................................................................10

1.3.1.2.1. Mainstem Non-Treaty Commercial Fisheries .......................................................................11

1.3.1.2.2. Select Area Fisheries Enhancement (SAFE) Commercial Fisheries .....................................12

1.3.1.2.3. Columbia River Mainstem and Lower Snake River Recreational Non-treaty Fisheries .......13

1.3.1.2.4. Non-treaty Tribal Fisheries Included in Non-Treaty Catch ...................................................14

1.3.1.3. Treaty Indian Tributary Fisheries .............................................................................................14

1.3.1.4. Fisheries with harvest policy set outside the agreement ...........................................................15

1.3.1.4.1. Non-salmonid species ............................................................................................................15

1.3.1.4.2. Lower Columbia River (LCR) Stocks ...................................................................................16

1.3.2. Hatcheries .........................................................................................................................................17

1.4. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action ......................................................................................18

1.5. Public Involvement ...............................................................................................................................18

1.5.1. Scoping: Notice of Intent .................................................................................................................18

1.5.1.1. Written Comments ....................................................................................................................19

1.5.2. DEIS: Notice of Availability ............................................................................................................19

1.6. Other Applicable Laws, Plans, and Policies .........................................................................................19

1.6.1. US v Oregon .....................................................................................................................................19

1.6.2. Endangered Species Act (ESA) ........................................................................................................21

1.6.2.1. Definition of “species” under the ESA .....................................................................................22

1.6.3. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) .......................................................................................23

1.6.4. Executive Order 12898 .....................................................................................................................23

1.6.5. Secretarial Order 3206 ......................................................................................................................23

1.6.6. The Federal Trust Responsibility .....................................................................................................25

1.6.7. Recovery Plans for Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead.............................................................25

1.7. Other Permits and Consultations ..........................................................................................................26

1.8. Related Documents ...............................................................................................................................26

2. Alternatives.......................................................................................................................................................27

2.1. Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ............................................................................................................28

2.1.1. Alternative 1—Extension of current agreement (Preferred Alternative) ..........................................29

2.1.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management ...............................................................................30

2.1.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate ..................................................................................................30

2.1.4. Alternative 4—Escapement-based Management ..............................................................................31

2.1.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishery curtailment .................................................................................32

2.1.6. Alternative 6—No Action—Uncoordinated Harvest .......................................................................32

2.1.7. Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail .......................................................................34

Fixed Effort Management Alternative ..........................................................................................................34
US v Oregon EIS xviii 2018 

3. Affected Environment ......................................................................................................................................35

3.1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................35

3.2. Fish........................................................................................................................................................36

3.2.1. Salmonids .........................................................................................................................................36

3.2.1.1. Chinook Salmon .......................................................................................................................40

3.2.1.2. Coho salmon .............................................................................................................................42

3.2.1.3. Sockeye salmon ........................................................................................................................44

3.2.1.4. Steelhead ...................................................................................................................................46

3.2.2. Other ESA-Listed Fish Species ........................................................................................................48

3.2.3. Other Non-Salmonids (non ESA-listed Fish Species) ......................................................................48

3.3. Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients .....................................52

3.4. Wildlife .................................................................................................................................................52

3.4.1. Seabirds, Raptors, and other Piscivorous Birds ................................................................................53

3.4.2. Marine Mammals ..............................................................................................................................53

3.5. Economics .............................................................................................................................................54

3.5.1. Affected Fisheries .............................................................................................................................56

3.5.1.1. Commercial (Tribal and Non-tribal) Fisheries .........................................................................56

3.5.1.2. Recreational Fisheries ...............................................................................................................61

3.5.1.3. Contribution of Affected Fisheries to Regional Economic Conditions ....................................64

3.6. Cultural Resources - Ceremonial and Subsistence (C&S) Fisheries ....................................................66

3.7. Environmental Justice ...........................................................................................................................68

3.7.1. Low Income and Minority Populations ............................................................................................68

3.7.2. American Indian Tribes ....................................................................................................................68

4. Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................................70

4.1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................70

4.1.1. Description of Modeled Metrics for Harvest Indicator Stocks and Abundance Indicator Stocks ....70

4.1.1.1. Upriver Spring Chinook Salmon ..............................................................................................77

4.1.1.1.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement ..................................................................79

4.1.1.1.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management ....................................................................80

4.1.1.1.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate .......................................................................................80

4.1.1.1.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management ...................................................................82

4.1.1.1.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment ......................................................................84

4.1.1.1.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated Harvest .............................................................85

4.1.1.2. Upper Columbia Summer Chinook Salmon .............................................................................85

4.1.1.2.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement ..................................................................87

4.1.1.2.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management ....................................................................89

4.1.1.2.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate .......................................................................................92

4.1.1.2.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management ...................................................................92

4.1.1.2.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment ......................................................................92

4.1.1.2.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated harvest ..............................................................94

4.1.1.3. Upriver Sockeye Salmon ..........................................................................................................94

4.1.1.3.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement ..................................................................94

4.1.1.3.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management ....................................................................95

4.1.1.3.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate .......................................................................................97

4.1.1.3.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management ...................................................................97

4.1.1.3.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment ......................................................................98

4.1.1.3.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated harvest ..............................................................99

4.1.1.4. Upriver Fall Chinook Salmon ...................................................................................................99

4.1.1.4.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement ................................................................100

4.1.1.4.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management ..................................................................101

4.1.1.4.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate .....................................................................................102
US v Oregon EIS xix 2018 

4.1.1.4.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management .................................................................102

4.1.1.4.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment ....................................................................105

4.1.1.4.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated harvest ............................................................105

4.1.1.5. Snake River Steelhead ............................................................................................................105

4.1.1.5.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement ................................................................106

4.1.1.5.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management ..................................................................106

4.1.1.5.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate .....................................................................................106

4.1.1.5.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management .................................................................106

4.1.1.5.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment ....................................................................110

4.1.1.5.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated harvest ............................................................110

4.2. Fish......................................................................................................................................................110

4.2.1. Salmonids .......................................................................................................................................110

4.2.2. ESA-Listed Fish Species (non-salmonids) .....................................................................................131

4.2.3. Other Non-Salmonids (non ESA-listed Fish Species) ....................................................................132

4.3. Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients ...................................132

4.4. Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................................135

4.4.1. Seabirds, Raptors, and Other Piscivorous Birds .............................................................................135

4.4.2. Marine Mammals ............................................................................................................................136

4.5. Economics ...........................................................................................................................................137

4.5.1. Alternative 1 – Extension of Current Agreement ...........................................................................138

4.5.1.1. Commercial Fisheries .............................................................................................................139

4.5.1.2. Recreational Fisheries .............................................................................................................140

4.5.1.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity .........................................................................141

4.5.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management Alternative ..........................................................141

4.5.2.1. Commercial Fisheries .............................................................................................................141

4.5.2.2. Recreational Fisheries .............................................................................................................143

4.5.2.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity .........................................................................143

4.5.3. Alternative 3 – Fixed Harvest Rate ................................................................................................143

4.5.3.1. Commercial Fisheries .............................................................................................................144

4.5.3.2. Recreational Fisheries .............................................................................................................145

4.5.3.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity .........................................................................145

4.5.4. Alternative 4 – Escapement-based Management ............................................................................146

4.5.4.1. Commercial Fisheries .............................................................................................................146

4.5.4.2. Recreational Fisheries .............................................................................................................148

4.5.4.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity .........................................................................148

4.5.5. Alternative 5 - Fishing curtailment.................................................................................................149

4.5.5.1. Commercial Fisheries .............................................................................................................149

4.5.5.2. Recreational Fisheries .............................................................................................................150

4.5.5.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity .........................................................................150

4.5.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated Harvest ......................................................................151

4.6. Cultural Resources—Ceremonial & Subsistence (C&S) Fisheries ....................................................151

4.7. Environmental Justice .........................................................................................................................153

4.7.1. Cultural Resources - Ceremonial & Subsistence (C&S) ................................................................153

4.7.2. Economics ......................................................................................................................................154

Indian Tribes ...............................................................................................................................................154

Counties ......................................................................................................................................................156

4.7.3. Public Participation ........................................................................................................................156

5. Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................................................158

5.1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................................158

5.2. Future Foreseeable Actions .................................................................................................................163

5.2.1. Climate Change ..............................................................................................................................163
US v Oregon EIS xx 2018 

5.2.2. Development Projects .....................................................................................................................171

5.2.3. Habitat Restoration and Protection of Salmonids ...........................................................................173

5.3. Effects from Future Actions ................................................................................................................173

5.3.1. Fish .................................................................................................................................................173

5.3.1.1. Salmonids ...............................................................................................................................174

5.3.1.2. ESA-Listed Fish Species (non-salmonids) .............................................................................176

5.3.1.3. Other Non-Salmonids (non ESA-listed Fish Species) ............................................................177

5.3.2. Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients ..............................177

5.3.3. Wildlife ...........................................................................................................................................178

5.3.3.1. Seabirds, Raptors, and other Piscivorous Birds ......................................................................179

5.3.3.2. Marine Mammals ....................................................................................................................179

5.3.4. Economics ......................................................................................................................................180

5.3.4.1. Commercial Fisheries .............................................................................................................181

5.3.4.2. Recreational Fisheries .............................................................................................................182

5.3.4.3. Regional and Local Economic Impacts ..................................................................................182

5.3.5. Cultural Resources ..........................................................................................................................183

5.3.6. Environmental Justice.....................................................................................................................184

5.3.6.1. Cultural Resources—C&S ......................................................................................................184

5.3.6.2. Economics ..............................................................................................................................184

6. Lists 185

6.1. List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................................185

6.2. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Contacted ...................................................................185

6.3. Distribution List for FEIS ...................................................................................................................186

6.4. Distribution List for FEIS ...................................................................................................................187

7. References ......................................................................................................................................................188

Indexes ........................................................................................................................................................198

Appendices ........................................................................................................................................................202

Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................................202

Appendix B ........................................................................................................................................................230

Appendix C ........................................................................................................................................................248
US v Oregon EIS xxi 2018 

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES – 1. Summary of Alternatives ................................................................................................................. xiii

Table ES – 2. Summary of Alternatives’ effects. ................................................................................................... xiv

Table 1-1. Fisheries occurring in the project area during more than one management period. ..................................5

Table 1-2. Fisheries occurring in the project area during the winter/spring management period. .............................6

Table 1-3. Fisheries occurring in the project area during the summer management period. ......................................7

Table 1-4. Fisheries occurring in the project area during the fall management period. .............................................8

Table 1-5. Treaty Indian tributary fisheries. ............................................................................................................15

Table 1-6. Fisheries referenced in the agreement but not subject to the harvest policies contained in the 

agreement. .............................................................................................................................................16

Table 3-1. ESA-listed salmonid fish species located in the project area in the Columbia River Basin. ................36

Table 3-2. Defined metrics for all alternatives. ........................................................................................................38

Table 3-3. Harvest Indicator Stocks and current harvest policy types. ....................................................................39

Table 3-4. Abundance Indicator Stocks and locations where escapement counts occur. .........................................39

Table 3-5. Status quo conditions for natural-origin Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon. .....................42

Table 3-6. Status quo conditions for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon. ........................42

Table 3-7. Status quo conditions for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon. ...................................................42

Table 3-8. Status quo conditions for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon. ...........................................42

Table 3-9. Status quo conditions for Upriver sockeye salmon. ................................................................................45

Table 3-10. Status quo conditions for Snake River sockeye salmon. .......................................................................45

Table 3-11. Status quo conditions for natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead .............................................48

Table 3-12. ESA-listed non-salmonid fish species that may be affected by the Proposed Action in the Columbia 

River Basin. ..........................................................................................................................................48

Table 3-13. Commercial harvest of Upriver spring Chinook salmon under status quo conditions. .........................57

Table 3-14. Commercial harvest of Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon under status quo conditions. ........58

Table 3-15. Commercial harvest of Upriver fall Chinook salmon under status quo conditions. .............................59

Table 3-16. Commercial harvest of Upriver sockeye salmon under status quo conditions. .....................................59

Table 3-17. Commercial harvest of Snake River B-Index steelhead under status quo conditions.1

 .........................60

Table 3-18. Commercial harvest and ex-vessel value of harvest indicator species under status quo conditions, by 

Columbia River subregion and type of fishery. ....................................................................................60

Table 3-19. Recreational catch of Upriver spring Chinook salmon under status quo conditions. ...........................62

Table 3-20. Recreational catch of Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon under status quo conditions. ..........62

Table 3-21. Recreational catch of Upriver fall Chinook salmon under status quo conditions. ................................63

Table 3-22. Recreational catch of Upriver sockeye salmon under status quo conditions. .......................................63

Table 3-23. Recreational catch of Snake River B-Index steelhead under status quo conditions..............................63

Table 3-24. Recreational salmon and steelhead catch, angler trips, and trip-related expenditures under status quo 

conditions, by Columbia River subregion.............................................................................................64

Table 3-25. Regional economic effects from harvest of indicator stocks of commercial and recreational salmon 

and steelhead under status quo conditions, by Columbia River subregion ...........................................66

Text Box 4-1. Format of defined metrics for each abundance indicator stock (fields have been left blank in this 

text box). ...............................................................................................................................................75

Table 4-1. Spring Management Period Harvest Rate Schedule. ..............................................................................78

Table 4-2. Defined Metrics for Upriver spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 1. .............................................79

Table 4-3. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 1..79

Table 4-4. Defined Metrics for natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 1. ..........................79

Table 4-5. Defined Metrics for Upriver spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 2. .............................................80

Table 4-6. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 2..80

Table 4-8. Defined Metrics for Upriver spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 3. .............................................81

Table 4-9. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 3.

 81

Table 4-10. Defined Metrics for natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 3. ........................82
US v Oregon EIS xxii 2018 

Table 4-12. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 4 

and Alternative 6. ..................................................................................................................................84

Table 4-13. Defined Metrics for natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 4 and Alternative 

6. 84

Table 4-14. Defined Metrics for Upriver spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 5. ...........................................84

Table 4-15. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 5.

 85

Table 4-16. Defined Metrics for natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 5. ........................85

Table 4-17. Summer Management Period Chinook salmon Harvest Rate Schedule. ..............................................86

Table 4-18. Defined Metrics for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 1 ..........................88

Table 4-19. Abundance-based harvest rate schedule for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon. ....................89

Table 4-20. Defined Metrics for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 2 ..........................91

Table 4-21. Defined Metrics for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 3 ..........................93

Table 4-22. Defined Metrics for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 4/6 .......................93

Table 4-23. Defined Metrics for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 5 ..........................93

Table 4-24. Upriver sockeye salmon harvest framework. ........................................................................................94

Table 4-25. Defined Metrics for Upriver sockeye salmon under Alternative 1. ......................................................95

Table 4-26. Defined Metrics for Snake River sockeye salmon under Alternative 1. ...............................................95

Table 4-27. Abundance-based harvest rate schedule for Upriver sockeye salmon. .................................................96

Table 4-28. Defined Metrics for Upriver sockeye salmon under Alternative 2. ......................................................96

Table 4-29. Defined Metrics for Snake River sockeye salmon under Alternative 2. ...............................................97

Table 4-30. Defined Metrics for Upriver sockeye salmon under Alternative 3. ......................................................97

Table 4-31. Defined Metrics for Snake River sockeye salmon under Alternative 3. ...............................................97

Table 4-32 Defined Metrics for Upriver sockeye salmon under Alternative 4 and Alternative 6. ...........................98

Table 4-33. Defined Metrics for Snake River sockeye salmon under Alternative 4 and Alternative 6. ...................98

Table 4-34. Defined Metrics for Upriver sockeye salmon under Alternative 5. ......................................................98

Table 4-35. Defined Metrics for Snake River sockeye salmon under Alternative 5. ...............................................99

Table 4-36. Fall management period Chinook salmon harvest rate schedule. ......................................................100

Table 4-37. Defined Metrics for Upriver fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 1. .............................................101

Table 4-38. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 1. ...............101

Table 4-39. Defined Metrics for Upriver fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 2. .............................................101

Table 4-40. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 2. ...............101

Table 4-41. Defined Metrics for Upriver fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 3. .............................................102

Table 4-42. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 3. ...............102

Table 4-43. Defined Metrics for Upriver fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 4 and Alternative 6. .................104

Table 4-44. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 4 and 

Alternative 6. ......................................................................................................................................104

Table 4-45. Defined Metrics for Upriver fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 5. .............................................105

Table 4-46. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 5. ...............105

Table 4-47. Fall Management Period Steelhead Harvest Rate Schedule. ..............................................................106

Table 4-48. Defined Metrics for Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 1. ..........................................108

Table 4-49. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 1. ...................108

Table 4-50. Defined Metrics for Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 2. ..........................................108

Table 4-51. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 2. ...................108

Table 4-52. Defined Metrics for Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 3. ..........................................109

Table 4-53. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 3. ...................109

Table 4-54. Defined Metrics for Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 4 and Alternative 6. .............109

Table 4-55. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 4 and Alternative 

6. 109

Table 4-56. Defined Metrics for Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 5. ..........................................110

Table 4-57. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 5. ...................110
US v Oregon EIS xxiii 2018 

Table 4-58. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon. .........111

Table 4-59. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook 

salmon .................................................................................................................................................113

Table 4-60. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon. ...........116

Table 4-61. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon.1

 .118

Table 4-62. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for Snake River sockeye salmon. ................................121

Table 4-63. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead. ......124

Table 4-64. Comparison of Hatchery Program Production Referenced in the proposed US v Oregon Management 

Agreement Compared to the Hatchery Production Analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS (NMFS 2014b).

 127

Table 4-65. Total treaty and non-treaty harvests of all salmon and steelhead species by minimum, maximum, and 

average run size abundances expected over the next 10 years. ...........................................................134

Table 4-66. Comparative summary of economic effects under the alternatives. ..................................................138

Table 4-67. C&S harvest of all salmon and steelhead species by minimum, maximum, and average run size 

abundances expected over the next 10 years. .....................................................................................151

Table 4-68. Change in Tribal vs Non-Tribal Commercial Harvest by Harvest Indicator Stock and Alternative 

(Summarized from Appendix B). .......................................................................................................155
US v Oregon EIS xxiv 2018 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Project Area. .......................................................................................................................................4

Figure 1-2. Location of mainstem treaty Indian fisheries downstream of McNary Dam, collectively known as 

Zone 6. ......................................................................................................................................................................10

Figure 1-3. Commercial fishing zones downstream of Bonneville Dam. ................................................................12

Figure 1-4. Location of SAFE fishery areas near the Columbia River mouth. ........................................................13

Figure 4-1. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon at 

minimum, average, and maximum run sizes expected. ..........................................................................................112

Figure 4-2. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook 

salmon at minimum, average, and maximum run sizes expected ...........................................................................114

Figure 4-3. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon at 

minimum, average, and maximum run sizes expected ...........................................................................................117

Figure 4-4. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon at 

minimum, average, and maximum run sizes expected. ..........................................................................................119

Figure 4-5. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for Snake River sockeye salmon at minimum, average, 

and maximum run sizes expected. ..........................................................................................................................122

Figure 4-6. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead at 

minimum, average, and maximum run sizes expected. ..........................................................................................124

Figure 4-7. Total Treaty and Non-Treaty harvests of all salmon and steelhead species by average run size 

abundances expected over the next 10 years. .........................................................................................................134

Figure 4-8. Total C&S harvest of all salmon and steelhead species by minimum, maximum, and average run size 

abundances expected over the next 10 years. .........................................................................................................152

Figure 5-1. Life cycle cumulative effects diagram. ................................................................................................159

 
US v Oregon EIS xxv 2018 

ACRONYMS

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BPH Bonneville Pool Hatchery 

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

BPA Bonneville Power Administration 

BUB Bonneville Upriver Bright 

C&S Ceremonial and Subsistence fisheries

CEQ Council for Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CRFMP Columbia River Fish Management 

Plan

DAO Departmental Administrative Order

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement

DOC Department of Commerce

DPS Distinct Population Segment

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EJ Environmental Justice

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit (a 

term used by NMFS)) 

FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power 

System

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FR Federal Register

FTE Full-time Equivalent Job

HR Harvest Rate

ITS Incidental Take Statement

LCR Lower Columbia River 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act

MSF Mark-selective fishery

NAO NOAA Administrative Order

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

NOI Notice of Intent 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife

PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Council 

PUB Pool Upriver Bright 

PUD Public Utility District

RIS Rock Island Dam

RM River mile

ROD Record of Decision

SAFE Select Area Fisheries Enhancement 

Commercial Fisheries

SMU Species Management Unit. A term 

used by ODFW 

SRKW Southern Resident Killer Whale 

SR Snake River

SST Sea Surface Temperature

TAC U.S. v Oregon Technical Advisory 

Committee U.S. v Oregon

UCR Upper Columbia River 

URB Upriver Bright

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

UWR Upper Willamette River

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife
US v Oregon EIS xxvi 2018 

GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS

● Abundance: Generally, the number of fish in a defined area or unit. It is also one of four 

parameters used to describe the viability of natural-origin fish populations (McElhany et al. 

2000). 

● Abundance Indicator Stock: See stock.

● Adipose fin: A small fleshy fin with no rays, located between the dorsal and caudal fins of salmon 

and steelhead. The adipose fin is often “clipped” on hatchery-origin fish so they can be 

differentiated from natural-origin fish.

● Anadromous: A term used to describe fish that hatch and rear in freshwater, migrate to the ocean 

to grow and mature, and return to freshwater to spawn. 

● Analysis area: Within this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the analysis area is the 

geographic extent that is being evaluated for each resource. See also Project area.

● Bycatch: Species killed when fishing operations unintentionally catch or discard non-target 

species, potentially causing unobserved injury and mortality. 

● Commercial harvest: The activity of catching fish for commercial profit.

● Conservation: Used generally in the EIS as the act or instance of conserving or keeping fish 

resources from change, loss, or injury, and leading to their protection and preservation. This 

contrasts with the definition under the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA), which refers 

to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered 

species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the ESA are 

no longer necessary.

● Critical habitat: A specific term and designation within the ESA,, referring to habitat area 

essential to the conservation of a listed species, though the area need not actually be occupied by 

the species at the time it is designated.

● Distinct Population Segment (DPS): Under the ESA,, the term “species” includes any subspecies 

of fish or wildlife or plants, and any “Distinct Population Segment” of any species or vertebrate 

fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature. The ESA thus considers a DPS of vertebrates to be 

a “species.” The ESA does not however establish how distinctness should be determined. Under 

NMFS policy for Pacific salmon, a population or group of populations will be considered a DPS 

if it represents an Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of the biological species. In contrast to 

salmon, NMFS lists steelhead runs under the joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS)) Policy for recognizing DPSs (DPS Policy: 61 Fed. Reg. 4722, February 7, 1996). This 

policy adopts criteria similar to those in the ESU policy, but applies to a broader range of animals 

to include all vertebrates.

● Diversity: Variation at the level of individual genes (polymorphism); provides a mechanism for 

populations to adapt to their ever-changing environment. It is also one of the four parameters used 

to describe the viability of natural-origin fish populations (McElhany et al. 2000).

● Emigration: The downstream migration of salmon and steelhead toward the ocean. 

● Endangered species: As defined in the ESA, any species that is in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

● Escapement: Adult salmon and steelhead that survive fisheries and natural mortality, and return to 

spawn. 

● Estuary: The area where fresh water of a river meets and mixes with the salt water of the ocean. 

● Ex-vessel value: The price (income) that fishermen receive for the fish “at the dock.”

● Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU): A concept NMFS uses to identify Distinct Population 

Segmentss of Pacific salmon (but not steelhead) under the ESA. An ESU is a population or group 

of populations of Pacific salmon that 1) is substantially reproductively isolated from other 

populations, and 2) contributes substantially to the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. 

See also Distinct Population Segment (pertaining to steelhead).

● Fishery: Harvest under a specific jurisdiction in a specific geographical area during a specific 
US v Oregon EIS xxvii 2018 

period of time. 

● Habitat: The physical, biological, and chemical characteristics of a specific unit of the 

environment occupied by a specific plant or animal; the place where an organism naturally lives.

● Harvest Indicator Stock: See stock

● Harvest Rate: The ratio of fishery related mortality for a group of fish over its abundance in a 

defined period of time. 

● Harvest Rate Limits: The total allowable harvest rate for a species or stock that may be taken 

during a period of time. 

● Incidental fishing effects: Fish, marine birds, or mammals unintentionally captured during 

fisheries using any of a variety of gear types.

● Interdam Loss: The loss in fish stocks between the mouth of the river and the last upstream 

counting station, independent of fishing. This represents mortality due to (1) natural mortality; (2) 

fish turnoff to mainstem tributaries; (3) mortality caused by hydro operations through 

impoundment of water, inundation of habitat, alteration of sediment transport, and hampering of 

passage conditions both upstream and downstream; and (4) other forms of habitat degradation. 

The number is based on estimates developed by the US v Oregon TAC. 

● Limiting Stock: One that constrains harvest during a season, by being the lowest in abundance 

and therefore restricting access to more abundant stocks and limiting total catch. 

● Listed Species: Under the ESA, species may be listed as either endangered or threatened.

All species of plants and animals, except pest insects, are eligible for listing as endangered or

threatened. “Endangered” means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. “Threatened” means a species is likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future. For the purposes of the ESA, Congress defined species to include 

subspecies, varieties, and, for vertebrates, distinct population segments.

● Native fish: Fish that are endemic to or limited to a specific region. 

● Natural-origin: A term used to describe fish that are offspring of parents that spawned in the 

natural environment rather than the hatchery environment, unless specifically explained otherwise 

in the text. “Naturally spawning” and similar terms refer to fish spawning in the natural 

environment. 

● Population: A group of fish of the same species that spawns in a particular locality at a particular 

season and does not interbreed substantially with fish from any other group. 

● Productivity: The rate at which a population is able to produce reproductive offspring. It is one of 

the four parameters used to describe the viability of natural-origin fish populations (McElhany et 

al. 2000). 

● Project Area: The project area is the geographic area where the Proposed Action would take 

place. See Section 1.3 for details. 

● Recovery: Defined in the ESA as the process by which the decline of an endangered or threatened 

species is stopped or reversed, or threats to its survival neutralized so that its long-term survival 

in the wild can be ensured, and it can be removed from the list of threatened and endangered 

species.

● Recovery plan: Under the ESA, a formal plan from NMFS (for listed salmon and steelhead) 

outlining the goals and objectives, management actions, likely costs, and estimated timeline to 

recover the listed species.

● Recreational harvest: The activity of catching fish for non-commercial reasons (e.g., sport or 

recreation).

● Run: The migration of salmon or steelhead from the ocean to freshwater to spawn. Defined by the 

season they return as adults to the mouths of their home rivers.

● Run size: The number of adult salmon or steelhead (i.e., harvest plus escapement from fisheries) 

returning to their natal areas.

● Salmonid: A fish of the taxonomic family Salmonidae, which includes salmon, steelhead, and 

trout.
US v Oregon EIS xxviii 2018 

● Section 7 consultation: Federal agency consultation with NMFS or USFWS (dependent on 

agency jurisdiction) on any actions that may affect listed species, as required under section 7 of 

the ESA. 

● Stock: A group of fish of the same species that spawns in a particular lake or stream (or portion 

thereof) at a particular season and which, to a substantial degree, does not interbreed with fish 

from any other group spawning in a different place or in the same place in a different season.

○ Abundance Indicator Stock: Stocks that provide detailed information about natural-origin 

populations. Abundance Indicator Stocks are equivalent to the ESA-listed “units” (DPS

or ESU) affected by US v Oregon fisheries.

○ Harvest Indicator Stock: Stocks that are the target of fisheries. These may include one or 

more Abundance Indicator Stocks. 

● Take: Under the ESA, the term “take” means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 

● Threat: A human action or natural event that causes or contributes to limiting factors; threats may 

be caused by past, present, or future actions or events.

● Threatened species: As defined by Section 4 of the ESA, any species that is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

● Tributary: A stream or river that flows into a larger stream or river.

● Viability: As used in this EIS, a measure of the status of listed salmon and steelhead that uses 

four criteria: abundance, productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity. 

● Viable salmonid population (VSP): An independent population of salmon or steelhead that has a 

negligible risk of extinction over a 100-year timeframe (McElhany et al. 2000).

● Watershed: An area of land where all of the water that is under it or drains off of it goes into the 

same place, e.g. Rogue River watershed or Umpqua River watershed.
US v Oregon EIS 1 2018 

1 

2 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

3 1.1. Background 

4 United States v. Oregon (US v Oregon) is the on-going Federal court proceeding first brought in 1968 by 

5 the United States, as trustee, to enforce the reserved fishing rights of the Confederated Tribes of the 

6 Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the 

7 Nez Perce Tribe, and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. In the intervening 

8 decades, the courts have established several key principles. First, that the language of the treaties 

9 provided that the tribes retain the right to take fish at all usual and accustomed fishing places "in common 

10 with the citizens of the United States [or citizens of the territory]," reserved 50 percent of the harvestable 

11 fish destined for the tribes’ traditional fishing places. Moreover, the courts in US v. Oregon held that the 

12 state may only regulate treaty fishing when reasonable and necessary for conservation, provided: 

13 reasonable regulation of non-Indian activities is insufficient to meet the conservation purpose, the 

14 regulations are the least restrictive possible, the regulations do not discriminate against Indians, and 

15 voluntary tribal measures are not adequate.

16 Fisheries in the Columbia River are managed subject to the holdings in US v Oregon and under the 

17 continuing jurisdiction of the Federal court. In the past, the Parties litigated fishing seasons and the court 

18 determined the final structure. In more recent years, the Parties have successfully negotiated a series of 

19 agreements setting harvest strategies and allocations. Those agreements have also included hatchery 

20 production, as well as harvest policies. The Columbia River Fish Management Plan provided a 

21 framework for management from 1988 through 1998, although certain provisions were modified during 

22 that time to address concerns related to the increasing number of ESA-listed species. After 1998, fisheries 

23 were managed through a series of short term agreements, the duration of which ranged from several 

24 months to five years. 

25 The 2008-2017 US v Oregon Management Agreement, which provides the current framework for 
US v Oregon EIS 2 2018 

1 managing fisheries and hatchery programs in much of the Columbia River Basin, expires December 31, 

2 2017. Negotiations on a new management agreement are ongoing. The signatories to the US v Oregon

3 management agreement are the State of Washington, the State of Oregon, the State of Idaho, the United 

4 States, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of 

5 Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the 

6 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the latter four, hereinafter referred to as “the 

7 Columbia River Treaty Tribes,” (collectively, the Parties). In reaching this agreement, the Parties 

8 stipulated that the purpose of the Management Agreement was to provide a framework within which the 

9 Parties could exercise their sovereign powers in a coordinated and systematic manner in order to protect, 

10 rebuild, and enhance upper Columbia River fish runs while providing harvests for both treaty Indian and 

11 non-treaty fisheries. Specifically, the Parties set forth the primary goals of the agreement, which were to 

12 rebuild weak runs to full productivity and fairly share the harvest of upper river runs between treaty 

13 Indian and non-treaty fisheries in the ocean and Columbia River Basin. The Parties identified habitat 

14 protection, enhancement, and artificial production techniques as well as harvest management as tools they 

15 would use to ensure that Columbia River fish runs continue to provide a broad range of benefits in 

16 perpetuity.

17 The Federal parties to the management agreement have specific responsibilities for aspects of the 

18 agreement related, for example, treaty trust responsibilities, a duty to support the fishing rights in the 

19 treaties, to certain production programs, and implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The 

20 NMFS prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act 

21 (NEPA) to inform the decision to sign the new management agreement and issuance of an ITS under 

22 ESA. The FWS and BIA, also parties to the agreement, are cooperating agencies on this EIS. 

23 The existing agreement includes, and the new agreement would include, both a list of treaty Indian and 

24 non-treaty fisheries and a list of hatchery programs in the Columbia River Basin. The management 

25 agreement provides a harvest framework via species specific harvest policies to keep healthy stocks 

26 healthy and rebuild weak stocks, and fairly share the harvest of upper river runs between treaty Indian and 

27 non-treaty fisheries. It also includes a hatchery production component with stipulated production levels, 

28 to provide harvest opportunities and the hatchery operations aspect is not authorized by the US v Oregon

29 agreement and those production levels could move forward even without their inclusion in the agreement. 

30 The harvest policies analyzed in this EIS are independent of site-specific production levels at the 

31 hatcheries. The hatchery programs included in the agreement are the product of many processes and 

32 actions occur outside the US v Oregon agreement, such as: Mitigation and licensing agreements for dam 
US v Oregon EIS 3 2018 

1 operations, as well as environmental reviews under the ESA, which review and analyze the hatchery 

2 programs at site specific levels. However, because this agreement establishes the Parties’ target artificial 

3 production levels, a review of the impacts from a comprehensive level of the total hatchery production 

4 referenced in the agreement is necessary to evaluate the impacts of including all of the hatchery programs 

5 collectively in the agreement. NMFS has completed an EIS and issued a Record of Decision on Columbia 

6 River Hatchery Operations (Final EIS to Inform Columbia River Basin Hatchery Operations and the 

7 Funding of Mitchell Act Hatchery Programs (NMFS 2014b); hereafter, the Mitchell Act EIS). Applicable 

8 information from the Mitchell Act EIS analyzed the impacts of Basin-wide, alternative hatchery policies 

9 and the resulting Basin-wide production. In the analysis that follows, we incorporate by reference 

10 applicable sections of the Mitchell Act EIS and summarize the relevant conclusions. 

11 1.2. Description of the Proposed Action

12 The Proposed Action is for the Federal parties to sign the new management agreement, as negotiated by 

13 the Parties to US v Oregon, and for NMFS and FWS to issue an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) 

exempting take2 14 of listed species pursuant to the implementation of the management agreement. This 

15 new management agreement would take effect after the current management agreement expires at the end 

16 of 2017. The management agreement accomplishes two primary objectives. First, it memorializes the 

17 harvest policies that the Parties have agreed should govern the amount of harvest. Second, the 

18 management agreement incorporates hatchery programs, developed individually at site specific locations 

19 that provide harvest and are important to the conservation of salmon or steelhead runs above Bonneville 

20 Dam.

21 1.3. Project and Analysis Areas

22 The project area is the geographic area where the Proposed Action would take place. It includes the 

23 Columbia River mainstem, the primary segment of the river as contrasted to tributary rivers that drain into 

24 it, from its mouth upstream to Wanapum Dam (river mile 415) and to the Idaho – Washington state 

25 boundary just upstream of Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River mainstem (Snake River river mile 

26 (RM) 107) (Figure 1-1). These mainstem Columbia and Snake River areas are where the US v Oregon

27 Parties regulate fishing activities detailed in the US v Oregon Management Agreement in order to fairly 

28 share harvestable salmon and steelhead. Fishing activities, which are further detailed in Subsection 1.3.1, 

29 occur to varying degrees across the project area. These activities are generally grouped by seasonal time 

 

2 While this term is defined in the glossary using the ESA definition, readers must understand that it includes fishing 

and hatchery use.
US v Oregon EIS 4 2018 

1 frame, management jurisdiction and geography into separate “fisheries.” 

2 

3 Figure 1-1. Project Area. (The states of Washington and Oregon have each adopted for statistical data4 gathering, management of fisheries, and jurisdictional purposes, boundaries of areas where 

5 fisheries operate. Commercial fishery boundaries are referred to as “zones”. US v Oregon

6 Parties have, in general, adopted the Oregon boundary terminology and therefore we present 

7 the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) commercial fishery management 

8 zones here for general reference, as these geographical boundaries and terminology are used 

9 throughout this analysis.)

10 The analysis area is the geographic extent that is being evaluated for potential impacts under a particular 

11 resource and alternative. For some resources, the analysis area may be larger than the project area, since

12 some of the effects of the alternatives may occur outside the project area. The Mitchell Act EIS utilized a 

13 larger project area because many of the hatchery facilities that it analyzed exist outside the geographic 

14 areas where the fisheries specified in the US v Oregon management agreement occur. As described in 

15 Subsection 1.3.2, hatchery activities, including the release of hatchery fish, also take place outside areas 

16 where these fisheries occur. This EIS examines the area where these fisheries and their effects occur. 
US v Oregon EIS 5 2018 

1 1.3.1. Fisheries

2 Treaty Indian fisheries and non-treaty fisheries are considered in this EIS. Non-treaty fisheries are those 

3 that do not have a treaty guaranteeing a fishing right. These include all state fisheries and certain Indian

4 fisheries operated by tribes that are not party to the US v Oregon agreement. Non-treaty fisheries consist 

5 of both commercial and recreational fisheries. Treaty Indian fisheries are guaranteed by one or more 

6 treaties. For purposes of this EIS, treaty Indian fisheries are limited to those conducted by Parties to the 

7 US v Oregon agreement. These fisheries include both commercial as well as ceremonial and subsistence 

8 (C&S) fisheries. 

9 Fisheries target particular groups of fish, referred to as “stocks”. The US v Oregon agreement establishes 

10 harvest management policies for fisheries in the project area directed at Upriver salmon and steelhead 

11 stocks. Stocks targeted specifically for harvest are known as Harvest Indicator Stocks. Fisheries may also 

12 incidentally catch ESA-listed species, which are known as Abundance Indicator Stocks. Harvest Indicator 

13 Stocks and Abundance Indicator Stocks are described in more detail in Subsection 3.2.1. 

14 Historically, fisheries governed by the harvest policies have been managed within a winter/spring, 

15 summer, and fall season time frame, each referred to as a management period. These management periods 

16 are approximate; some fisheries are longer in duration and occur during more than one management 

17 period (See Table 1-1). 

18 Table 1-1. Fisheries occurring in the project area during more than one management period. 

Jurisdiction Fishery 

Description Target species Location 

Non-Treaty

Mainstem

Recreational

steelhead 

Summer and winter

steelhead

Mouth of Columbia (Buoy 10) 

upstream to Highway 395 Bridge 

near Pasco, WA

Recreational

fisheries in 

Select Areas

Select Area hatcheryorigin spring Chinook, 

fall Chinook, and coho 

salmon

Off-channel areas near the mouth 

of the Columbia River (upstream 

of Buoy 10 area) 

Treaty Indian 

Ceremonial and 

Subsistence 

(C&S)

Salmon and steelhead Project area

19 The winter/spring season extends from January 1 to June 15 (Table 1-2). During this management period 

20 fisheries in the mainstem Columbia River primarily target spring Chinook salmon stocks returning to the 

21 upper Columbia, the Willamette River, and lower Columbia River tributaries. 
US v Oregon EIS 6 2018 

1 Table 1-2. Fisheries occurring in the project area during the winter/spring management period.

Fishery 

Management 

Period

Jurisdiction Fishery Description Target species Location 

Winter/Spring 

season 

(January 1 

through 

June 15)

Non-Treaty

Commercial spring 

Chinook salmon

Spring Chinook 

salmon

Mouth of Columbia (Buoy 

10) upstream to Bonneville 

Dam

Commercial Fisheries 

in Select Areas

Select Area hatcheryorigin spring Chinook, 

fall Chinook, and coho 

salmon

Off-channel areas near the 

mouth of the Columbia 

River (upstream of Buoy 10 

area) 

Recreational spring 

Chinook salmon – 

below BON

Spring Chinook 

salmon

Mouth of Columbia (Buoy 

10) upstream to Bonneville 

Dam

Recreational spring 

Chinook salmon – 

BON - HWY 395 

Bridge

Spring Chinook 

salmon

Bonneville Dam upstream 

to Highway 395 Bridge 

near Pasco, WA

Recreational spring 

Chinook salmon – 

Snake River (WA 

waters Downstream of 

LGR)

Spring Chinook 

salmon

Mouth of the Snake River 

upstream to Lower Granite 

Dam

Recreational spring 

Chinook salmon – 

Ringold Area

Spring Chinook 

salmon

Highway 395 Bridge near 

Pasco, WA upstream to 

Priest Rapids Dam

Wanapum tribal spring 

Chinook 

Spring Chinook 

salmon

Mainstem Columbia River

from Priest Rapids 

upstream to Wanapum Dam

Treaty 

Indian 

Ceremonial and 

Subsistence (C&S)

Spring Chinook 

salmon Project area

Winter Gillnet (Zone 6) White Sturgeon Bonneville Dam to McNary 

Dam

Spring gillnet (Zone 6) Spring Chinook 

salmon

Bonneville Dam to McNary 

Dam

Platform and 

Hook&Line (Zone 6 + 

downstream of BON)

Spring Chinook 

salmon

Mouth of Columbia (Buoy 

10) to McNary Dam

Permit Gillnet Spring Chinook 

salmon Project area

McNary - HWY 395 

Bridge

Spring Chinook 

salmon

McNary Dam upstream to 

Highway 395 Bridge near 

Pasco, WA

2 The summer season extends from June 16 to July 31 (Table 1-3). During this management period, 

3 fisheries target primarily Upper Columbia River (UCR) summer Chinook salmon, which is not ESA4 listed, and Upriver Columbia sockeye salmon, which contains ESA-listed Snake River salmon as a 

5 subcomponent. These stocks constrain the summer season fisheries. Summer season fisheries are 
US v Oregon EIS 7 2018 

1 constrained primarily by the available opportunity for UCR summer Chinook salmon which includes fish 

2 returning to the Okanogan and Wenatchee rivers, and by specific harvest limits for Snake River (SR) 

3 sockeye salmon. 

4 Table 1-3. Fisheries occurring in the project area during the summer management period. 

Fishery 

Management 

Period

Jurisdiction Fishery 

Description Target species Location 

Summer 

season

(June 16 

through 

July 31) 

Non-Treaty

Recreational –

mouth to 

McNary

Summer Chinook and 

sockeye salmon and 

summer steelhead

Astoria-Megler Bridge

upstream to Bonneville Dam 

Recreational –

McNary to I395

Summer Chinook and 

sockeye salmon and 

summer steelhead

McNary Dam upstream to 

Highway 395 Bridge near 

Pasco, WA

Wanapum 

tribal summer 

Chinook

Summer Chinook 

salmon

Mainstem Columbia River from 

Priest Rapids upstream to 

Wanapum Dam

Commercial

salmon

Summer Chinook 

salmon

Mouth of Columbia (Buoy 10) 

upstream to Bonneville Dam

Select Area 

commercial

Select Area hatcheryorigin Spring Chinook 

and Fall Chinook 

salmon

Off-channel areas near the 

mouth of the Columbia River 

(upstream of Buoy 10 area) 

Treaty 

Indian 

Ceremonial 

and 

Subsistence 

(C&S)

Summer Chinook or 

sockeye salmon Project area

Commercial

gillnet (Zone 6)

Summer Chinook and 

sockeye salmon

Bonneville Dam to McNary 

Dam

Platform and 

Hook&Line 

(Zone 6 + 

downstream of 

BON)

Summer Chinook and 

sockeye salmon

Mouth of Columbia (Buoy 10) 

to McNary Dam

Permit Gillnet 

(Zone 6)

Summer Chinook 

salmon

Bonneville Dam to McNary 

Dam

McNary -

HWY 395 

Bridge

Summer Chinook and 

sockeye salmon

McNary Dam upstream to 

Highway 395 Bridge near 

Pasco, WA

5 Fall season fisheries begin on August 1 and extend to the end of the calendar year (Table 1-4). During the 

6 fall management period fisheries target primarily harvestable hatchery and natural-origin fall Chinook and 

7 coho salmon, and steelhead. Fall season fisheries are constrained by specific ESA related harvest rate 

8 limits for listed SR fall Chinook salmon, and both A-Index and B-Index components of the listed UCR 

9 and SR steelhead DPSs (A-Index and B-Index steelhead are stock designations that refer to components 

10 of the summer run steelhead DPSs, that have particular life history characteristics). 
US v Oregon EIS 8 2018 

1 Table 1-4. Fisheries occurring in the project area during the fall management period. 

Fishery 

Management 

Period

Jurisdiction Fishery 

Description Target species Location 

Fall season 

August 1 

through 

December 31

Non-Treaty Commercial gillnet Fall Chinook and 

coho salmon 

Mouth of Columbia (Buoy 

10) upstream to 

Bonneville Dam

Commercial tangle 

net Coho salmon

Mouth of Columbia (Buoy 

10) upstream to 

Bonneville Dam

Commercial seine Fall Chinook and 

coho salmon 

Mouth of Columbia (Buoy 

10) upstream to 

Bonneville Dam

Select Area 

commercial

Select Area 

hatchery-origin fall 

Chinook and coho 

salmon

Off-channel areas near the 

mouth of the Columbia 

River (upstream of Buoy 

10 area) 

Recreational Buoy 

10 

Fall Chinook and 

coho salmon 

Mouth of the Columbia 

River (Buoy 10/Estuary 

area)

Mainstem

Recreational – 

below BON

Fall Chinook, coho 

salmon, and 

summer steelhead

Upstream of Buoy 10 to 

Bonneville Dam 

Recreational –

BON - HWY 395 

Bridge

Fall Chinook, coho 

salmon, and 

summer steelhead

Bonneville Dam upstream 

to Highway 395 Bridge 

near Pasco, WA

Recreational Lower 

Snake River

Fall Chinook 

salmon and 

summer steelhead

Mouth of the Snake River 

upstream to Lower Granite 

Dam

Recreational

steelhead (tributary 

dip-ins Klickitat, 

Deschutes, John 

Day)

Fall Chinook, coho 

salmon, and 

summer steelhead

Klickitat River, WA 

Deschutes River, OR 

John Day River, OR

Treaty 

Indian C&S fisheries Fall Chinook salmon or steelhead Project area

Commercial gillnet 

(Zone 6)

Fall Chinook

salmon

Bonneville Dam to 

McNary Dam

Platform and 

Hook&Line (Zone 6 

+ downstream of 

BON)

Fall Chinook

salmon

Mouth of Columbia (Buoy 

10) to McNary Dam

Late fall

Commercial gill net White Sturgeon Bonneville Dam to McNary Dam

Permit Gillnet Fall Chinook

salmon Project Area

McNary - HWY 395 

Bridge

Fall Chinook and 

coho salmon 

McNary Dam upstream to 

Highway 395 Bridge near 

Pasco, WA
US v Oregon EIS 9 2018 

1 1.3.1.1. Treaty Indian Fishery location and jurisdiction

2 Treaty Indian fisheries considered in the proposed new US v Oregon agreement would be managed 

3 subject to regulation by the tribal signatories to the agreement. Each tribe regulates its fisheries using an 

4 array of management measures designed to achieve harvests that meets its needs, including voluntary 

5 management measures to reduce or eliminate harvest of stocks for conservation needs where the tribe 

6 deems it appropriate to do so. The fisheries are managed primarily by specifying the time and area for 

7 fishery openings, allowable gear types, and monitoring the fisheries to ensure that they achieve catch 

8 targets and stay within conservation constraints. Treaty Indian fisheries are generally managed allowing 

9 the retention of all fish caught (full retention), but under some circumstances the tribes may choose to 

10 implement species selective fisheries. Within the project area, treaty Indian fisheries generally occur in

11 the mainstem Columbia River between Bonneville Dam and McNary Dam, although some fishing does 

12 occur both above McNary and below Bonneville Dam. Impacts associated with these fisheries are 

13 accounted for wherever they occur. Reservoirs of water behind each dam are designated separately 

14 (upstream of Bonneville Dam is Bonneville Reservoir, Zone 6/61; upstream of The Dalles Dam is Lake 

15 Celilo, Zone 6/62; and, upstream of John Day Dam is Lake Umatilla, Zone 6/63). However, they are 

16 commonly known collectively as “Zone 6” (Figure 1-2).
US v Oregon EIS 10 2018 

1 

2 Figure 1-2. Location of mainstem treaty Indian fisheries downstream of McNary Dam, collectively 

3 known as Zone 6. 

4 Fisheries implemented in the reservoir upstream of McNary Dam, known as Lake Wallula, up to the 

5 mouth of the Snake River are managed under the same mainstem harvest limits as the rest of the 

6 mainstem.

7 The tribes also manage a set of tributary fisheries discussed in Subsection 1.3.1.3. These fisheries target 

8 spring Chinook, fall Chinook, and coho salmon, or steelhead depending on the status of the stocks 

9 returning to each tributary. These fisheries are discussed further in Subsection 1.3.1.3. 

10 1.3.1.2. Non-Treaty Fishery location and jurisdiction

11 Non-treaty fisheries considered in a new US v Oregon agreement would be managed under the 

12 jurisdiction of the states of Oregon and Washington. Generally, these include mainstem Columbia River

13 commercial and recreational salmonid fisheries between Buoy 10 at the mouth of the Columbia River and 

14 Bonneville Dam (commonly known as Zones 1-5, described in more detail below in Subsection 
US v Oregon EIS 11 2018 

1 1.3.1.2.1), designated off channel Select Area Fishery Enhancement fisheries (SAFE fisheries, described 

2 in more detail below in Subsection 1.3.1.2.2), mainstem recreational fisheries between Bonneville Dam 

3 and McNary Dam (commonly known as Zone 6), recreational fisheries between McNary Dam and 

4 Highway 395 Bridge in Pasco, Washington, recreational and Wanapum tribal spring Chinook salmon 

5 fisheries from McNary Dam to Priest Rapids Dam, and recreational fisheries in the Snake River upstream 

6 to the Washington/Idaho state boundary. Catch also occurs in a set of “dip-in” fisheries. These dip-in 

7 fisheries are located at mouths and lower reaches of certain tributaries in Zone 6 where migrating fish 

8 may hold prior to continuing their upstream migration. The catch of upriver stocks in these dip-in 

9 fisheries are included in the catch accounting for upriver stocks. Dip-in fishing areas include Drano Lake 

10 at the mouth of the Little White Salmon River, the lower Wind River, the lower Deschutes River 

11 (upstream to Sherars Falls), and the John Day River Arm of John Day Reservoir. 

12 1.3.1.2.1. Mainstem Non-Treaty Commercial Fisheries

13 Commercial fisheries below Bonneville Dam occur in the lower Columbia River in commercial catch 

14 Zones 1-5 (Figure 1-3). The majority of commercial harvest occurs in Zones 4 and 5 (Figure 1-3). 
US v Oregon EIS 12 2018 

1 

2 Figure 1-3. Commercial fishing zones downstream of Bonneville Dam. 

3 1.3.1.2.2. Select Area Fisheries Enhancement (SAFE) Commercial Fisheries

4 SAFE fisheries occur in off-channel areas downstream of Zones 4 and 5 and target hatchery-reared and 

5 locally acclimated spring and fall Chinook and coho salmon. The SAFE area fisheries provide 

6 opportunity for expanded commercial and recreational fisheries directed at hatchery fish returning to their 

7 specific location.

8 SAFE areas are described as follows (see Figure 1-4):

9 ● Youngs Bay is located in Oregon waters adjacent to the city of Astoria and inland of the 

10 Highway 101 Bridge. The fishing area extends from the Highway 101 Bridge upstream to 

11 Battle Creek Slough below the confluence of the Youngs and Klaskanine rivers.

12 ● Tongue Point Basin is just east of the city of Astoria in Columbia River waters bounded 

13 by the Oregon shore and Mott and Lois islands. The fishing area includes the South 

14 Channel from the mouth of the John Day River upstream to its confluence with the Prairie 
US v Oregon EIS 13 2018 

1 Channel. 

2 ● Blind Slough is located near Brownsmead, Oregon and comprises the lower reaches of Gnat 

3 Creek. The fishing area also includes Knappa Slough from the mouth of Blind Slough to 

4 the east end of Minaker Island. 

5 ● Deep River is located on the Washington side in the waters of Grays Bay and Deep River.

6 ● 

7 Figure 1-4. Location of SAFE fishery areas near the Columbia River mouth. 

8 1.3.1.2.3. Columbia River Mainstem and Lower Snake River Recreational Non-treaty 

9 Fisheries

10 The states of Washington and Oregon individually set regulations concerning recreational fisheries in the 

11 mainstem Columbia River. These fisheries occur in the area from Buoy 10 upstream to Priest Rapids 

12 Dam, during the winter/spring, and fall management periods and upstream to Chief Joseph Dam in the 

13 summer management period. Fish targeted include hatchery spring Chinook, summer Chinook, fall 
US v Oregon EIS 14 2018 

1 Chinook, and hatchery coho salmon and hatchery steelhead. Sockeye salmon fishing may occur if run 

2 sizes permit. 

3 1.3.1.2.4. Non-treaty Tribal Fisheries Included in Non-Treaty Catch

4 The Wanapum Tribe does not have treaty fishing rights, nor is it a party to US v Oregon or the new US v 

5 Oregon agreement. Catch from Wanapum fisheries are accounted for as part of the non-treaty fisheries 

6 under the US v Oregon Agreement. A Washington State statute (RCW 77.12.453; WAC 220-32-055) 

7 authorizes the Director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to issue permits for 

8 subsistence fishing to Wanapum tribal members. Seasons have been authorized annually to allow 

9 subsistence fishing for spring Chinook, sockeye, and fall Chinook salmon. The tribe is required to provide 

10 catch estimates, and Grant County Public Utility District (PUD) has historically acted as a liaison between 

11 the tribe and state fishery managers.

12 Additionally, the Colville Tribe is a federally recognized tribe that does not have treaty fishing rights and 

13 is not party to US v Oregon or the new US v Oregon agreement. The Colville Tribe fishes for spring 

14 Chinook, summer Chinook, sockeye salmon, and steelhead using a variety of gears in both mark selective 

15 and full retention fisheries. Their catch of UCR summer Chinook salmon are counted as part of the total 

16 allowed non-treaty UCR summer harvest under the US v Oregon Agreement. 

17 1.3.1.3. Treaty Indian Tributary Fisheries

18 The US v Oregon agreement has included certain treaty Indian tributary fisheries (Table 1-5). Harvest 

19 policies and management frameworks for these fisheries that may be specific to that tributary population 

20 were not described in the agreement. These policies and management frameworks were instead developed 

21 cooperatively by the States and Indian tribal management entities with primary responsibility in each 

22 tributary. However, fish caught in these tributary fisheries are components of both the Harvest and 

23 Abundance Indicator stocks. For example spring Chinook salmon returning to the Klickitat River are part 

24 of the Upriver spring Chinook salmon Harvest Indicator stock (see Subsection 4.1 for more). So, fish 

25 returning to the tributaries are part of the larger indicator stock aggregates. They are caught in mainstem 

26 fisheries, and, while present in the mainstem Columbia, are subject to the stock specific harvest policies 

27 that constrain the mainstem fisheries. Salmon or steelhead caught during the operation of these tributary 

28 fisheries are included in calculations of total fishery abundance used in this EIS. However, the harvest 

29 sharing of tributary specific stocks of fish would not generally involve all the Parties to a new US v 

30 Oregon agreement. The additional catch on individual populations in tributary fisheries is managed for 

31 and accounted for separately as we describe above, with only certain States and or Indian tribal 

32 management entities involved. For these reasons, the analysis does not include a detailed review of the 
US v Oregon EIS 15 2018 

1 effects of each alternative on the tributary fisheries. 

2 Table 1-5. Treaty Indian tributary fisheries.

Jurisdiction Fishery Description Target species Location

Treaty Indian Little White Salmon/Drano Tributary Spring Chinook, fall

Chinook, and coho 

salmon

Drano Lake, WA

White Salmon River Tributary Spring and fall

Chinook salmon

White Salmon River, WA

Hood River Tributary Spring Chinook salmon Hood River, OR

Klickitat River Tributary Spring Chinook, fall

Chinook, and coho 

salmon

Klickitat River, WA

Deschutes River Tributary Spring and fall

Chinook salmon

Deschutes River, OR

John Day River Tributary Chinook John Day River, OR

Umatilla River Tributary Spring Chinook, fall

Chinook, coho salmon, 

and steelhead

Umatilla River, OR

Walla Walla River Tributary Spring Chinook salmon Walla Walla River, WA

Yakima River Tributary Spring, summer, and 

fall Chinook salmon 

Yakima River, WA

Icicle Creek Tributary Spring Chinook salmon Icicle Creek, WA

3 1.3.1.4. Fisheries with harvest policy set outside the agreement

4 Harvest policies for non-salmonid species and lower Columbia River stocks are not specified in the US v 

5 Oregon agreement and are discussed below.

6 1.3.1.4.1. Non-salmonid species

7 Harvest policies for non-salmonid species are not specified in the existing US v Oregon agreement, nor 

8 would they be in a new management agreement. However, these fisheries are referenced in the agreement 

9 because there is some potential for incidental take of ESA-listed salmonids in those non-salmonid 

10 fisheries and their inclusion represents the commitment of the Parties to responsibly manage these 

11 species. All salmon or steelhead caught in these fisheries as bycatch are included in harvest sharing and 

12 fishery management calculations. A list of these fisheries is provided at the end of this section in 

13 Table 1-6. 
US v Oregon EIS 16 2018 

1 Table 1-6. Fisheries referenced in the agreement but not subject to the harvest policies contained 

2 in the agreement.

Jurisdiction Fishery Description Target species Location 

Non-Treaty Recreational Walleye Walleye Mouth of Columbia (Buoy 10) 

upstream to Highway 395 Bridge 

near Pasco, WA

Recreational sturgeon White Sturgeon Mouth of Columbia (Buoy 10) 

upstream to Highway 395 Bridge 

near Pasco, WA

Commercial sturgeon White Sturgeon Mouth of Columbia (Buoy 10) 

upstream to Bonneville Dam

Recreational Shad American Shad Mouth of Columbia (Buoy 10) 

upstream to Highway 395 Bridge 

near Pasco, WA

Commercial shad 

gillnet 

American Shad Mouth of Columbia (Buoy 10) 

upstream to Bonneville Dam

Commercial shad seine American Shad Mouth of Columbia (Buoy 10) 

upstream to Bonneville Dam

Treaty Indian Zone 6 White Sturgeon, 

Walleye

Bonneville Dam to McNary Dam

Shad Trap Fishery American Shad Bonneville Dam to McNary Dam

Willamette River 

Lamprey

Lamprey Willamette River Falls, OR

3 1.3.1.4.2. Lower Columbia River (LCR) Stocks

4 The 2008-2017 US v Oregon agreement sets harvest policies and provides associated management 

5 frameworks for upriver salmon and steelhead stocks returning to areas above Bonneville Dam. The 

6 agreement does not set policies or provide management frameworks for the lower river stocks that return 

7 to areas and are harvested below Bonneville Dam. These include Lower Columbia River (LCR) Chinook, 

8 coho, chum salmon or steelhead, and Upper Willamette River spring Chinook salmon or steelhead. Each 

9 of these lower river stocks are an ESA-listed species that is managed subject to the terms of applicable 

10 biological opinions and NEPA. 

11 For example, LCR fall Chinook (a subcomponent of LCR Chinook) and LCR coho salmon are managed 

12 using frameworks that apply to all ocean and inriver fisheries below Bonneville Dam (NMFS 2012, 

13 2015). 

14 While the alternatives considered in this EIS focus on harvest policies used for the management of upriver 

15 stocks, the harvest of some of these upriver stocks occur in the lower Columbia River, in the same 

16 geographical area as the harvest of the LCR stocks. This is from the mouth of the Columbia River up to 

17 Bonneville Dam. Fisheries in this area are more consistently constrained due to LCR stocks, but harvest 
US v Oregon EIS 17 2018 

1 policies for these stocks are not set in the US v Oregon agreement and therefore not analyzed in this EIS 

2 because they are separate actions and have been analyzed under separate NEPA and ESA authorizations. 

3 The impacts of catch of upriver stocks in these fisheries are included in this EIS.

4 1.3.2. Hatcheries

5 As mentioned in Subsection 1.1, Background, the existing 2008-2017 US v Oregon agreement 

6 incorporates hatchery programs that produce fish. The agreement describes the number of fish expected to 

7 be released, life-history of release, release location, hatchery rearing facilities, purpose of the program, 

8 entity(s) that manages the program(s), and the responsible funding entity(s). 

9 As these fish are subsequently harvested in the fisheries that fall under the Agreement’s management 

10 framework, the hatcheries are included in the Agreement both as a measure to formalize the parties’ 

11 expectations for production of hatchery fish for harvest above Bonneville Dam and to identify hatchery 

12 programs that are important to the conservation of salmon or steelhead runs above Bonneville Dam. 

13 The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to Inform Columbia River Basin Hatchery Operations 

14 and the Funding of Mitchell Act Hatchery Programs (The Mitchell Act EIS; NMFS 2014b), provides a 

15 detailed analysis of all of the hatchery programs in the Columbia River Basin, many of which are not 

16 included in the Agreement. 

17 The Mitchell Act EIS was developed by NMFS to assess one major source of Federal support for 

18 hatchery operations, Mitchell Act grants, and to guide NMFS’ policy with regard to distributing Mitchell 

19 Act hatchery funding throughout the Columbia River Basin. The Mitchell Act EIS process developed and 

20 analyzed six alternatives, including a preferred alternative, which offered a range of program operation 

21 objectives that focused on balancing: 

22 ● The biological and ecological risks of artificial production; 

23 ● The benefits of the conservation of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead; and

24 ● The harvest benefits to Treaty and non-treaty fisheries in the Columbia River Basin and in ocean 

25 fisheries. 

26 The hatcheries augment fisheries by increasing certain stock abundances, including both ESA-listed and 

27 non-listed stocks. Certain fisheries would be able to continue without hatchery production, because these 

28 fisheries target non-listed stocks of relatively healthy natural-origin fish. In the absence of hatcheries, 

29 these fisheries would operate at different levels based solely on the abundance of natural-origin fish. 

30 NMFS finalized the EIS in September of 2014 and issued a Record of Decision (ROD), for the Mitchell 

31 Act EIS in January of 2017. 
US v Oregon EIS 18 2018 

1 (http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/hatcheries/mitchell_act/ma_programs.html).

2 While the purpose and need for the Mitchell Act EIS was different than for this action, the analysis of the 

3 effects of Columbia River basin hatchery production, including analysis of the relevant resources in this 

4 EIS, can fully inform NMFS of the likely impacts of the hatchery production referenced in this 

5 management agreement. Thus, as described herein, the Mitchell Act EIS analysis of hatchery effects will 

6 be incorporated by reference into this EIS.

7 1.4. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

8 The purpose and need for the Proposed Action is three-fold: (1) to meet the Federal government’s tribal 

9 treaty rights and trust and fiduciary responsibilities; (2) to support fishing opportunities to the states of 

10 Oregon, Washington, and Idaho; and (3) to work collaboratively with co-managers to protect and 

11 conserve ESA-listed and non-listed species.

12 The Services have an obligation to administer the provisions of the ESA and to protect ESA-listed 

13 species. They also have a Federal trust responsibility to the treaty Indian tribes, as well as a duty to 

14 support the fishing rights reserved in their treaties as defined by the Federal courts. Thus, the Services 

15 seek to harmonize the effects of fishery programs with the provision for tribal harvest. Because of the 

16 Federal government’s trust responsibility to the tribes, the Services are committed to considering the 

17 tribal co-managers’ judgment and expertise regarding conservation of trust resources.

18 The intent of the US v Oregon Management Agreement is to provide a framework within which the 

19 Parties may exercise their sovereign powers in a coordinated and systematic manner in order to protect, 

20 rebuild, and enhance upper Columbia River fish runs while providing harvests for both treaty Indian and 

21 non-treaty fisheries. The primary goals of the Parties are to rebuild weak runs to full productivity and 

22 fairly share the harvest of upper river runs between treaty Indian and non-treaty fisheries in the ocean and 

23 Columbia River Basin. 

24 1.5. Public Involvement 

25 1.5.1. Scoping: Notice of Intent

26 Public scoping was officially initiated with the Notice of Intent to prepare a draft EIS (NOI) which was 

27 published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 43187). This NOI announced a 30-day 

28 public comment period (July 1, 2016 to August 1, 2016) to gather information on the scope of the issues 

29 and the range of alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS. 
US v Oregon EIS 19 2018 

1 1.5.1.1. Written Comments

2 Fifteen comment letters and emails were received during the public scoping period announced in the NOI, 

3 including four letters from governmental agencies, seven letters from non-governmental organizations 

4 and businesses, and four letters and emails from individual citizens. The letters all originated in 

5 Washington and Oregon, except for one from Idaho and one from Montana. 

6 Issues raised in public comments responding to the NOI fell into four main categories: 

7 ● Concern for ESA-listed species and including recovery plans in the analysis

8 ● Incorporation of hatchery and hydroelectric impacts in the analysis 

9 ● Ecosystem impacts such as marine derived nutrients and climate change

10 ● Environmental justice, economics, and tribal rights 

11 1.5.2. DEIS: Notice of Availability 

12 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published for public review and comment on June 

13 23, 2017. The comment period was open for an initial 45-days (82 Fed. Reg. 28656, June 23, 2017) 

14 ending on August 7, 2017. Due to several requests from the public, the comment period was extended by 

15 an additional 14 days to close on August 21, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 35200, July 28, 2017). 

16 This public process resulted in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) receiving 15 comment 

17 letters that were used to inform, shape, and improve this final EIS. See Appendix C for specific responses 

18 to comments and copies of the comment letters received. 

19 1.6. Other Applicable Laws, Plans, and Policies

20 This EIS is being prepared under NEPA. However, there are other laws, plans, and policies that are 

21 applicable to the Proposed Action. These are described below.

22 1.6.1. US v Oregon

23 In 1855, representatives of the United States government negotiated separate treaties with each of the 

24 Columbia River Treaty Tribes. During treaty negotiations, the tribes sought to retain the right to continue 

25 their fishing practices as a primary objective. Each treaty contained a substantially identical provision 

26 reserving to the tribes the right take “fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with citizens of 

27 the United States.”

28 By the late 1800s, state officials sought to regulate tribal members’ fishing at their usual and accustomed 

29 fishing places. Litigation regarding the validity of state regulation occurred in both Federal and state 

30 courts throughout much of the early to mid-twentieth century. In 1969, a Federal district court ruled in 

31 Sohappy v. Smith/United States v. Oregon that the treaty language guaranteed an absolute right to a fair
US v Oregon EIS 20 2018 

1 share of the upriver Columbia River fish runs. The federal courts, both in US v. Oregon and the 

2 companion case US v. Washington, which interpreted identical treaty language in the treaties made with 

3 Puget Sound tribes, further defined the “fair share” as the right to take up to 50 percent of the harvestable 

4 fish that are destined to pass through the tribes’ usual and accustomed fishing grounds. The treaty right is 

5 subject to regulation by the states only to the extent necessary for conservation of the fish, using the least 

6 restrictive regulations necessary, and without discriminating against the Indians. See Puyallup Tribe v. 

7 Dep't of Game of Wash., 391 U.S. 392 (1968); Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Or. 1969). 

8 In the early years of US v. Oregon, harvest seasons were the subject of litigation and year-to-year court 

9 rulings. Since that time, the state and tribal Parties to US v Oregon, at the urging the Federal District 

10 Court, have entered into negotiated agreements on allocation and management of upriver salmon runs. 

11 The Parties have reached several agreements to meet this goal. In reaching agreement, the Parties have 

12 used the 50 percent treaty share as a measure of the Treaty right for a fair allocation of fish. This has 

13 served as a starting point for negotiating allocation, however, the Parties can agree to deviations from the 

14 50 percent division in order to accommodate complex management concerns in the Columbia River. See, 

15 for example, United States v. Oregon, 718 F.2d 299, 302 (9th Cir. 1983); United States v. Oregon, 913 

16 F.2d 576, 585 (9th Cir. 1990). 

17 In 1988, the Columbia River Fish Management Plan (CRFMP) was agreed to by the Parties and adopted 

18 by District Court Order as a partial settlement of US v Oregon. The court noted that the CRFMP was a 

19 delicate, but effective structure for allocating and planning harvest activities. The purpose of the CRFMP, 

20 after 20 years of legal tests and negotiations, as defined upon adoption by the court in 1988 and agreed to 

21 by the Parties, was to: 

22 “provide a framework within which the Parties may exercise their sovereign powers in a 

23 coordinated and systematic manner in order to protect, rebuild, and enhance upper 

24 Columbia River fish runs while providing harvests for both treaty Indian and non-Indian 

25 fisheries. 

26 In order to achieve the goals of the CRFMP, the Parties intend to use habitat protection 

27 authorities, enhancement efforts, artificial production techniques, and harvest 

28 management to ensure that Columbia River fish runs continue to provide a broad range of 

29 benefits in perpetuity.” 

30 Fisheries in the Columbia River Basin were managed subject to provisions of the CRFMP from 1988 

31 through 1998. Following 1998, fisheries were managed subject to provisions of a series of short term 
US v Oregon EIS 21 2018 

1 agreements among the Parties, the durations of which ranged from several months, covering a single 

2 fishing season, to five years. 

3 In a 1995 court settlement, the Parties agreed to discuss the possibility of amending the CRFMP and, in 

4 1996, negotiated three-year (1996 through 1998) management agreements for upper Columbia fall 

5 Chinook and upper Columbia spring Chinook, summer Chinook, and sockeye salmon. These management 

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

7 measures and harvest allocations. Annual agreements were implemented for fall Chinook and coho

8 salmon, and summer steelhead during the period 1999 to 2003. A 5-year agreement for harvest was 

9 reached for spring Chinook, summer Chinook, and sockeye salmon for the period 2001 through 2005. 

10 In 2005, the Parties negotiated a 3-year (2005 through 2007) Interim Management Agreement (2005 

11 Agreement). Unlike some previous agreements, the 2005 Agreement was a year-long agreement, applying 

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

13 provisions were the result of ongoing negotiations in US v Oregon and the evolution and development of 

14 fishery management in response to ESA-listings of Pacific salmon species. The 2005 Agreement 

15 expanded the use of abundance-based harvest schedules and served as the model for the current 2008 

16 Agreement. Negotiations for these agreements have been under the continuous supervision of the Federal 

17 court with jurisdiction over US v Oregon and the management agreements have been submitted to the 

18 court for approval. 

19 Management provision of the current agreement, implemented in 2008, are, in most respects, similar to 

20 those in the 2005 Agreement, and further expanded the application of abundance-based harvest rate 

21 schedules to fall Chinook salmon and steelhead fisheries. The use of abundance-based harvest rate 

22 schedules allows harvest rates to rise and fall in response to overall stock status, which the fixed harvest 

23 rate that was previously used for managing these stocks does not. 

24 1.6.2. Endangered Species Act (ESA)

25 Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies ensure that any action authorized, funded, or 

26 carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species 

27 or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. In addition, 

28 Section 7(a)(3) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies consult with the Services on any action 

29 authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency that may affect a species listed under the ESA or their 

30 designated critical habitat. When a consultation results in a biological opinion that concludes that the 

31 action is likely to affect an ESA-listed species, but not cause jeopardy (i.e., appreciably reduce the 
US v Oregon EIS 22 2018 

1 likelihood of survival and recovery of ESA-listed species), the Services issue an incidental take statement 

2 that details the amount and extent of anticipated incidental take (e.g., death, injury, harm, or harassment) 

3 that will be caused by the Proposed Action and any additional terms or conditions that must be met. 

4 Incidental Take Statements provide an exemption from ESA Section 9 prohibitions on such take. 

5 Columbia River fisheries likely to be implemented as a result of reaching a new management agreement 

6 would affect fish species that are listed under the ESA. The Parties recognize that the Services have an 

7 obligation to consult under Section 7 of the ESA on the fishery proposals that are to be contained in the 

8 new management agreement prior to signing. Therefore, NMFS, which is the lead agency responsible for 

9 administering the ESA as it relates to anadromous fish species (e.g., ESA-listed salmon, steelhead, green 

10 sturgeon, and eulachon) and marine mammals, and FWS, which is the lead agency responsible for 

11 administering the ESA as it relates to non-anadromous fish species, terrestrial species, birds, and plants, 

12 will use the information developed in this EIS to inform their consultations. The Services will be able to 

13 sign the new management agreement after completing their ESA analyses.

14 The Mitchell Act EIS, incorporated herein by reference, provides additional information on the Services’ 

15 roles under the ESA (NMFS 2014b) (Section 1.1.2). 

16 1.6.2.1. Definition of “species” under the ESA

17 The ESA allows listing of distinct population segments (DPS) of vertebrates, as well as named species 

18 and subspecies. However, the Act provides no specific guidance for determining what constitutes a DPS, 

19 and the resulting ambiguity led to the use of a variety of approaches for considering vertebrate 

20 populations. To clarify the issue for Pacific salmon, NMFS published a policy describing how the agency 

21 would apply the definition of "species" in the ESA to anadromous salmonid species (56 Fed. Reg. 58612, 

22 November 20, 1991). NMFS’ policy stipulated that a salmon population (or group of populations) would 

23 be considered “distinct” for purposes of the ESA if it represents an evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) 

24 of the biological species. An ESU is defined as a population that 1) is substantially reproductively isolated 

25 from conspecific populations and 2) represents an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the 

26 species (Waples 1991). 

27 In 1996, the Services adopted a joint policy for recognizing DPS under the ESA (61 Fed. Reg. 4722, 

28 February 7, 1996). This policy recognized NMFS’ use of ESU as consistent with the intent of the ESA; 

29 therefore, for Pacific salmon (i.e., Chinook, chum, coho, sockeye, and pink salmon), the term ESU 

30 remains in use. For other species, including steelhead, the term DPS is used, with the following two 

31 criteria: 1) the group must be discrete from other populations, i.e., markedly separated from other 
US v Oregon EIS 23 2018 

1 populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral 

2 factors, and 2) it must be significant to its taxon. As a result of this policy, the reader will see both terms, 

3 ESU and DPS, used in this EIS, as appropriate. 

4 1.6.3. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)

5 The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 (16 USC 1361) as amended, establishes a national 

6 policy designated to protect and conserve wild marine mammals and their habitats. This policy was 

7 established so as not to diminish such species or populations beyond the point at which they cease to be a 

8 significant functioning element in the ecosystem, nor to diminish such species below their optimum 

9 sustainable population. All marine mammals are protected under the MMPA.

10 The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the take of marine mammals in United States waters and 

11 by United States citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal 

12 products into the United States. The term “take,” as defined by the MMPA, means to “harass, hunt, 

13 capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.” The MMPA further 

14 defines harassment as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a 

15 marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal 

16 or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing a disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 

17 limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering but which does not have the 

18 potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.”

19 NMFS is responsible for reviewing Federal actions for compliance with the MMPA. Fisheries can 

20 indirectly affect marine mammals by altering the availability of prey, such as salmon and steelhead.

21 1.6.4. Executive Order 12898 

22 The objectives of Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

23 and Low-income Populations, include developing Federal agency implementation strategies, identifying 

24 minority and low-income populations where proposed Federal actions could have disproportionately high 

25 and adverse human health and environmental effects, and encouraging the participation of minority and 

26 low-income populations in the NEPA process.

27 1.6.5. Secretarial Order 3206 

28 Secretarial Order 3206 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities and the 

29 ESA) issued by the Secretaries of the Departments of Interior and Commerce, clarifies the responsibilities 
US v Oregon EIS 24 2018 

1 of the agencies, bureaus, and offices of the Departments when actions taken under the ESA and its 

2 implementing regulations affect, or may affect, Indian lands, tribal trust resources, or the exercise of 

3 American Indian tribal rights as they are defined in the Order. The Secretarial Order acknowledges the 

4 trust responsibility and treaty obligations of the United States toward tribes and tribal members, as well as 

5 its government-to-government relationship when corresponding with tribes. Under the Order, the 

6 Services:

7 will carry out their responsibilities under the [ESA] in a manner that harmonizes the 

8 Federal trust responsibility to tribes, tribal sovereignty, and statutory missions of the 

9 [Services], and that strives to ensure that Indian tribes do not bear a disproportionate 

10 burden for the conservation of listed species, so as to avoid or minimize the potential for 

11 conflict and confrontation (Secretarial Order 3206). 

12 In the event that the Services determine that conservation restrictions directed at a tribal activity are 

13 necessary to protect ESA-listed species, specifically where the activity could result in incidental take 

14 under the ESA, the Services shall provide the affected tribe(s) written notice, including an analysis and 

15 determination that (i) the restriction is reasonable and necessary for conservation of the species; (ii) the 

16 conservation purpose of the restriction cannot be achieved by reasonable regulation of non-Indian 

17 activities; (iii) the measure is the least restrictive alternative available to achieve the required conservation 

18 purpose; (iv) the restriction does not discriminate against Indian activities, either as stated or applied; and 

19 (v) voluntary tribal measures are not adequate to achieve the necessary conservation purpose. 

20 More specifically, the Services shall, among other things, do the following: 

21 ● Work directly with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis to promote healthy 

22 ecosystems (Section 5, Principle 1).

23 ● Recognize that Indian lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands 

24 (Section 5, Principle 2).

25 ● Assist Indian tribes in developing and expanding tribal programs so that healthy ecosystems 

26 are promoted and conservation restrictions are unnecessary (Section 5, Principle 3).

27 ● Be sensitive to Indian culture, religion, and spirituality (Section 5, Principle 4).

28 Additionally, the U.S. Department of Commerce has issued a Departmental Administrative Order (DAO) 

29 addressing Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (DAO 218-8, April 26, 2012; 

30 http://www.osec.doc.gov/opog/dmp/daos/dao218_8.html), which implements relevant Executive Orders, 

31 Presidential Memoranda, and Office of Management and Budget Guidance. The DAO describes actions 
US v Oregon EIS 25 2018 

1 to be “followed by all Department of Commerce operating units ... and outlines the principles governing 

2 Departmental interactions with Indian tribal governments.” The DAO affirms that the “Department works 

3 with Tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning ... tribal trust resources, 

4 tribal treaty, and other rights.” 

5 1.6.6. The Federal Trust Responsibility

6 The United States government has a trust or special relationship with Indian tribes. The unique and 

7 distinctive political relationship between the United States and Indian Tribes is defined by statutes, 

8 executive orders, judicial decisions, and agreements, and differentiates tribes from other entities that deal 

9 with, or are affected by the Federal government. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination 

10 with Indian Tribal Governments, states that the United States has recognized Indian tribes as domestic 

11 dependent nations under its protection. The Federal government has enacted numerous statutes and 

12 promulgated numerous regulations that establish and define a trust relationship with Indian tribes. 

13 The relationship has been compared to one existing under common law trust, with the United States as 

14 trustee, the Indian tribes or individuals as beneficiaries, and the property and natural resources of the 

15 United States as the trust corpus (Newton et al. 2005). The trust responsibility has been interpreted to 

16 require Federal agencies to carry out their activities in a manner that is protective of Indian treaty rights. 

17 This policy is also reflected in the March 30, 1995, document, Department of Commerce –American 

18 Indian and Alaska Native Policy (U. S. Department of Commerce 1995). 

19 1.6.7. Recovery Plans for Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead

20 Federal recovery plans have been developed for the following ESA-listed Columbia River salmon and 

21 steelhead species:

22 ● Upper Columbia spring Chinook salmon and Steelhead (72 Fed. Reg. 57303, October 9, 2007) 

23 ● Snake River sockeye salmon (80 Fed. Reg. 3265, June 8, 2015)

24 ● Snake River fall Chinook salmon (80 Fed. Reg. 67386, November 2, 2015, proposed plan) 

25 ● Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon and steelhead (81 Fed. Reg. 74770, October 27, 

26 2016, proposed plan) 

27 ● Middle Columbia River steelhead (74 Fed. Reg. 50165, September 30, 2009) 

28 ● Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon and steelhead (76 Fed. Reg. 52317, August 22, 2011) 

29 ● Lower Columbia River Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, and 

30 Columbia River chum salmon (78 Fed. Reg. 41911, July 12, 2013)
US v Oregon EIS 26 2018 

1 Broad partnerships of Federal, state, local, and tribal governments and community organizations 

2 collaborated in the development of these recovery plans. The comprehensive recovery plans include 

3 conservation goals and proposed habitat, hatchery, and harvest actions needed to achieve the conservation 

4 goals for each watershed within the geographic boundaries listed species. 

5 1.7. Other Permits and Consultations 

6 This action will require the following permits or consultations: 

7 ● Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

8 Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation 

9 1.8. Related Documents 

10 This EIS should be reviewed in conjunction with the current US v Oregon Management Agreement for 

11 2008 through 2017 and the associated Biological Opinion, which contain more detailed information and 

12 explanations of fishery programs affecting Columbia River resources. Links to online sources of 

13 information used in the EIS are active at the time of publication; however, NMFS cannot guarantee that 

14 they will remain active over time. 

15 Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Commercial and Recreational Salmon 

16 Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, as revised through 

17 Amendment 19 (Effective March 2016). The FMP forms the basis for Pacific salmon ocean 

18 fisheries management by NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council, including harvest, 

19 conservation objectives, consistency with national standards, and essential fish habitat (EFH). It 

20 has been amended 19 times. This document is publicly available via this link: 

21 http://www.pcouncil.org/salmon/fishery-management-plan/current-management-plan/ 

22 Final Environmental Impact Statement to Inform Columbia River Basin Hatchery Operations and 

23 the Funding of Mitchell Act Hatchery Programs (NMFS 2014b). The Mitchell Act EIS 

24 provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the effects of all Columbia River Basin hatchery 

25 programs throughout the basin. This document is publicly available via this link: 

26 http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/nepa/3_state_nepa_documents.html

27 2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement (US v Oregon 2008). This is the existing 

28 agreement; it provides a basis for describing and analyzing the alternatives being analyzed in this 

29 EIS. This document is publicly available via this link: 

30 http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/salmon_steelhead/united_states_v_oregon.html
US v Oregon EIS 27 2018 

1 

2 2. ALTERNATIVES 

3 This chapter describes harvest policy alternatives that were analyzed in detail as well as alternatives that 

4 were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. 

5 At the outset it is useful to distinguish harvest policy from harvest management measures or strategies as 

6 they are used in this EIS. Harvest policies provide a framework designed to inform how to achieve the 

7 appropriate balance between harvest and conservation objectives. Harvest provides the benefits of catch 

8 including those related to treaty rights; conservation seeks to keep healthy stocks healthy and rebuild 

9 weak stocks so that all are sustained and can provide for the ongoing benefits of harvest. Harvest 

10 management measures are the actions or tactics implemented to harvest consistent with the overarching 

11 policy selected.

12 Harvest policies help set the appropriate level of catch consistent with conservation mandates of the US v 

13 Oregon case law and for ESA-listed species. Harvest management measures or strategies are the tools 

14 used to implement a policy. Once a harvest policy is set, there may be important allocation decisions 

15 about who will catch the fish. Where treaty Indian fisheries are involved, for example, the harvest has to 

16 be allocated in a way that assures that treaty rights are met. For treaty Indian and non-treaty fisheries there 

17 are often subsequent decisions about gear type, fishery location, and times. These include a broad array of 

18 measures and strategies used to implement a harvest policy. For example, the non-treaty catch is often 

19 allocated between recreational and commercial fishing interests. Commercial fisheries may use gillnets, 

20 purse seines, beach seines, traps or other gears. Recreational fisheries may operate from shore or boat and 

21 allow the retention of all fish or be selective in some way requiring the release of certain species or 

22 unmarked natural-origin fish. The tribes make their own decisions about commercial and C&S fisheries, 

23 the gear types to use in each, and when and where to open fisheries. The details of these allocation 

24 decisions and underlying harvest management measures and strategies provide an infinite array of 

25 choices. But they are all choices designed to describe how fisheries will be implemented consistent within 

26 boundaries the harvest policy sets for levels of allowable catch. This is fundamental to this analysis. 
US v Oregon EIS 28 2018 

1 These conservation boundaries, defined through a chosen harvest policy, provide the framework to 

2 determine effects to stocks of fish, which then allows us to analyze effects to the environment in general. 

3 A harvest policy choice may lead to zero available harvest on certain stocks of fish, and therefore the 

4 infinite array of choices for underlying management measures and strategies to implement fisheries (e.g., 

5 commercial or recreational choices, gear type choices, fishery location choices, limiting effort to high or 

6 low participation levels, etc.) are entirely immaterial under circumstances where harvest is zero. 

7 Therefore, in this EIS we focus on the harvest policy alternatives and their effects on the environment. 

8 The choice between policies depends on the circumstances for each fishery application. Some policies 

9 depend on the availability of specific kinds of information. For example, abundance based management 

10 requires the availability of pre-season or in-season abundance estimates; an effort based policy does not. 

11 Policy choices for a fishery directed at a single stock near the spawning grounds may be different than a 

12 fishery directed at a mix of many stocks in the ocean or mainstem Columbia River. Harvest policies for 

13 healthy and abundant stocks may be different than for a depressed stock that needs rebuilding. The 

14 purpose of this EIS is to analyze various harvest policy alternatives that could provide a coordinated and 

15 systematic framework among the sovereign Parties to the US v Oregon case, and to guide more specific 

16 harvest measures in the management agreement.

17 2.1. Alternatives Analyzed in Detail

18 As presented in Section 1.3.1 and detailed in Section 4.1, harvest policies are established for each Harvest 

19 Indicator Stock. Harvest Indicator Stocks are called “Management Units” in the US v Oregon

20 management agreement and tend to be aggregates of fish runs larger than the ESA-listed “units” (ESU or 

21 DPS). Abundance Indicator Stocks are equivalent to the ESA-listed “units” (DPS or ESU) affected by 

22 implementing fisheries that adhere to harvest policies specified in the agreement. Harvest Indicator Stocks 

23 may include one or more Abundance Indicator Stocks. The numbers presented in the sections that follow 

24 are based on actual observed rates of harvest and should be viewed as approximations and examples of an 

25 approach. They are not recommendations for the specific biological criteria that should be used for 

26 implementing harvest policies and the related management frameworks. Nonetheless, they are used here 

27 to evaluate the relative effects of each alternative.

28 Where forecasts of fish abundance are necessary to implement an alternative, the Parties rely on the 

29 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) established by the US v Oregon agreement, to develop, analyze, 

30 and review data pertinent to the harvest management framework (e.g., annual forecasts, abundance 

31 estimates, catch estimates, etc.). Members are required to be qualified fisheries scientists familiar with 
US v Oregon EIS 29 2018 

1 harvest management of Columbia River fish runs. 

2 The US v Oregon agreement also establishes a regulatory coordination committee with a designee from 

3 each party to provide enforcement regulations. The Parties agree that the Columbia River Treaty Tribes 

4 bear primary responsibility for enforcing agreed-upon regulations applicable to Treaty fisheries subject to 

5 the agreement and that the States bear the similar responsibility for the non-treaty fisheries.

6 2.1.1. Alternative 1—Extension of current agreement (Preferred Alternative) 

7 Under this alternative, the Federal parties would sign a new agreement, wherein the policy is to continue 

8 to manage fisheries in the Columbia River for the next 10 years consistent with the terms of the 2008–

9 2017 agreement, and the NMFS and FWS would issue an ITS exempting take of listed species associated 

10 with implementing the terms of a new agreement pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. This is not “no 

11 action” in the NEPA sense, because Federal action is required (signing of a new agreement) to extend the 

12 status quo harvest policies. As described in the previous section, the choice of harvest policies depend on 

13 the stock and fishery. Also, as described in Section 1.6.1 the harvest policies in the 2008-2017 agreement 

14 have been under consideration and refinement since 1988. We anticipate a new agreement would use a 

15 blend of harvest policies, including applications of abundance-based management, escapement-based 

16 management, and harvest rate management. While these management approaches are summarized in this 

17 section, Sections 2.1.2 through 2.1.4 and Section 4.1 provide additional background and examples.

18 This blend of harvest policies under this alternative applies to each harvest indicator stock as summarized 

19 below: 

20 ● Upriver spring Chinook salmon – The natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook and 

21 natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon abundance indicators are both part of the Upriver 

22 Spring Chinook salmon harvest indicator. Abundance-based management for Upriver spring 

23 Chinook salmon ensures fisheries are restricted when fish returns are low, but offers greater 

24 harvest levels when abundance is high. Upriver fall Chinook salmon and Snake River steelhead

25 are also managed under an abundance-based framework.

26 ● Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon – As this harvest indicator stock has no ESA-listed 

27 subcomponents, separate forecasts for the component populations are not used. Within this 

28 context, therefore, an aggregate escapement goal is most appropriate for this stock. Coupled with 

29 the escapement goal is an abundance based framework for harvest sharing purposes. 

30 ● Upriver sockeye salmon – The abundance indicator is Snake River sockeye, an ESA-listed ESU. 

31 Snake River sockeye salmon is a subcomponent of the Upriver sockeye salmon harvest indicator. 

32 Regardless of any increases in Upriver sockeye salmon, Snake River sockeye salmon require a 
US v Oregon EIS 30 2018 

1 strong conservation focus. Therefore, a fixed harvest rate policy is more appropriate for this stock 

2 until the abundance levels for Snake River sockeye salmon increase.

3 These policies recognize that upriver stocks have varying conservation requirements, with some 

4 providing abundant opportunity for harvest, and others requiring more protection from harvest encounters 

5 at this time. The resulting fisheries are implemented using a complex set of harvest measures and near 

6 continuous pre-season, in-season, and postseason monitoring and analysis to ensure that the goals of this 

7 policy are being achieved. 

8 2.1.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management 

9 Under this alternative, the Federal parties would sign a new agreement with the other parties, and 

10 salmonid fisheries in the Columbia River affecting upriver stocks would all be managed using abundance11 based management frameworks, and the NMFS and FWS would issue an ITS exempting take of listed 

12 species associated with implementing the terms of a new agreement pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. 

13 Abundance based management establishes harvest levels based on the status of the fish stock(s) affected 

14 by the fishery. The purpose is to provide more protection when the abundance of a given stock is low and 

15 the conservation need greatest, and more harvest opportunity when abundance is high. This is done by 

16 setting catch limit tiers, for example, allowing a high catch tier when stock abundance is high, and a mid17 level catch tier when stock abundance is average, and a low catch limit tier when stock abundance is low. 

18 This model provides a management framework that recognizes the inherent year-to-year variability of 

19 salmonid stocks. Abundance based management plans provide the basis for managing many fisheries. For 

20 example, ocean fisheries for Chinook salmon off Alaska and Canada are managed year-to-year under the 

21 Pacific Salmon Treaty using measures of the overall abundance of Chinook salmon in each fishery. This 

22 type of policy tends not to be very aggressive towards a stock as it requires a large forecast of fish before 

23 allowing a large level of harvest to occur. In the current US v Oregon agreement, abundance-based 

24 frameworks are used to manage Upriver spring Chinook salmon, Upriver fall Chinook salmon, and Snake 

25 River steelhead. Abundance-based management requires the availability of preseason forecasts and/or 

26 updated in-season run size information. Catch needs to be actively monitored in-season so that fisheries 

27 can be adjusted to meet the year-specific harvest rate target. This alternative would be responsive to inter28 annual variations in the abundance of Columbia River salmonid stocks.

29 2.1.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate 

30 Under this alternative, the Federal parties would sign a new agreement with the other parties, and 

31 salmonid fisheries in the Columbia River affecting upriver stocks would be managed under fixed harvest 

32 rate management frameworks that would apply a fixed harvest rate to each fishery regardless of 
US v Oregon EIS 31 2018 

1 abundance, and the NMFS and FWS would issue an ITS exempting take of listed species associated with 

2 implementing the terms of a new agreement pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. Harvest rate refers to the 

3 ratio of fishery related mortality for a group of fish over its abundance in a defined period of time. For 

4 example, if a fixed harvest rate was set at 25 percent and a stock’s estimated total run size in a given year 

5 consisted of 100,000 fish, then up to 25,000 could be harvested in that year. In the following year, if the 

6 stock’s run size went to 200,000 fish then up to 50,000 could be harvested. Similarly, if the total run size 

7 fell to 50,000, then only 12,500 would be available. 

8 Fixed harvest rate policies require the availability of preseason forecasts and/or updated in-season run size 

9 information. Catch needs to be actively monitored in-season so that fisheries can be adjusted to meet the 

10 fixed harvest rate target. This approach sometimes used for managing weak stocks by setting a low fixed 

11 harvest rate designed to protect the stock while providing access to more abundant co-mingled healthy 

12 stocks. Fixed harvest rate policies are also used sometimes to manage healthy stocks when there is a good 

13 understanding about the productivity of the stock and the rate of harvest that can be sustained over the 

14 long term. The allowable catch under a fixed harvest rate policy will vary from year-to-year with 

15 abundance, but tends to be more stable than under either the abundance-based or escapement-based 

16 harvest policy alternatives. 

17 Under the current agreement, Upriver sockeye salmon is an example of a weak stock managed using what 

18 is in effect a fixed harvest rate of 8 percent. 

19 2.1.4. Alternative 4—Escapement-based Management 

20 Under this alternative, the Federal parties would sign a new agreement with the other parties, and 

21 salmonid fisheries in the Columbia River affecting upriver stocks would be managed under escapement22 based management frameworks, and the NMFS and FWS would issue an ITS exempting take of listed 

23 species associated with implementing the terms of a new agreement pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. 

24 Escapement refers to the number of fish surviving (escaping from) a given fishery at the end of the fishing 

25 season and reaching a specified location where the fish can be enumerated. In some applications, 

26 escapement goals are population specific and designed to provide a specific number of fish to the 

27 spawning ground. If fisheries are going to be actively managed for an escapement goal, it requires a 

28 population specific forecast and the ability to track the catch through the fisheries that affect the 

29 population. In other cases, escapement goals are stock specific where the stocks are an aggregate of two 

30 or more populations. Stock based management goals are often used when we don’t have separate 

31 forecasts for the component populations and can track the stock, but not the populations, through the 

32 fisheries. Snake River steelhead and Upriver spring Chinook salmon are stocks in this context. 
US v Oregon EIS 32 2018 

1 Escapement-based management is responsive to inter-annual variations in salmon abundance and allows 

2 fishery managers to set appropriate spawning goals for conservation. Escapement-based management can 

3 result in more year-to-year variability in harvest opportunity. The resulting harvest rates can be quite high 

4 when the run size is large relative to an escapement goal. Conversely, when the run size is low relative to 

5 an escapement goal, harvest opportunity can be very low or even reduced to zero. In cases where the 

6 projected run size is below the escapement goal, escapement goal harvest policies are sometimes coupled 

7 with a de minimis level of harvest opportunity to meet minimal needs for tribal fisheries and limited 

8 access to other harvestable stocks.

9 2.1.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishery curtailment

10 Under this alternative, the Federal parties would sign a management agreement in which the sovereign 

11 parties voluntarily curtail harvest activities for an extended period of time, and the NMFS and FWS 

12 would issue an ITS exempting take of listed species associated with implementing the terms of a new 

13 agreement pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. This alternative may include some very limited treaty fishing 

14 opportunity to meet base ceremonial needs of the tribes. The circumstances in which the state and tribal 

15 parties may adopt a voluntary extreme harvest curtailment policy would likely be where they determine 

16 that in the context of other mortality factors acting on the stocks across their life-cycle (e.g. prior fishery 

17 interceptions; hydrosystem operations; critically low emigration; extreme environmental impacts in ocean 

18 or spawning/rearing areas), that adding adult harvest mortality would further reduce escapement levels to 

19 the point that continued viability of upriver stocks is at imminent risk. This alternative expresses a 

20 conservation policy that even harvest actions with measures designed to target stocks with harvestable 

21 surplus must be curtailed to avoid unintentional encounters with critically weak stocks that may be 

22 interspersed with strong stocks. This voluntary extreme conservation harvest curtailment alternative does 

23 not meet the purpose and need for the action insofar as it does not provide for meaningful tribal harvest as 

24 guaranteed by Treaty and it provides no opportunity for non-treaty harvest.

25 NEPA requires that an EIS provide a benchmark that enables decision makers to compare the magnitude 

26 of environmental effects of the alternatives. This benchmark is often found in the “no action” alternative. 

27 For this EIS, “Alternative 5 – Voluntary Fishery curtailment” provides this benchmark in that it 

28 represents the alternative with the lowest fishing harvest, even though, in this case, it does not meet the 

29 purpose and need for the Proposed Action as described in Subsection 1.4. 

30 2.1.6. Alternative 6—No Action—Uncoordinated Harvest 

31 Under this alternative, the existing agreement would expire without the Services signing a new agreement 

32 with the other parties. The Services, in this case, would not issue an ITS. This could occur if the state and 
US v Oregon EIS 33 2018 

1 tribal parties failed to reach a new agreement to coordinate their harvest activities in which the Services 

2 could join. Alternatively, this alternative may be adopted if the state and tribal parties did reach an 

3 agreement, but the Services did not concur and were unable to sign. In either case, it is uncertain what 

4 would transpire. Under this alternative, it is anticipated that the state and tribal parties would implement 

5 harvest independently according to their own uncoordinated interpretation of the prior rulings of the 

6 District Court of Oregon in US v Oregon since 1969, and the interpretation of their own legal authorities 

7 and harvest objectives for their constituent harvest groups. The result could be uncoordinated harvest as 

8 the sovereign managers implement fisheries absent a broad underlying agreement. 

9 As noted above, the Services may choose not to sign if the state and tribal parties do reach a management 

10 agreement but it does not meet the requirements of Federal parties to act in accord with other legal 

11 requirements such as the ESA or the Federal trust responsibility.

12 Under the most foreseeable circumstances under which the Federal parties would not sign a new 

13 management agreement, actual harvest is tremendously uncertain. Theoretically, state and or tribal parties 

14 may decide that in the absence of support of the Federal parties, they would choose to curtail harvest 

15 entirely. See Alternative 5 for the analysis of that result. It is more likely, however, that the parties could 

16 each choose to implement harvest activities as they interpret the District Court’s rulings in US v Oregon, 

17 with the result that the level of harvest would be very high, constrained primarily by the fishing effort that 

18 could be deployed. In this latter case it is reasonable to expect that the harvest rate on each upriver stock 

19 would meet and likely exceed the highest historic harvest rates observed.

20 Our assumption under this alternative is that the state and tribal parties would revert to the escapement21 based management policies that were once implemented in the past. For purposes of analysis of this no 

22 action-uncoordinated harvest alternative, and to contrast the likely result from the other alternatives, it is 

23 assumed that actual harvest rates would be similar to the annual highest harvest rates observed in 

24 Alternative 4. Every fish that exceeds a static number of fish set as the escapement goal will be 

25 considered harvestable. This approach does not associate harvest with annual run size variations that 

26 stocks may exhibit. For example, an escapement goal of 3,000 fish allows for a harvest of 97,000 fish on 

27 a run size of 100,000 or a harvest of 27,000 fish on a run size of 30,000. No additional fish escape 

28 fisheries when run sizes fluctuate; instead harvest is maximized on the most abundant stock aggregate. 

29 NEPA requires a ‘No Action Alternative’ in the full range of analyzed alternatives even though, in this 

30 case, it does not meet the purpose and need for the Proposed Action as described in Section 1.4.
US v Oregon EIS 34 2018 

1 2.1.7. Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail

2 The following additional alternatives were identified during scoping and were considered, but not 

3 analyzed in detail. 

4 Fixed Effort Management Alternative 

5 Under this alternative, the Services would sign a new agreement with the other parties, and salmonid 

6 fisheries in the Columbia River that affect upriver stocks would be managed under fixed effort 

7 management frameworks. Fixed effort management would establish a constant metric of effort for each 

8 fishery. This could be number of fishing days, number of angler days, fishing hours for a net fishery, etc. 

9 Fixed effort management is useful when there is no preseason forecast of abundance. A fixed effort 

10 fishery is relatively simple to implement requiring only that effort and catch be measured. This alternative 

11 would not be actively responsive to changes in abundance. For fisheries managed under the US v Oregon

12 agreement, there are preseason forecasts for all of the stocks of interest. The fixed effort strategy is 

13 designed to catch a constant fraction of the return and is therefore an indirect way of achieving a fixed 

14 harvest rate. The effects are therefore likely to be very similar to the fixed harvest rate alternative. For 

15 these reasons, this alternative was not analyzed in further detail.
US v Oregon EIS 35 2018 

1 

2 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3 3.1. Introduction

4 The Proposed Action is to sign a management agreement that establishes harvest policies and defines 

5 management frameworks for fisheries in the Columbia River and issue an ITS pursuant to Section 7 of the 

6 ESA. The Proposed Action would not change measures or strategies that are used to implement harvest 

7 policy, as discussed in Section 2, all of which are established by the states and the Indian tribes. Harvest 

8 policies are designed to respond to changes in the status of fish stocks, which are influenced by 

9 environmental conditions including those that could be driven by climate change. 

10 The Proposed Action is therefore limited in scope—it would not affect all environmental components of 

11 the Columbia River Basin. The Proposed Action would not include any form of construction or 

12 demolition to bridges, dams, hydroelectric facilities, or other related infrastructure. No effects are 

13 expected on the physical environment, habitat, ecosystem component species, or environmental resources 

14 such as air quality, water quality (other than marine-derived nutrients), or sedimentation. No effects are 

15 expected on river transportation, river navigation, or historical properties (Section 106 of the National 

16 Historic Preservation Act). The choice of signing the agreement setting harvest policies and adopting 

17 cumulative hatchery programs and issuing an ITS does not affect these resources. Implementing fishing 

18 regulations (e.g., boats with active fishing gear) may affect these resources, but as discussed in Section 2, 

19 and reiterated above, fishing strategies or harvest management measures are state and tribal decisions 

20 with no federal involvement.

21 In this Section, status quo conditions are described for resources that may be affected by the Proposed 

22 Action: fish, marine-derived nutrients, wildlife, economics, cultural resources, and environmental justice. 

23 These resources were identified during scoping, including the 15 comments received on the NOI. 

24 As described in Section 1, Subsection 1.1 and Subsection 1.3.2, NMFS is utilizing the existing Mitchell 

25 Act EIS (NMFS 2014b), and the analysis contained therein, to inform the hatchery related effects on the 
US v Oregon EIS 36 2018 

1 harvest management alternatives. As such, under each resource discussed in this Chapter, NMFS has 

2 included in this section, a summary of the hatchery effects, as analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS to the 

3 resources contained in this draft EIS. These include: Fish, Water Quality, Wildlife, and Environmental 

4 Justice. This information, presented in this section, includes the expected status quo hatchery effects, 

5 relative to the reference period used in the Mitchell Act EIS, which was the Columbia River basin-wide 

6 hatchery production in the year 2010, which included the hatchery production levels established within 

7 the previous (2008-2017) US v Oregon management agreement.

8 3.2. Fish

9 This section describes status quo conditions for fish species that may be affected by the proposed action, 

10 either through harvest or because of a predator/prey relationship with species that would be harvested. 

11 Further information on fish in the Columbia River Basin is presented in Section 3.2 of the Mitchell Act 

12 EIS, which is incorporated herein by reference. 

13 3.2.1. Salmonids

14 This section provides information on salmonid species (i.e., fish taxonomically classified in the family 

15 Salmonidae) affected by the Proposed Action. 

16 Table 3-1 summarizes all ESA-listed salmonids in the project area.

17 Several ESA-listed salmonids are inadvertently affected by fisheries under US v Oregon, but they do not 

18 drive fishery management targeting upriver stocks, and are not addressed in the agreement (refer to 

19 Subsection 1.3.1.4.2, Lower Columbia River (LCR) Stocks).

20 Table 3-1. ESA-listed salmonid fish species located in the project area in the Columbia River

21 Basin.

Species ESA-listed DPS or ESU ESA Status Reference

Chinook salmon Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU Endangered 79 Fed. Reg. 20802, 

April 14, 2014

Chinook salmon Snake River spring/summer-run ESU Threatened 79 Fed. Reg. 20802, 

April 14, 2014

Chinook salmon Snake River fall-run ESU Threatened 79 Fed. Reg. 20802, 

April 14, 2014

Chinook salmon Upper Willamette River ESU Threatened 79 Fed. Reg. 20802, 

April 14, 2014

Chinook salmon Lower Columbia River ESU Threatened 79 Fed. Reg. 20802, 

April 14, 2014

Chum salmon Columbia River ESU Threatened 79 Fed. Reg. 20802, 

April 14, 2014
US v Oregon EIS 37 2018 

Coho salmon Lower Columbia River natural ESU Threatened 79 Fed. Reg. 20802, 

April 14, 2014

Sockeye salmon Snake River ESU Endangered 79 Fed. Reg. 20802, 

April 14, 2014

Steelhead Lower Columbia River DPS Threatened 79 Fed. Reg. 20802, 

April 14, 2014

Steelhead Upper Willamette River DPS Threatened 79 Fed. Reg. 20802, 

April 14, 2014

Steelhead Mid-Columbia River DPS Threatened 79 Fed. Reg. 20802, 

April 14, 2014

Steelhead Upper Columbia River DPS Threatened 79 Fed. Reg. 20802, 

April 14, 2014

Steelhead Snake River Basin DPS Threatened 79 Fed. Reg. 20802, 

April 14, 2014

1 Salmonids in the Columbia River Basin that would be affected by the Proposed Action include four 

2 species of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus sp.), and steelhead. These species are:

3 ● Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

4 ● Sockeye salmon (O. nerka) 

5 ● Steelhead (O. mykiss) 

6 ● Coho salmon (O. kisutch) 

7 As a group, salmonids are diverse in their biology, exhibiting a range of life history and reproductive 

8 strategies, which has given rise to a unique lexicon used in salmon management. Terms that are used in 

9 this EIS to describe each species include descriptors of the migratory patterns of salmonids and the 

10 reproductive types. There are two basic migratory patterns, or life history types, of salmonids: 

11 anadromous and nonanadromous. Anadromous fish hatch from eggs in freshwater, then migrate to the 

12 ocean, while undergoing the physiological process of smoltification, to grow and mature, and then return 

13 to freshwater as adults to spawn. Nonanadromous fish remain in freshwater throughout their life cycle. 

14 Pacific salmon (e.g., Chinook salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, and steelhead) are largely 

15 anadromous, although there are nonanadromous forms (e.g., nonanadromous sockeye are called kokanee, 

16 and nonanadromous steelhead are called rainbow or redband trout). Reproductively, salmonids are either 

17 semelparous—reproducing once before dying, or iteroparous—capable of reproducing multiple times. 

18 Most Pacific salmon are semelparous; however, steelhead are iteroparous. Additional life history terms 

19 are applied to individual species, and will be introduced in that context.

20 In Subsection 1.6.2.1, we introduced the terms ESU and DPS, which comprise one or more populations as 

21 a “species” under the ESA. A population of fish is a group of the same biological species that spawns in a 

22 particular lake or stream (or portion thereof) at a particular season and which, to a substantial degree, does 
US v Oregon EIS 38 2018 

1 not interbreed with fish from any other group spawning in a different place or in the same place at a 

2 different season (McElhany et al. 2000). In fishery management, the term stock is commonly used to 

3 describe one or more populations that are managed collectively and are exposed to similar fishery 

4 pressure; in some cases, a stock may correspond to a single population. The ESA terms ESU and DPS 

5 comprise one or more populations, but may not be exactly identical to a stock, as the key feature of an 

6 ESU or DPS is reproductive isolation from other conspecific groups. Salmon fisheries affected by the 

7 Proposed Action generally manage for large stock groupings, as stocks, and their component populations, 

8 overlap temporally and spatially during their upstream migrations. 

9 In Subsection 1.3.1, we introduced the concept that fisheries target particular groups of fish, referred to as 

10 “stocks”. The US v Oregon agreement establishes harvest management policies for fisheries in the project 

11 area directed at upriver salmon and steelhead stocks. Here we will more thoroughly explain what Harvest 

12 Indicator Stocks and Abundance Indicator Stocks are so that status quo conditions for affected salmonid 

13 resources are described in the management units used by past US v Oregon management agreements. In 

14 order to compare the relative effect of past harvest on the resources listed in this Chapter, we must also 

15 establish specific defined metrics to use as common currency. These defined metrics are used to provide a 

16 quantitative assessment of past harvest effects to resources impacted by the proposed action. The modeled 

17 outputs for these defined metrics may change under the six alternatives for each of the Harvest Indicator 

18 Stocks and Abundance Indicator Stocks relative to status quo conditions. Changes will be presented later 

19 in Chapter 4 where we will detail how the defined metrics conceptually equally apply quantitative 

20 outcomes across each alternative. These defined metrics are listed in Table 3-2. 

21 Table 3-2. Defined metrics for all alternatives.

Defined metrics for all alternatives:

Escapement for each of the Harvest Indicator Stocks at defined locations

Escapement for each of the Abundance Indicator Stocks at defined locations

Treaty harvest for Abundance and Harvest Indicator Stocks, by fishery or location

Non-treaty harvest for Abundance and Harvest Indicator Stocks, by fishery or location 

Treaty HR for each Abundance Indicator Stock

Non-treaty HR for each Abundance Indicator Stock

22 Harvest Indicator Stocks are the “Management Units” of the US v Oregon Fisheries and tend to be 

23 aggregate of fish runs larger than the ESA-listed “units” (ESU or DPS). Each Harvest Indicator Stock is 

24 currently managed under a given harvest policy, such as abundance-based management, fixed harvest rate 

25 management, or fixed escapement goal management, or a combination of these. The current harvest 

26 policy type (under the 2008-2017 management agreement) for each Harvest Indicator Stock is shown in 

27 Table 3-3. 
US v Oregon EIS 39 2018 

1 Table 3-3. Harvest Indicator Stocks and current harvest policy types. 

Harvest Indicator Stocks Current Harvest Policy Type

Upriver spring Chinook salmon Abundance Based Management

Upriversummer Chinook salmon Mixed-Abundance Based Management 

/Escapement Goal

Upriver sockeye salmon Fixed harvest rate

Upriver fall Chinook salmon Abundance Based Management

Snake River B-Index steelhead Abundance Based Management

2 Abundance Indicator Stocks are equivalent to the ESA-listed “units” (DPS or ESU) affected by US v 

3 Oregon fisheries. Harvest Indicator Stocks may include one or more Abundance Indicator Stocks. For 

4 example, natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon and natural-origin UCR spring 

5 Chinook salmon are part of the Upriver spring Chinook salmon Harvest Indicator Stock. Snake River 

6 sockeye salmon is part of the Upriver sockeye salmon Harvest Indicator Stock. Natural-origin Snake 

7 River Fall Chinook salmon is part of the Upriver fall Chinook salmon Harvest Indicator Stock, and 

8 natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead is part of the Snake River B-Index steelhead Harvest 

9 Indicator Stock. Table 3-4 lists the Abundance Indicator Stocks along with the location where escapement 

10 counts occur and the current harvest rate limits.

11 Table 3-4. Abundance Indicator Stocks and locations where escapement counts occur. 

Abundance Indicator Stocks Location Current HR 

Limits 1 

Natural-origin Snake River

spring/summer Chinook salmon Lower Granite Dam 5.5 - 17% 

Natural-origin UCR spring Chinook 

salmon Priest Rapids Dam 5.5 - 17% 

Snake River sockeye salmon Lower Granite Dam 6 - 8%

Natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook 

salmon Lower Granite Dam 21.5 - 45% 

Natural-origin B-Index steelhead Lower Granite Dam 21.5 - 45%

1 12 These harvest rate limits are imposed by the current Management Agreement and associated Biological Opinion (NMFS

13 2008b). Observed harvest rates, meaning those recorded as actually happening, are reported in Section 3 relative to these limits. 

14 Harvest Rate limits are the total allowable amount of a species or stock that may be taken during a period of time.

15 The following status quo descriptions for defined metrics for the Harvest Indicator Stocks and Abundance 

16 Indicator Stocks include estimates of escapement past fisheries, the number of fish harvested, and harvest 

17 rates (proportion of the total “Stock” that was harvested or killed by fisheries).
US v Oregon EIS 40 2018 

1 Hatchery Effects to Salmon and Steelhead

2 As described in detail in Section 3.2.3.1, General Risks and Benefits of Hatchery programs to Salmon and 

3 Steelhead Species, in the Mitchell Act EIS (NMFS 2014b), hatchery salmon and steelhead programs can 

4 have beneficial effects to these species but also pose risks. Those beneficial effects include potential 

5 increases to abundance by increasing populations and helping maintain at-risk populations threatened by 

6 extirpation, to productivity by providing nutrients and improving spawning gravel conditions, and to 

7 spatial structure by expanding spatial distribution. Additionally, hatcheries can pose risks to natural-origin 

8 salmon and steelhead populations in the form of effects to abundance and productivity through 

9 competition, predation, disease and harvest. Interbreeding of hatchery and natural-origin fish can 

10 negatively affect genetic diversity and productivity, by interfering with the natural forces that strengthen 

11 the population genetics and by introducing maladaptive genetic changes. The presence of hatchery fish 

12 can lead to impacts to natural-origin populations from competition for resources such as food and 

13 spawning sites, and to predation by hatchery fish on natural-origin fish. Finally, hatchery facilities have 

14 impacts that result from the operation of weirs and other structures that can disrupt migrations, water 

15 intakes that risk entrainment and impingement, removal of water from the stream, discharge of effluent 

16 into streams, and impacts to river flows that interfere with migration and spawning.

17 3.2.1.1. Chinook Salmon 

18 Chinook salmon are the largest of the Pacific salmon and are known by many names, most commonly 

19 king salmon or Chinook salmon. We use the name Chinook salmon in this EIS. Chinook salmon have an 

20 anadromous life history (although, nonanadromous males and landlocked populations do occur) and are 

21 semelparous. Age at maturity is highly variable among populations, but most Chinook salmon on the 

22 West Coast spawn at 3, 4, or 5 years of age. Chinook salmon are classified into two races: stream-type 

23 and ocean-type. These races have several ecological differences, but the most basic difference is how long 

24 the juveniles spend in the freshwater habitat prior to migrating to the ocean; stream-type outmigrate as 

25 yearlings, whereas ocean-type outmigrate much younger and may spend substantial time in the estuarine 

26 environment. In the Columbia River Basin, Chinook salmon occurring west of the Cascade Crest are 

27 ocean-type (Myers et al. 1998). Chinook salmon occurring east of the Cascade Crest include both stream28 type and ocean-type races, with stream-type limited to the Snake River Basin (Myers et al. 1998). 

29 Chinook salmon stocks are often described as seasonal “runs.” In the Columbia River Basin, there are 

30 spring-run, summer-run, and fall-run Chinook salmon stocks. The run refers to the time of year they 

31 return to freshwater to start their spawning migration, but does not mean that all Chinook salmon of a 

32 seasonal run are closely related; for example, lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon and Snake River

33 fall Chinook salmon are not closely related, despite both being “fall-run” Chinook salmon. Some fall-run 
US v Oregon EIS 41 2018 

1 Chinook salmon below Bonneville Dam are called “tules” and are distinguished by their dark skin 

2 coloration and advanced state of maturation at the time of freshwater entry (Myers et al. 1998). Other 

3 Chinook salmon stocks that return to freshwater in an immature condition are called “brights,” these 

4 include a late fall run of Chinook salmon from the Lewis and Sandy River, as well as Chinook salmon 

5 from higher in the Columbia River Basin that are termed upriver brights (Myers et al. 1998). 

6 NMFS has identified eight Chinook salmon ESUs in the Columbia River Basin (Myers et al. 1998): 

7 ● Upper Columbia River spring-run—ESA-listed (See Table 3-1) 

8 ● Snake River spring/summer-run—ESA-listed (See Table 3-1) 

9 ● Middle Columbia River spring-run 

10 ● Upper Columbia River summer-run 

11 ● Deschutes River summer/fall-run 

12 ● Snake River fall-run—ESA-listed (See Table 3-1) 

13 ● Upper Willamette River—ESA-listed (See Table 3-1) 

14 ● Lower Columbia River—ESA-listed (See Table 3-1) 

15 Upper Willamette and LCR Chinook salmon are lower river stocks and not subject of the US v Oregon

16 agreement (refer back to Subsection 1.3.1.4.2, Lower Columbia River (LCR) Stocks). All of the others 

17 are upriver stocks that are the subject of the US v Oregon agreement. The Upper Columbia River spring18 run stock is the known limiting stock during winter/spring fisheries, which limits all catch during this 

19 season (Subsection 4.1.1 provides further details on the limiting stock concept). 

20 Status quo conditions for the natural-origin Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon, natural-origin 

21 Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon, and natural22 origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon are presented in the following tables. These conditions represent 

23 the observed minimum, maximum and average values for the river mouth run size, total harvest rate, 

24 escapement past fisheries, and escapement to a counting point such as Rock Island Dam, Priest Rapids 

25 Dam, or Lower Granite Dam over the last 12 years (2005 to 2016). Total harvest rate is the ratio of fish 

26 taken in all US v Oregon fisheries divided by river mouth run size. The difference between escapement 

27 past fisheries and the escapement goal at a specific counting point represent fish loses due to natural 

28 mortality or turnoff to mainstem tributaries, and mortality associated with hydro operations, illegal 

29 fishing, and habitat degradation. Below we summarize information from 2005 to 2016. The current 

30 management framework was in place during that time.
US v Oregon EIS 42 2018 

1 Table 3-5. Status quo conditions for natural-origin Upper Columbia River spring Chinook 

2 salmon. 

UCR spring Chinook 

River Mouth Total Harvest Rate Esc. Past Fisheries

Rock Island Dam 

Run

min. 1,374 9.2% 1,248 1,101

max. 5,032 13.4% 4,360 3,846

ave. 3,003 11.8% 2,650 2,338

3 Table 3-6. Status quo conditions for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon. 

Snake River

spring/summer 

Chinook River Mouth

Total Harvest Rate Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Lower Granite 

Run

min. 12,017 9.2% 10,913 8,360

max. 44,014 13.4% 38,115 29,199

ave. 26,269 11.8% 23,171 17,751

4 Table 3-7. Status quo conditions for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon. 

Upper Columbia

summer Chinook 

River Mouth

Total Harvest Rate Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Priest Rapids 

Dam Run

min. 37,000 21.6% 29,000 30,644

max. 134,000 62.7% 50,000 80,288

ave. 74,417 52.5% 35,375 58,047

5 Table 3-8. Status quo conditions for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon. 

Snake River fall 

Chinook River 

Mouth

Total Harvest 

Rate

Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Expected 

Granite Run

Size

min. 5,808 25.9% 4,305 3,228

max. 40,916 43.9% 22,960 17,216

ave. 19,804 41.0% 11,334 8,499

6 3.2.1.2. Coho salmon 

7 Coho salmon are also commonly known as silver salmon; we use the name coho in this EIS. Coho are 

8 anadromous, with a fixed life history, and semelparous. Coho south of Alaska are three years old at 

9 maturity, spending half of that time in the freshwater environment prior to smolting (Weitkamp et al. 

10 1995). Historically, coho salmon distribution likely extended to the upper Columbia River and the Snake 

11 River Basin (Weitkamp et al. 1995); however, at present, natural populations are limited to the lower 

12 Columbia River, from Hood River westward (Weitkamp et al. 1995). 

13 Coho stocks exhibit early- or late- run timing. Early coho salmon spawn in the upper reaches of larger 
US v Oregon EIS 43 2018 

1 rivers in the lower Columbia River. Late coho salmon generally spawn in smaller rivers or the lower 

2 reaches of larger rivers. Late-run fish also undertake oceanic migrations to the north of the Columbia 

3 River, extending as far as northern British Columbia and southeast Alaska. As a result, late coho salmon 

4 are known as “Type N” coho. LCR coho, a lower river stock (refer to Subsection 1.3.1.4.2, Lower 

5 Columbia River (LCR) Stocks), are the only ESA-listed ESU of coho in the Columbia Basin (Table 3-1). 

6 Coho found upstream of The Dalles Dam are not ESA-listed.

7 Although coho salmon in the upper Columbia River and its tributaries were extirpated, reintroduction 

8 programs conducted in the Clearwater, Wenatchee, Methow, and Yakima River Basins are resulting in 

9 coho returning to those rivers. Reintroduction programs are having some success. The number of adult 

10 coho salmon crossing Bonneville Dam in the last ten years (2007-2016) has averaged 119,674 

11 (www.fpc.org fish passage query). In additional to the reintroduction programs, there are also coho 

12 salmon harvest programs, as identified in table B7 of the US v Oregon management agreement. 

13 Harvest policy for the management of upriver coho has not been set in the prior US v Oregon agreements 

14 except to specify limitations to insure 50/50, treaty/non-treaty sharing of the catch. This is expected to 

15 continue under a new US v Oregon agreement as the success of reintroduction programs in the previously 

16 mentioned basins are evaluated and possibly expanded to other areas. Apart from the 50/50 sharing 

17 provisions, fisheries for upriver coho salmon are not actively managed, but are instead limited by the 

18 incidental catch of other species, particularly steelhead and fall Chinook salmon. 

19 While the coho salmon hatchery production above Bonneville Dam does not affect a defined ESU or 

20 ESUs of coho salmon, it still has benefits to the rebuilding natural coho salmon populations (listed and 

21 unlisted) as well as benefits and risks to other salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs. As described above, 

22 these programs can provide benefits to the abundance, productivity, and spatial structure of coho salmon, 

23 as well as providing benefits to other species of salmonids through marine derived nutrients from the 

24 adult carcasses, cleaning and transport of spawning gravels, and as a prey base for other salmonids. They 

25 also, however present risks to these other species in the form of ecological interactions, including 

26 competition for scarce resources and direct and/or indirect predation. Additionally, the hatchery facilities 

27 where these programs are reared and released pose risks associated with delaying or blocking migration 

28 of adult and juvenile fish, as well as risks from water withdrawal and effluent discharge. As explained in 

29 Subsection 1.3.2 and Subsection 3.1, above, NMFS is incorporating the analysis of effects from the 

30 Mitchell Act EIS to disclose the likely impacts from the hatchery programs referenced in the management 

31 agreement. This description of effects from the Mitchell Act EIS summarizes the past effects of ongoing 

32 hatchery operations, which are a part of the affected environment. The effects of continued hatchery 
US v Oregon EIS 44 2018 

1 production associated with a new US v Oregon management agreement are discussed in Section 4. 

2 3.2.1.3. Sockeye salmon

3 Sockeye salmon are also called blueback and red salmon, we use the name sockeye salmon in this EIS. 

4 The Columbia River Basin is the southern extent of the species on the West Coast (Gustafson et al. 1997). 

5 Sockeye salmon have anadromous and nonanadromous life history types; this EIS will only discuss the 

6 anadromous form, as no nonanadromous sockeye salmon populations are affected by the Proposed 

7 Action. There are three anadromous forms of sockeye salmon: lake-type, river-type, and sea-type 

8 (Gustafson et al. 1997). Sockeye salmon in the Columbia River Basin are lake-type, they spawn in either 

9 inlet or outlet streams of lakes or in lakes themselves, juveniles rear in the lake for one to three years 

10 before smolting and migrating to the marine environment for 1 to 4 years, adults generally return to their 

11 natal lake system to spawn. 

12 NMFS’ status reviews for sockeye salmon (Waples et al 1991; Gustafson et al. 1997) identified the 

13 following extant ESUs sockeye salmon in the Columbia River Basin:

14 ● Non-ESA-listed Sockeye salmon ESUs

15 ○ Okanogan River ESU. Okanogan sockeye salmon are currently the most abundant 

16 sockeye salmon stock in the Columbia River Basin, estimated return in 2014 was 523,700 

17 fish (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/salmon/sockeye/columbia_river.html). Most Okanogan 

18 sockeye salmon rear in Osoyoos Lake, which spans the U.S./Canada border; production 

19 of Okanogan sockeye salmon occurs largely in British Columbia.

20 ○ Lake Wenatchee ESU. For the 10-year period 2003 to 2012, Lake Wenatchee sockeye 

21 salmon returns averaged 27,000 fish, and estimated return in 2014 was 118,500 

22 (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/salmon/sockeye/columbia_river.html). These sockeye 

23 salmon spawn and rear in and above Lake Wenatchee, a natural lake on the Wenatchee 

24 River in Washington State.

25 ● ESA-listed Sockeye salmon ESUs (See Table 3-1) 

26 ○ Snake River ESU. ESA-listed Endangered. These sockeye salmon utilize Redfish Lake in 

27 Idaho; the lake is in the Salmon River Subbasin of the Snake River. This ESU includes 

28 naturally spawned anadromous and residual sockeye salmon originating from the Snake 

29 River Basin, and also sockeye salmon from one artificial propagation program: Redfish 

30 Lake Captive Broodstock Program.

31 Status quo information for Upriver sockeye salmon and Snake River sockeye salmon is provided in tables 

32 3-9 and 3-10. These conditions represent the minimum, maximum and average values for the river mouth 
US v Oregon EIS 45 2018 

1 run size, total harvest rate observed, escapement past fisheries, and escapement to Lower Granite Dam

2 from 2005 to 2016 when the current management framework was in place. 

3 Table 3-9. Status quo conditions for Upriver sockeye salmon. 

River Mouth 

Run Size

Total Harvest Total Harvest Rate Escapement Past 

Fisheries

min. 27,000 1,620 6.0% 25,380

max. 648,000 51,840 8% 596,160

ave. 277,833 22,120 8% 255,713

4 Table 3-10. Status quo conditions for Snake River sockeye salmon. 

Snake River Sockeye 

Run Size

Total Harvest

Rate Esc. Past Fisheries Lower Granite Run Size

min. 124 6.0% 117 97

max. 2,977 8.0% 2,738 2,286

ave. 1,276 7.7% 1,175 981

5 Some sockeye salmon reintroduction programs have been established in areas where the species has been 

6 extirpated. A reintroduction program began in 2007 to restore sockeye salmon to the Deschutes River in 

7 Oregon (ODFW News Release http://www.dfw.state.or.us/news/2012/September/092812d.asp), where 

8 sockeye salmon historically reared in Suttle Lake. In Washington, the Yakama Nation initiated a 

9 reintroduction program in 2009 for the Cle Elum River (a tributary to the Yakima River); sockeye salmon 

10 historically reared in Cle Elum Lake (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/salmon/sockeye/columbia_river.html).

11 The sockeye salmon hatchery program contained in the agreement is a conservation program associated 

12 with the endangered, Snake River sockeye salmon ESU. This program is operated for the conservation of 

13 this species, which has incurred abundance and spatial structure benefits from the program. Additionally, 

14 and early in the development of the program, the hatchery program acted as protection from extinction, 

15 conserving valuable genetic diversity and artificially boosting the productivity of the captive population. 

16 As explained in Subsection 1.3.2 and Subsection 3.1, above, NMFS is incorporating the analysis of 

17 effects from the Mitchell Act EIS to disclose the likely impacts from the hatchery programs referenced in 

18 the agreement. This description of effects from the Mitchell Act EIS summarizes the past effects of 

19 ongoing hatchery operations, which are a part of the affected environment. The effects of continued 

20 hatchery production associated with a new US v Oregon management agreement are discussed in 

21 Section 4. 
US v Oregon EIS 46 2018 

1 3.2.1.4. Steelhead

2 The name steelhead has a complex history; we use the name steelhead in this EIS to refer to anadromous 

3 populations of the biological species Oncorhynchus mykiss. Steelhead are anadromous, although 

4 individual fish may residualize and remain nonanadromous, and have the capacity for iteroparity. 

5 Iteroparous steelhead are predominately female (Busby et al. 1996); males tend to be semelparous. 

6 Juvenile steelhead can spend between one and seven years in fresh water prior to smolting, and then 

7 spend up to three years in the ocean before their first spawning migration (Busby et al. 1996). Most 

8 steelhead in the Columbia River Basin spend two years in freshwater and two years in the ocean; some 

9 populations east of the Cascade Crest have only one ocean year (Busby et al. 1996). 

10 Steelhead have two reproductive ecotypes: ocean-maturing and stream-maturing (Busby et al. 1996). On 

11 the West Coast, these correspond to winter steelhead and summer steelhead, respectively. Ocean12 maturing winter steelhead enter fresh water in a sexually mature condition and spawn shortly thereafter; 

13 stream-maturing summer steelhead enter fresh water in a sexually immature condition, and can spend 

14 several months in fresh water prior to spawning (Busby et al. 1996). Both of these ecotypes occur in the 

15 Columbia River Basin.

16 Steelhead, and their nonanadromous kin, have two major genetic groupings that are significant enough to 

17 be considered subspecies by some authors: coastal steelhead and rainbow trout (O. m. irideus), and inland 

18 steelhead and redband trout (O. m. gairdneri). Both subspecies occur in the Columbia River Basin. The 

19 coastal grouping occurs as far upstream as the Hood River in Oregon and the Wind River in Washington. 

20 The inland grouping occurs upstream of those rivers. Coastal steelhead can be winter or summer steelhead; 

21 inland steelhead are almost exclusively summer steelhead, i.e., stream-maturing (Busby et al. 1996).

22 Inland steelhead of the Columbia River Basin, especially in the Snake River, are commonly referred to as 

23 either A-Index or B-Index. These designations are based on the observation of a bimodal migration of 

24 adult steelhead at Bonneville Dam (Columbia River river kilometer (RKm) 235) and differences in age 

25 (1- versus 2-ocean) and adult size observed among Snake River steelhead (Busby et al. 1996). A-Index 

26 steelhead have generally spent one year in the ocean and are smaller than their B-Index counterparts, 

27 which spend two years in the ocean. Under the US v Oregon agreement, B-Index index steelhead are 

28 defined as any steelhead measuring at least 78 cm fork length and passing Bonneville Dam between July 

29 1 and October 31. A-Index steelhead are believed to occur throughout the steelhead-bearing streams of 

30 the Snake River Basin; additionally, inland Columbia River steelhead outside of the Snake River Basin 

31 are also considered A-Index. B-Index steelhead are thought to be produced only in the Clearwater, Middle 

32 Fork Salmon, and South Fork Salmon Rivers. (Busby et al. 1996). 
US v Oregon EIS 47 2018 

1 NMFS has identified six DPSs for steelhead in the Columbia River Basin (Busby et al. 1996); all but one 

2 are ESA-listed:

3 ● Non-ESA-listed steelhead DPSs

4 ● Southwest Washington. Not ESA-listed. Includes populations in the Columbia River 

5 below the Cowlitz River in Washington and below the Willamette River in Oregon. 

6 ● ESA-listed steelhead DPSs (See Table 3-1) 

7 ● Lower Columbia River. ESA-listed threatened, includes naturally spawned steelhead 

8 originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from rivers between the 

9 Cowlitz and Wind Rivers (inclusive) and the Willamette and Hood Rivers (inclusive); 

10 excludes such fish originating from the upper Willamette River basin above Willamette 

11 Falls. This DPS includes steelhead from seven artificial propagation programs.

12 ● Upper Willamette River. ESA-listed threatened, includes naturally spawned anadromous 

13 winter-run steelhead originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from 

14 the Willamette River and its tributaries upstream of Willamette Falls to and including the 

15 Calapooia River.

16 ● Mid-Columbia River. ESA-listed threatened, includes naturally spawned steelhead 

17 originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from the Columbia River and 

18 its tributaries upstream of the Wind and Hood Rivers (exclusive) to and including the 

19 Yakima River; excludes such fish originating from the Snake River Basin. This DPS does 

20 include steelhead from seven artificial propagation programs. 

21 ● Upper Columbia River. ESA-listed threatened, includes naturally spawned steelhead 

22 originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from the Columbia River and 

23 its tributaries upstream of the Yakima River to the U.S.-Canada border. Also, steelhead 

24 from six artificial propagation programs. 

25 ● Snake River Basin. ESA-listed threatened, includes naturally spawned anadromous 

26 steelhead originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from the Snake 

27 River basin, and also steelhead from six artificial propagation programs. 

28 Status quo information for Snake River B-Index steelhead and natural-origin Snake River B-Index 

29 steelhead is provided in Table 3-11. These conditions represent the minimum, maximum and average 

30 values for the river mouth run size, total harvest rate observed, escapement past fisheries, and escapement 

31 to Lower Granite Dam. We summarize information from 2005 to 2016 when the current management 

32 framework was in place.
US v Oregon EIS 48 2018 

1 Table 3-11. Status quo conditions for natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead

Snake River BIndex

Steelhead Run

Size

Total Harvest 

Rate

Escapement Past 

Fisheries

Expected Lower 

Granite Run

min. 2,420 19.2% 1,954 1,129

max. 19,951 27.8% 14,404 8,325

ave. 10,220 27.1% 7,450 4,306

2 Hatchery production of steelhead in the Snake River basin encompasses both harvest programs and 

3 conservation programs. As described above, conservation programs can benefit the natural populations of 

4 ESA-listed steelhead by increasing the abundance and spatial structure of the extant natural populations. 

5 The programs can also benefit the species by conserving much of the genetic diversity of the natural 

6 populations, by providing marine-derived nutrients, and by improving spawning gravel conditions. 

7 However, as also described above, both the conservation and the harvest programs can present risks to 

8 these natural populations, including: risks to population productivity and genetic diversity through 

9 interbreeding with wild fish at elevated levels; risks from direct and indirect competition and predation; 

10 and physical and ecological risks from the operation of the hatchery facilities where these steelhead 

11 programs are reared and released. As explained in Subsection 1.3.2 and Subsection 3.1, above, NMFS is 

12 incorporating the analysis of effects from the Mitchell Act EIS to disclose the likely impacts from the 

13 hatchery programs referenced in the Agreement. This description of effects summarizes the past effects of 

14 ongoing hatchery operations, which are a part of the affected environment. The effects of continued 

15 hatchery production associated with a new US v Oregon management agreement are discussed in 

16 Section 4. 

17 3.2.2. Other ESA-Listed Fish Species 

18 Other ESA-listed fish species that may be affected by the Proposed Action are listed in the table below. 

19 Table 3-12. ESA-listed non-salmonid fish species that may be affected by the Proposed 

20 Action in the Columbia River Basin.

Species ESA-listed DPS or ESU ESA Status Reference

Bull-trout Columbia River DPS Threatened 63 Fed. Reg. 31647, June 10, 1998 

Green sturgeon Southern DPS Threatened 71 Fed. Reg. 17757, April 7, 2006

Eulachon Southern DPS Threatened 75 Fed. Reg. 13012, March 18, 2010 

21 3.2.3. Other Non-Salmonids (non ESA-listed Fish Species)

22 Non-salmonid (non-ESA-listed Fish species) mentioned in the agreement are listed in Table 1.3.1.3-1 and 

23 include: 
US v Oregon EIS 49 2018 

1 ● White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) 

2 White sturgeon are the largest North American sturgeon. They live in rivers from central California to 

3 southern Alaska and migrate among them via the Pacific Ocean. In the Columbia River they historically 

4 ranged from the ocean up into Idaho, Montana, and Canada. White sturgeon can live for over 100 years, 

5 can be 20 feet long, and can weigh over 1,500 pounds. Their skeleton is largely cartilage and they have 

6 thick skin and bony plates, called scutes, instead of scales. Sturgeon appeared in the fossil record 200 

7 million years ago and have survived to the present relatively unchanged. Female sturgeon spawn at 20-25 

8 years of age (males at about 12 years old), and can produce 300,000-4,000,000 eggs. Of these, less than 

9 0.1% will survive the first year (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). 

10 There are no historic estimates of white sturgeon abundance before the non-Native Americans began to 

11 settle in the Pacific Northwest and the Columbia River hydrosystem was developed. Historically, white 

12 sturgeon ranged freely up and down the Columbia and Snake Rivers (Bajkov 1951) and undertook 

13 extensive seasonal migrations among riverine habitats to take advantage of scattered and seasonally 

14 favorable resources.

15 Construction of dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers from 1931 to 1968 segregated groups of white 

16 sturgeon into a series of functionally discrete populations (North et al. 1993). Development of the 

17 Columbia River Basin hydrosystem created impoundments (reservoirs) throughout the basin, restricting 

18 movements of white sturgeon and two of their principal food sources (eulachon and lamprey). 

19 Development has also degraded or destroyed white sturgeon spawning and rearing habitat. As a result, 

20 many impounded white sturgeon populations are not as productive as they were before non-Native 

21 American settlement of the region and development of the hydrosystem. In some upper Columbia River 

22 Basin reaches, isolated populations may face extirpation or extinction (Beamesderfer et al. 1995, North et 

23 al. 1993, Parsley and Beckman 1994, Parsley et al. 1993). 

24 ● American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) 

25 American shad routinely average large numbers of returns to the Columbia River, and in some years the 

26 number counted at Bonneville Dam is as high as 4-5 million (5.3 million in 2004, and 4.2 million in 2005, 

27 for example). The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated as many 10 million to 20 million adult shad may 

28 enter the Columbia annually — 4,000 metric tons (adults average 2-3 pounds). Shad have migrated past 

29 Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, McNary, and Priest Rapids dams on the Columbia and the four lower 

30 Snake River dams, according to the Survey.

31 Unlike salmon and steelhead, shad are not native to the Columbia. They were introduced to the Pacific 
US v Oregon EIS 50 2018 

1 Coast from the Atlantic coast, first planted 10,000 in the Sacramento River in 1871. Five years later shad 

2 were being captured in the Columbia River and in 1880 the shad invasion was confirmed by fish scientist 

3 David Starr Jordan, who sent a specimen to the Smithsonian Institution where it is preserved to this day. 

4 Like salmon and steelhead, shad are anadromous. Biologically part of the herring family of fish, they 

5 spawn in the mainstem Columbia River primarily above Bonneville Dam between May and July and also 

6 in the Willamette River of Oregon. Shad go to the ocean as adults, returning to spawn when they are three 

7 to five years of age. The run peaks in June. Unlike salmon and steelhead, shad spawn in open water rather 

8 than laying eggs on gravel. Also unlike salmon, shad can make the round trip to the ocean several times 

9 and spawn additional generations. 

10 Shad spawn prolifically, produce large numbers of smolts, and return as adults in such volume that they 

11 are fished both commercially and for sport. There is no daily limit on Columbia River shad in either 

12 Washington or Oregon. Shad are caught in the lower Snake River, but that is about as far inland as they 

13 go. The bulk of the annual run spawns downstream from McNary Dam. 

14 ● Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) 

15 Lampreys, jawless fishes of the family Petromyzontidae, are among the oldest existing vertebrates, having 

16 changed little since emerging about 530 million years ago (Dawkins 2004). The Pacific lamprey 

17 Entosphenus tridentatus (formerly Lampetra tridentata) is an anadromous species native to the north 

18 Pacific Rim (Scott and Crossman 1973) including the Columbia River Basin. Pacific lamprey are an 

19 important food source for marine mammal, avian, and fish predators, and may act as a predation buffer 

20 for Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus species juveniles. Moreover, they are a source of marine-derived 

21 nutrients in the upper tributaries of the Columbia and Snake rivers (Close et al. 1995). Pacific lamprey 

22 may also be a key indicator of ecological health of the Columbia River Basin. Importantly, Pacific 

23 lamprey serve a role in the culture of many Native American tribes (Close et al. 2002).

24 Despite their persistence through time, lamprey are now believed to be declining throughout much of their 

25 distribution (e.g., see Renaud 1997). Pacific lamprey along the west coast of North America have recently 

26 experienced declines and regional extirpations (Beamish and Northcote 1989; Kostow 2002; Moser and 

27 Close 2003). These declines parallel those of Pacific salmonids, perhaps because the two groups share 

28 widely sympatric distributions (Scott and Crossman 1973; Simpson and Wallace 1978; Moyle 2002) and 

29 similar anadromous life histories (McDowall 2001; Quinn and Myers 2004). Causes for the decline in the 

30 Columbia River Basin may include construction and operation of dams for hydropower, flood control, 

31 and irrigation, habitat degradation, poor water quality, proliferation of exotic species, the relative 
US v Oregon EIS 51 2018 

1 abundance of host species in the marine environment (Murauskas et al. 2013), and direct eradication 

2 actions.

3 Numerous management and research actions have been recommended to help restore Pacific lamprey in 

4 the Columbia River Basin (Nez Perce, Umatilla, Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes 2008; Columbia 

5 Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority 2008). These actions include improving adult and juvenile passage at 

6 known and suspected obstacles, restoring degraded habitat and water quality, and implementing 

7 reintroduction methods. 

8 ● Walleye (Sander vitreus) 

9 Walleye are an exotic species introduced into Lake Roosevelt in the upper Columbia River during the 

10 1940s and 1950s. Walleye are not native to Washington fish, and exactly how they originally entered the 

11 state is unknown. The first verification of a walleye in Washington was in 1962, from Banks Lake in 

12 eastern Washington. Soon afterwards, populations began to show up in Lake Roosevelt (connected to 

13 Banks Lake through a huge pipe and pump). Since then they have spread from these original sites to the 

14 remainder of the mainstem Columbia River, from near the mouth to the Canadian border and throughout 

15 reservoirs in the Columbia River Basin.

16 Walleye continued to advance to other waters in the Columbia River Basin by using canals as frontier 

17 highways. They have established populations in Lake Billy Clapp, Moses Lake, Potholes Reservoir, Long 

18 Lake, Crescent Lake, Soda Lake and Scooteney Reservoir. They have thrived in reservoir environments 

19 and are a primary gamefish species. Young walleye are typically found in littoral (nearshore) areas 

20 associated with woody debris. Adults are most commonly found in pelagic (open water) areas during 

21 daylight hours and near the mouths of embayments and tributaries at night where they come to feed 

22 (Peone et al. 1990).

23 Hatchery Effects to Other Fish Species

24 Hatchery salmon and steelhead may act to enhance, artificially, existing pathways of prey, predator, and 

25 competition between the hatchery-reared species and other species, including: bull trout, eulachon, shad, 

26 lamprey, and walleye. 

27 Bull trout feed primarily on fish (referred to as piscivorous) as subadults and adults, they can be 

28 substantial predators of young salmon and steelhead. Eulachon are important in the food chain as a prey 

29 species of salmon and steelhead. Newly hatched and juvenile eulachon are food for a variety of larger 

30 marine fish species, including salmon and steelhead. Shad are a non-indigenous species of anadromous 
US v Oregon EIS 52 2018 

1 fish, in the Columbia River, that provide both a prey-base for some juvenile salmonids (Chinook salmon) 

2 but also may compete with salmon and steelhead for prey in the freshwater environment. Lamprey prey 

3 on a variety of fish and marine mammals (whales), including salmon, which are an important food source 

4 for lamprey. Walleye, a non-indigenous warm water fish is known to prey on seaward migrating salmon 

5 and steelhead juveniles.

6 3.3. Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients

7 As detailed in the Mitchell Act EIS (Subsection 3.6.3.1, Water Quality Parameters) and incorporated 

8 herein, by reference, hatchery facilities can have impacts to in-stream water quality, where they operate. 

9 Hatcheries can produce effluent (discharged water that has been used in the facility) with elevated 

10 temperature, as well as elevated levels of: ammonia, organic nitrogen, total phosphorus, biochemical 

11 oxygen demand (BOD), pH, and solids; as well as levels of chemicals used for disease treatment and 

12 disinfection. Effluent from hatchery facilities rearing 20,000 lbs or more of fish, is regulated under the 

13 federal Clean Water Act (CWA), through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

14 permits, and issued by the states or directly by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Hatcheries 

15 that are in compliance with their NPDES permits (where required), and thus water quality standards, are 

16 considered not to cause or to contribute to a violation of water quality standards. However, the amount 

17 effluent being discharged into receiving waters from hatcheries do contribute to the total pollutant loads 

18 of those receiving waters and downstream waters. The status quo condition of water quality, with regard 

19 to the effects of hatchery production in the Columbia River basin, and including facilities that rear and 

20 release programs included in the proposed action, is consistent with current federal and state regulations. 

21 Anadromous species such as salmon and steelhead are important components of the freshwater 

22 ecosystem, particularly for their role in transporting nutrients upstream from the marine ecosystem, and 

23 possibly as watershed engineers that structure streambed habitats and alter sediment composition during 

24 spawning. 

25 Hatchery produced salmon and steelhead currently provide a significant number of the returning adults to 

26 the Columbia River basin, contributing substantially to the total contribution of marine-derived nutrients. 

27 This EIS incorporates by reference Subsection 3.5.6.5 of the Mitchell Act EIS (NMFS 2014b) which 

28 provides a comprehensive discussion of the role of salmon and steelhead in transporting marine-derived 

29 nutrients.

30 3.4. Wildlife

31 Fisheries have the potential to affect wildlife through interactions from changes in the availability of fish 
US v Oregon EIS 53 2018 

1 as prey. Wildlife that are most likely to be affected by fishing activities are seabirds and marine 

2 mammals. Both of these groups are protected under Federal laws, such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

3 (MBTA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)

4 3.4.1. Seabirds, Raptors, and other Piscivorous Birds

5 Numerous seabird species, as well as raptors, are protected under the MBTA, including several that are 

6 present within the project area. These seabirds include Caspian terns, Double-crested cormorants, and 

7 several species of gulls. Guillemots, murres, and puffins also prey on juvenile salmon, primarily in the 

8 ocean. . These birds feed on out-migrating juvenile salmon. 

9 Predation on juvenile salmon occurs in the Columbia River, as salmon smolts migrate downstream and 

10 into marine waters. Two man‐made islands, East Sand Island and Rice Island were created using dredge 

11 spoils from the Columbia River. The islands have since become occupied by colonies of Caspian terns 

12 and double‐crested cormorants. In 2010 and 2011, an estimated 19.2 million and 20.5 million 

13 (respectively) juvenile salmon were consumed by the double‐crested cormorant colony on East Sand 

14 Island. These numbers are approximately equal to 18 percent of the entire Columbia River out‐migrating 

15 salmon for those years (BRNW 2011). Caspian Terns nesting on East Sand Island and Rice Island also 

16 consume outmigrating salmonids: 8.1 million salmon smolts in 1997 and 12.4 million in 1998. The U.S. 

17 Army Corps of Engineers has implemented culling actions in 2015 and 2016 on double-crested 

18 cormorants in the Columbia River Estuary under MBTA depredation permit issued by the USFWS to 

19 reduce predation impacts on ESA-listed salmonids.

20 Raptors (bald eagles, turkey vultures, osprey), corvids (crows, ravens), and numerous species of gulls 

21 prey on returning adult salmonids, primarily post-spawn adults. 

22 Hatchery produced salmon and steelhead make up the majority of the current, total Columbia River basin 

23 production. As such, avian species that rely on juvenile or adult salmon of steelhead, from the Columbia 

24 River are affected by the level of hatchery production of these species. Status quo conditions for Caspian 

25 terns and bald eagles result from the recent levels of hatchery production, within the Columbia River 

26 basin, as analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS (NMFS 2014b). 

27 3.4.2. Marine Mammals 

28 Fisheries in the lower Columbia River can occur in the presence of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) and 

29 California sea lions (Zalophus californianus). In compliance with the MMPA, NMFS publishes an annual 

30 list of fisheries that classifies fisheries by the level of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals 

31 that occurs incidental to each fishery. NMFS has determined that salmon troll fisheries and Columbia 
US v Oregon EIS 54 2018 

1 River net fisheries for salmon and eulachon have little to no known impact on marine mammals (82 Fed. 

2 Reg. 3655, January 12, 2017). 

3 California sea lions have a substantial effect on salmon and steelhead migrating up the Columbia River, 

4 through predation below Bonneville Dam. After non-lethal methods to remove or discourage sea lion 

5 predation were unsuccessful, NMFS authorized, under MMPA Section 120, the states of Washington, 

6 Oregon and Idaho to lethally remove individually identifiable California Sea Lions in the vicinity of 

7 Bonneville Dam that are having a negative impact on the recovery of salmon and steelhead listed under 

8 the ESA. 

9 The Southern Resident Killer Whale DPS (SRKW) is ESA-listed as endangered. SRKW pods have been 

10 sighted off of the West Coast as far south as Monterey, California (SRKW recovery plan, January 2008). 

11 These whales are known to prey upon salmon in the ocean; therefore, SRKW may be affected by the 

12 Proposed Action. 

13 NMFS’ recovery plan for SRKW (2008) singles out decline of Columbia River salmon as possibly the 

14 single greatest change in food availability for SRKW since the late 1800s. Returns during the 1990s 

15 averaged only 550,000 adult salmonids crossing Bonneville Dam, representing a decline of 90 percent or 

16 more from historical levels. With so many fish present back in the 1800s, salmonids returning to the 

17 Columbia River may have been an important part of the diet of SRKW. More recently returning adults 

18 crossing Bonneville Dam has increased, as the 10-year average (2007-2016) of all salmonids crossing 

19 Bonneville Dam is now 1.8 million. 

20 As described in the Mitchell Act EIS, hatchery produced salmon and steelhead currently provide the 

21 majority of the total fish produced from the Columbia River basin. As such, the status quo condition of 

22 marine mammal species that rely on salmon or steelhead, from the Columbia River, are affected by the 

23 level of overall hatchery production of these species, including the programs referenced in the US v 

24 Oregon Agreement. Status quo conditions for SRKW, resulting, in part, from recent levels hatchery 

25 Chinook salmon production from the Columbia River basin are described in Section 3.5.3.1.1, of the 

26 Mitchell Act EIS, and incorporated herein by reference. The conditions for marine mammals, resulting 

27 from the hatchery production included in this Agreement, would likely result in a small increase in overall 

28 Chinook salmon. However, this increase would likely not be discernable from the natural variability of 

29 adult Chinook salmon abundance in the ocean (NMFS 2014b). 

30 3.5. Economics 

31 Economic issues addressed in this section include harvest effects related to management strategies,
US v Oregon EIS 55 2018 

1 economic values of fish predicted to be caught in commercial tribal and non-tribal) fisheries, and the 

2 contribution of commercial and recreational fishing activity on local and regional economies in the 

3 Columbia River basin. Additional economic information related to tribal harvests is provided in Section 

4 3.6, Cultural Resources - Ceremonial and Subsistence Harvest. 

5 This economic analysis focuses on commercial and recreational fishing targeting five harvest indicator 

6 stocks that collectively account for more than 80 percent of the total catch of salmon and steelhead in the 

7 mainstem Columbia River. In addition to supporting tribal commercial and non-tribal recreational 

8 fisheries in the mainstem, these stocks also support ceremonial and subsistence tribal fishing. 

9 This section describes status quo conditions for harvest and related economic values for affected 

10 commercial (tribal and non-tribal) and recreational fisheries on the mainstem Columbia River (including 

11 the mainstem Snake River), and the contribution of these fisheries to affected regional economies. For 

12 this economic analysis, indicators of economic conditions evaluated include direct and indirect 

13 employment, ex-vessel values for commercial fisheries, trip-related expenditures by recreational fishers, 

14 and regional economic impacts (jobs and personal income) associated with fishing-related activities.

15 The analysis area for economics includes the project area (Subsection 1.2, Description of Project Area) 

16 and areas outside the project area in which economic activity generated by fishing activities occurs. This 

17 analysis area consists of four subregions of the Columbia River Basin that are used to characterize effects 

18 on commercial harvest and recreational fishing effort:

19 ● Lower Columbia River subregion, where catch assumed to contribute to economic activity in 

20 eight counties (Columbia, Clatsop, and Multnomah Counties in Oregon, and Pacific, Wahkiakum, 

21 Clark, Cowlitz, and Skamania in Washington) that border ODFW mainstem fishing zones 1 

22 through 5 downstream of Bonneville Dam; 

23 ● Mid-Columbia River subregion, where catch assumed to contribute to economic activity in eight 

24 counties (Hood River, Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, and Crook Counties in Oregon, and 

25 Benton and Klickitat Counties in Washington) that border ODFW fishing zone 6 between 

26 Bonneville Dam and McNary Dam; 

27 ● Upper Columbia River subregion, where catch assumed to contribute to economic activity in four 

28 counties (Benton, Kittatas, Franklin and Grant Counties in Washington) that are upstream of 

29 McNary Dam; and 

30 ● Lower Snake River subregion, where catch assumed to contribute to economic activity in five 

31 counties (Walla Walla, Columbus, Garfield, Whitman, and Franklin Counties in Washington) that 

32 are upstream of the confluence with the mainstem Columbia River. 
US v Oregon EIS 56 2018 

1 The counties that comprise these four subregions are identified in Figure 1-1. Although the analysis area 

2 for the economics assessment is defined by the four subregions and the corresponding counties identified 

3 above, it should be noted that implementation of the harvest policy alternatives would be expected to 

4 affect, to a more limited extent, economic activity in other counties in the general region of the analysis 

5 area. This would include, but not be limited to, Umatilla, Jefferson, Deschutes, Wheeler, and Grant 

6 Counties.

7 Communities and ports in the Lower Columbia River subregion that are affected by the commercial, 

8 recreational, and tribal ceremonial and subsistence fisheries in the project area include the ports, cities, 

9 and communities of Portland, Oregon and Cathlamet, Longview and Vancouver, Washington. Rural 

10 communities in the other three subregions that are near to the mainstem are also affected by commercial 

11 (both treaty and non-treaty) and recreational fishing activities for salmon and steelhead activities.

12 It should be noted that values presented in this section are not rounded to aid the reader in finding 

13 corresponding numbers between tables and text. The use of unrounded numbers, however, should not be 

14 interpreted as suggestive of unusually high levels of precision in the estimates. All numbers presented 

15 represent a reasonable estimate of the underlying values. More detailed information on methods and 

16 analyses applied in analyzing the economic resource is presented in Appendix A, Economic Methods. 

17 3.5.1. Affected Fisheries 

18 This subsection provides a description of commercial and recreational salmon and steelhead fisheries in 

19 the Columbia River basin, including numbers of salmon and steelhead harvested and recreational effort. It 

20 should be noted that steelhead are not legal for harvest in non-Tribal commercial fisheries anywhere in 

21 the Columbia River Basin. For historical context, harvest data from 2005 through 2016 are presented in 

22 Subsection 3.2.1, representing the period in which average conditions are developed for this analysis. 

23 3.5.1.1. Commercial (Tribal and Non-tribal) Fisheries 

24 The Columbia River mainstem salmon and steelhead fishery is currently divided into a non-tribal 

25 commercial salmon fishery, which is located downstream of Bonneville Dam, and a tribal commercial 

26 salmon and steelhead fishery, which is located almost entirely upstream of Bonneville Dam. The primary

27 tribal commercial fishery is also called the Zone 6 fishery. The upstream boundary of the Zone 6 fishery 

28 is McNary Dam. 

29 As described in Subsection 1.3.1, Fisheries, commercial fishing in the Columbia River Basin also occurs 

30 in terminal areas, such as SAFE areas and the lower Columbia River; however, as discussed in that same 

31 section the harvesting of lower Columbia River stocks in these areas is managed separately from the US v 

32 Oregon agreement and would not be affected by the harvest policies evaluated in this document. In 
US v Oregon EIS 57 2018 

1 addition to commercial salmon harvesters, processors provide Columbia River basin salmon supply 

2 products to a growing market for wild-caught fish. 

3 For tribal and non-tribal commercial harvests in the Columbia River basin, more salmon are harvested 

4 from the lower and mid-Columbia River subregions than from the other two subregions. Within the lower 

5 Columbia River subregion, the harvest is primarily from non-tribal commercial fisheries. Between 2002 

6 and 2009, the annual harvest in the mainstem of the Lower Columbia River was 56,238 fish (NMFS 

7 2014b). Coho and Chinook salmon account for most of the non-tribal commercial fishing harvest because 

8 steelhead are not commercially harvested by non-tribal commercial fishers. 

9 In the tribal commercial fisheries above Bonneville Dam (Zone 6), the harvest of Chinook salmon 

10 dominates the catch in the mainstem between Bonneville Dam and McNary Dam. The tribal commercial 

11 fisheries in the upper Columbia River are mostly Chinook salmon fisheries.

12 As described in Subsection 3.1, average estimates of salmon and steelhead harvest between 2005 and 

13 2016 were used to characterize status quo harvest conditions for this analysis. Indicator harvest stock14 specific estimates for tribal and non-tribal fisheries are presented in the following tables. Minimum, 

15 maximum, and mean conditions are used to characterize the following status quo conditions. 

16 Table 3-13 identifies average annual harvest conditions over 2005 and 2016 for Upriver Spring Chinook 

17 salmon, including average minimum values, average maximums, and average mean values of harvest, as 

18 measured by number of fish. As shown, all of the tribal commercial harvest is caught in the Zone 6, 

19 although it should be acknowledged that some portion of the total tribal catch reported in Table 3-15 

20 occurs below Bonneville Dam in Zone 5, while all of the non-tribal commercial harvest is caught in 

21 Zones 1 through 5. Tribal harvest for ceremonial and subsistence needs averaged 10,340 spring Chinook 

22 salmon annually over the 12-year period (Table 3-13).

23 Table 3-13. Commercial harvest of Upriver spring Chinook salmon under status quo conditions. 

Tribal Fisheries Zone 1-5 Zone 6

Above Zone 

6 thru I-395 

Bridge

Lower 

Snake 

River

Total 

Commercial 

C&S

Fisheries

min NA 173 NA NA 173 6,191

max NA 23,472 NA NA 23,472 10,548

AVERAGE NA 7,528 NA NA 7,528 10,340

Non-Tribal 

Fisheries Zone 1-5 Zone 6

Above Zone 

6 thru I-395 

Bridge

Lower 

Snake 

River

Total 

Commercial 

Above Z 

6 NT 

Tribal

min 1,448 NA NA NA 1,448 4

max 7,743 NA NA NA 7,743 21

AVERAGE 4,067 NA NA NA 4,067 11
US v Oregon EIS 58 2018 

1 Table 3-14 identifies average annual harvest conditions between 2005 and 2016 for Upper Columbia 

2 summer Chinook salmon, including average minimum values, average maximums, and average mean 

3 values of harvest (number of fish). Similar to Upriver spring Chinook salmon, all of the tribal 

4 commercial harvest is caught in Zone 6, although it should be acknowledged that some portion of the total 

5 tribal catch reported in Table 3-15 occurs below Bonneville Dam in Zone 5. The non-tribal commercial 

6 harvest is caught in both Zones 1 through 5 and above Zone 6. Tribal harvest for ceremonial and 

7 subsistence needs averaged 1,952 fall Chinook salmon annually over the 12-year period. 

8 Table 3-14. Commercial harvest of Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon under status quo 

9 conditions. 

Tribal Fisheries Zone 1-5 Zone 6

Above Zone 

6 thru I-395 

Bridge

Lower 

Snake 

River

Total 

Commercial 

C&S

Fisheries

min NA 3,600 NA NA 3,600 400

max NA 37,800 NA NA 37,800 4,200

AVERAGE NA 17,569 NA NA 17,569 1,952

Non-Tribal 

Fisheries Zone 1-5 Zone 6

Above Zone 

6 thru I-395 

Bridge

Lower 

Snake 

River

Total 

Commercial 

Above Z 

6 NT 

Tribal

min 688 NA NA NA 688 792

max 7,221 NA NA NA 7,221 8,317

AVERAGE 3,356 NA NA NA 3,356 3,866

10 Table 3-15 below identifies average annual harvest conditions between 2005 and 2016 for Upriver fall 

11 Chinook salmon, including average minimum values, average maximums, and average mean values of 

12 harvest (number of fish). Similar to Upriver spring Chinook salmon, all of the tribal commercial harvest 

13 is shown as caught in the Zone 6, although it should be acknowledged that some portion of the total tribal 

14 catch reported in Table 3-15 occurs below Bonneville Dam in Zone 5. All of the non-tribal commercial 

15 harvest is caught in Zones 1 through 5. Tribal harvest for ceremonial and subsistence needs averaged 

16 8,078 fall Chinook salmon annually over the 12-year period.

17 Table 3-16 below identifies average annual harvest conditions between 2005 and 2016 for Upper 

18 Columbia River (UCR) sockeye salmon, including average minimum values, average maximums, and 

19 average mean values of harvest (number of fish).
US v Oregon EIS 59 2018 

1 Table 3-15. Commercial harvest of Upriver fall Chinook salmon under status quo conditions. 

Tribal Fisheries Zone 1-5 Zone 6

Above Zone 

6 thru I-395 

Bridge

Lower 

Snake 

River

Total 

Commercial 

C&S

Fisheries

min NA 42,849 NA NA 42,849 1,848

max NA 393,700 NA NA 393,700 16,980

AVERAGE NA 187,303 NA NA 187,303 8,078

Non-Tribal 

Fisheries Zone 1-5 Zone 6

Above Zone 

6 thru I-395 

Bridge

Lower 

Snake 

River

Total 

Commercial 

Above Z 

6 NT 

Tribal

min 3,657 NA NA NA 3,657 NA

max 96,614 NA NA NA 96,614 NA

AVERAGE 44,870 NA NA NA 44,870 NA

2 Similar to Upriver spring Chinook salmon, all of the tribal commercial harvest is caught in Zone 6, 

3 although it should be acknowledged that some portion of the total tribal catch reported in Table 3-16 

4 occurs below Bonneville Dam in Zone 5. All of the non-tribal commercial harvest is caught in Zones 1-5. 

5 Tribal harvest for ceremonial and subsistence needs averaged 2,902 sockeye salmon annually over the 12-

6 year period. 

7 Table 3-17 below identifies average annual harvest conditions between 2005 and 2016 for Lower Snake 

8 River steelhead, including average minimum values, average maximums, and average mean values of 

9 harvest (number of fish). Similar to Upriver spring and summer Chinook salmon, all of the tribal 

10 commercial harvest is shown as caught in Zone 6, although it should be acknowledged that some portion 

11 of the total tribal catch reported in Table 3-15 occurs below Bonneville Dam in Zone 5. All of the non12 tribal commercial harvest is caught in Zones 1-5. Tribal harvest for ceremonial and subsistence needs 

13 averaged 471 steelhead annually over the 12-year period.

14 Table 3-16. Commercial harvest of Upriver sockeye salmon under status quo conditions. 

Tribal Fisheries Zone 1-5 Zone 6

Above Zone 

6 thru I-395 

Bridge

Lower 

Snake 

River

Total 

Commercial 

C&S

Fisheries

min NA 1,148 NA NA 1,148 203

max NA 38,556 NA NA 38,556 6,804

AVERAGE NA 16,440 NA NA 16,440 2,901

Non-Tribal 

Fisheries Zone 1-5 Zone 6

Above Zone 

6 thru I-395 

Bridge

Lower 

Snake 

River

Total 

Commercial 

Above Z 

6 NT 

Tribal

min 50 NA NA NA 50 NA

max 1,194 NA NA NA 1,194 NA

AVERAGE 512 NA NA NA 512 NA
US v Oregon EIS 60 2018 

Table 3-17. Commercial harvest of Snake River B-Index steelhead under status quo conditions.1 1 

Tribal Fisheries Zone 1-5 Zone 6

Above Zone 

6 thru I-395 

Bridge

Lower 

Snake 

River

Total 

Commercial 

C&S

Fisheries

min NA 1,455 NA NA 1,455 77

max NA 17,950 NA NA 17,950 945

AVERAGE NA 8,945 NA NA 8,945 471

Non-Tribal 

Fisheries Zone 1-5 Zone 6

Above Zone 

6 thru I-395 

Bridge

Lower 

Snake 

River

Total 

Commercial 

Above Z 

6 NT 

Tribal

min 0 NA NA NA 0 NA

max 0 NA NA NA 0 NA

AVERAGE 0 NA NA NA 0 NA

2 1. Note that some Snake River B-Index steelhead are caught as incidental take by non-tribal fishers in the Lower 

3 Columbia River. These fish cannot be kept or sold.

4 

5 In terms of economic value, the average annual harvest value (known as the ex-vessel value, which is the 

6 price received for the product ‘at the dock’) of salmon caught in the non-tribal commercial fisheries in the 

7 Lower Columbia River subregion was $2,414,813 (Table 3-18). In the Mid-Columbia River, the harvest 

8 value of salmon and steelhead caught by tribal commercial fishers was $7,745,794, and the value to non9 tribal fishers was $148,749. No harvest value is estimated for the upper Columbia River and Lower 

10 Snake River subregions because there was no commercial harvest of the harvest indicator stocks.

11 Table 3-18. Commercial harvest and ex-vessel value of harvest indicator species under status 

12 quo conditions, by Columbia River subregion and type of fishery.

Subregion/Type of Fishery Value % of Total for All 

Subregions

Lower Columbia River Subregion

Non-Tribal

Harvest (number of fish) 52,804 17.9

Ex-vessel harvest value $2,414,813 23.4

Tribal

Harvest (number of fish) 0 0

Ex-vessel harvest value $0 0

Total

Harvest (number of fish) 52,804 17.9

Ex-vessel harvest value $2,418,367 23.4

Mid-Columbia River Subregion

Non-Tribal

Harvest (number of fish) 3,877 1.3

Ex-vessel harvest value $148,749 1.4

Tribal

Harvest (number of fish) 237,785 100.0

Ex-vessel harvest value $7,745,794 100.0

Total
US v Oregon EIS 61 2018 

Subregion/Type of Fishery Value % of Total for All 

Subregions

Harvest (number of fish) 241,662 82.1

Ex-vessel harvest value $7,894,543 76.6

ALL SUBREGIONS

Non-Tribal

Harvest (number of fish) 56,681 19.3

Ex-vessel harvest value $2,563,562 24.9

Tribal

Harvest (number of fish) 237,785 80.7

Ex-vessel harvest value $7,745,794 75.1

Total

Harvest (number of fish) 294,466 100.0

Ex-vessel harvest value $10,309,356 100.0

1 Notes: All dollar values are expressed in 2015 dollars.

2 Source: Catch estimates provided by NMFS; all other estimates developed by TCW Economics. 

The total ex-vessel value3 3 of the commercial harvest of salmon and steelhead under the status quo 

4 conditions is $10,309,356, with tribal fisheries accounting for 81 percent ($7,745,794) of this value, and 

5 non-tribal fisheries accounting for 19 percent ($2,563,562) of the total harvest value. 

6 3.5.1.2. Recreational Fisheries

7 The recreational fishery on the mainstem Columbia River below Bonneville Dam includes two main 

8 management areas; the mainstem Columbia River extending from Bonneville Dam downstream to the 

9 Point/Rocky Point line, and the Buoy 10 area extending from below the Tongue Point/Rocky Point line to 

10 Buoy 10, which marks the ocean/in-river boundary. According to information in the Mitchell Act FEIS 

11 (NMFS 2014b), about 52 percent (161,397 fish) of the annual average recreational harvest between 2002 

12 and 2009 of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River basin (311,252 fish) occurred in the Lower 

13 Columbia River and tributaries. This percentage was previously reported to be 80 percent in the final EIS 

14 for Pacific Salmon Fisheries Management off the Coasts of Southeast Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and 

15 California, and in the Columbia River basin (NMFS 2003), but more recent data show that the percentage 

16 has decreased. The recreational fisheries above Bonneville Dam, which account for the remainder of the 

17 harvest, are geographically widespread but socially important. Much of the recreational harvest in both 

18 the lower and upper Columbia River occurs in tributaries (NMFS 2003). 

19 Based on historical information (NMFS 2003), the Cowlitz, Lewis, Kalama, and Elochoman Rivers in 

20 Washington and the Willamette, Sandy, and Santiam Rivers in Oregon account for approximately 45 

21 percent of the Lower Columbia River basin salmon and steelhead harvest. Above Bonneville Dam, the 

 

3 The term ex-vessel value refers to the price (income) that fishermen receive for the fish “at the dock.”
US v Oregon EIS 62 2018 

1 Klickitat, White Salmon, and Little White Salmon tributaries in Washington, the Deschutes in Oregon, 

2 and other tributaries account for approximately 60 percent of the salmon and steelhead harvest (NMFS 

3 2003). 

4 Similar to status quo conditions for commercial harvest of salmon and steelhead, average estimates 

5 between 2005 and 2016 were used to characterize status quo harvest conditions. Indicator harvest stock6 specific estimates are presented in the following tables for affected recreational fisheries. Minimum, 

7 maximum, and mean conditions are used to characterize status quo conditions.

8 Table 3-19 identifies average annual catch conditions between 2005 and 2016 for upriver Spring Chinook 

9 salmon, including average minimum values, average maximums, and average mean values. As shown, 

10 most (78 percent) of the catch occurs in Zone 1 through 5. 

11 Table 3-19. Recreational catch of Upriver spring Chinook salmon under status quo conditions. 

Recreational

Fisheries Zone 1-5 Zone 6

Above Zone 

6 thru I-395 

Bridge

Lower 

Snake 

River

NontreatyTotal 

Sport

min. 3,877 714 NA 321 NA 4,912

max. 20,726 3,817 NA 1,713 NA 26,256

ave. 10,886 2,005 NA 900 NA 13,791

12 Table 3-20 identifies average annual catch conditions between 2005 and 2016 for Upper Columbia 

13 summer Chinook salmon, including average minimum values, average maximums, and average mean 

14 values. Of the total sport catch, about half is caught by non-treaty tribal fishers (this catch is not part of 

15 the tribal allocation) and half by non-tribal recreational fishers. Most (about 92 percent) of the catch by 

16 non-tribal recreational fishers is caught in Zones 1 through 5. 

17 Table 3-20. Recreational catch of Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon under status quo 

18 conditions. 

Recreational

Fisheries Zone 1-5 Zone 6

Above Zone 

6 thru I-395 

Bridge

Lower 

Snake 

River

NonTreatyTotal 

Sport

min. 752 103 36 NA 820 1,711

max. 7,901 1,085 377 NA 8,614 17,977

ave. 3,672 504 175 NA 4,003 8,354

19 Table 3-21 identifies average annual catch conditions between the 2005 through 2016 for upriver fall 

20 Chinook salmon, including average minimum values, average maximums, and average mean values. As 

21 shown, most (about 82 percent) of the catch occurs in the Zone 1-5, and is only caught by non-tribal 

22 fishers.
US v Oregon EIS 63 2018 

1 Table 3-21. Recreational catch of Upriver fall Chinook salmon under status quo conditions. 

Recreational

Fisheries Zone 1-5 Zone 6

Above Zone 

6 thru I-395 

Bridge

Lower 

Snake 

River

NontreatyTotal 

Sport

min 2,775 477 134 NA NA 3,386

max 73,317 12,595 3,542 NA NA 89,453

ave. 34,050 5,849 1,645 NA NA 41,544

2 Table 3-22 identifies average catch conditions over the 2005 through 2016 for upriver spring Chinook 

3 salmon, including average minimum values, average maximums, and average mean values.

4 Table 3-22. Recreational catch of Upriver sockeye salmon under status quo conditions. 

Recreational

Fisheries Zone 1-5 Zone 6

Above 

Zone 6 

thru I-395 

Bridge

Lower 

Snake 

River

NontreatyTotal 

Sport

min 220 NA NA NA NA 220

max 5,286 NA NA NA NA 5,286

ave. 2,266 NA NA NA NA 2,266

5 Table 3-23 identifies average annual catch conditions between 2005 and 2016 for Snake River steelhead, 

6 including average minimum values, average maximums, and average mean values. As shown, most 

7 (about 89 percent) of the catch occurs in Zone 6 and is caught by non-treaty tribal fishers.

8 Table 3-23. Recreational catch of Snake River B-Index steelhead under status quo conditions. 

Recreational

Fisheries Zone 1-5 Zone 6

Above 

Zone 6 

thru I-395 

Bridge

Lower 

Snake 

River

NonTreatyTotal 

Sport

min 161 1,333 NA NA NA 1,494

max 1,327 10,992 NA NA NA 12,319

ave. 680 5,631 NA NA NA 6,310

9 Based on estimates of angler effort per fish caught (refer to Appendix A, Economic Methods), the total 

10 number of angler trips made to catch the five harvest indicator stocks in the mainstem of the Columbia 

11 River is estimated at 895,961 (Table 3-24). Similar to catch estimates, most of the angler trips occurred in 

12 the Lower and Mid-Columbia River Subregions. There is no recreational catch or angler trips in the 

13 Upper Columbia River Subregion. Trip-related expenditures are estimated to total $111,821,173, based on 

14 average expenditures per angler trip (refer to Appendix A, Economics Methods for details). 
US v Oregon EIS 64 2018 

1 Table 3-24. Recreational salmon and steelhead catch, angler trips, and trip-related 

2 expenditures under status quo conditions, by Columbia River subregion. 

Subregion Value % of Total for all 

Subregions

Lower Columbia River Subregion

Catch 155,704 84.4

Trips 753,994 84.1

Trip-related expenditures $98,390,721 88.0

Mid-Columbia River Subregion 

Catch 27,508 14.9

Trips 134,950 15.1

Trip-related expenditures $12,779,061 11.4

Lower Snake River Subregion 

Catch 1,333 0.7

Trips 7,016 0.8

Trip-related expenditures $651,391 0.6

ALL SUBREGIONS

Catch 184,545 100.0

Trips 895,961 100.0

Trip-related expenditures $111,821,173 100.0

3 Notes: All dollar values are expressed in 2015 dollars.

4 Source: Catch estimates provided by NMFS; all other estimates developed by TCW Economics. 

5 3.5.1.3. Contribution of Affected Fisheries to Regional Economic Conditions 

6 Commercial and recreational fisheries generate personal income and support jobs in regional and local 

7 economies throughout the Columbia River basin. Commercial landings of salmon and steelhead are 

8 frequently sold directly, or after processing, to persons or businesses located outside the region. This 

9 transfer of money supports payments to labor, which are then re-spent regionally (i.e., the multiplier 

10 effect). Similarly, non-local recreational anglers (i.e., anglers who live outside the local area) spend 

11 money on guide services, lodging, and other goods and services that generate income for local 

12 communities. Last, money spent on hatchery operations and management, which often comes from state 

13 or Federal sources located outside the local area, provides an additional infusion of income to local 

14 economies. Hatchery operations in the Columbia River basin also generate direct, indirect, and induced 

15 economic effects within the basin’s four economic impact regions by providing employment opportunities 

16 and through local procurement of goods and services for hatchery operations. Hatchery-related spending 

17 affects regional economies where hatchery operations occur and where the businesses that provide 

18 materials and services are located. This spending also extends to communities where hatchery 

19 administration and management decisions take place (sometimes referred to as headquarter costs); refer to 
US v Oregon EIS 65 2018 

1 the Mitchell Act FEIS (NMFS 2014b) (Subsection 4.3) for a discussion of hatchery-related economic 

2 effects.

3 Economic activity generated by commercial and recreational fishing is concentrated within certain sectors 

4 of the regional economy. In addition to the fish harvesting sector, commercial fisheries affect seafood 

5 product preparation and packing, including the canning and curing of seafood and preparation of fresh or 

6 frozen fish or seafood. Wholesaling, retailing and restaurant sectors may also be affected, although 

7 income and employment in those sectors is not included in the subregional and regional totals. 

8 Recreational fisheries contribute to local economies through the purchase of fishing-related goods and 

9 supplies, and by the retention of local services, such as outfitter and guiding services. Sectors particularly 

10 affected by recreational fishing activities include food services, eating and drinking establishments, 

11 lodging, recreation services, and fueling stations. Expenditures on fishing-related goods and services by 

12 fishermen contribute to both local and non-local businesses.

13 The commercial and recreational fisheries that target salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin 

14 generate economic activity characterized by employment (jobs) and personal income. Commercial

15 harvest and recreational fishing (trips) and associated employment and personal income are distributed 

16 among the four subregions constituting the analysis area (Table 3-25). 

17 Commercial harvest of salmon and steelhead by tribal and non-tribal fishers in the Columbia River region 

18 under status quo conditions generated an estimated 419 jobs and $16.2 million in personal income. More 

19 than three-quarters of jobs and income from commercial harvests landed in the Mid-Columbia River 

20 Subregion with the remainder in the Lower Columbia River Subregion (Table 3-25). Recreational fishing 

21 activities targeting salmon and steelhead generate an estimated 672 jobs and $27.9 million in personal 

22 income in the Columbia River region (Table 3-25). More than two-thirds of jobs and income generated by 

23 recreational fishing occur in the Lower Columbia River Subregion, with most of the remainder occurring 

24 in the Mid-Columbia River Subregion and a small amount (1.4 percent of income and 2 percent of jobs as 

25 a result of recreational fishery conducted by Washington) in the Lower Snake River Subregion 

26 (Table 3-25).
US v Oregon EIS 66 2018 

1 Table 3-25. Regional economic effects from harvest of indicator stocks of commercial and 

2 recreational salmon and steelhead under status quo conditions, by Columbia River 

3 subregion 

Subregion/Type of Fishery Value

(dollars or number of jobs) % of All Region Total

Lower Columbia River Subregion 

Commercial (Tribal and Non-tribal) Fisheries

Personal income $3,799 23.4%

Jobs 86 20.6%

Recreational Fisheries

Personal income $19,602 70.2%

Jobs 446 66.3%

Mid-Columbia River Subregion 

Commercial (Tribal and Non-tribal) Fisheries

Personal income $12,400 76.6%

Jobs 332 79.4%

Recreational Fisheries 

Personal income $7,951 28.5%

Jobs 213 31.7%

Lower Snake River Subregion 

Commercial (Tribal and Non-tribal) Fisheries

Personal income $0 0%

Jobs 0 0%

Recreational Fisheries 

Personal income $387 1.4%

Jobs 13 2.0%

Total (all subregions) 

Commercial (Tribal and Non-tribal) Fisheries

Personal income $16,199 100%

Jobs 419 100%

Recreational Fisheries 

Personal income $27,940 100%

Jobs 672 100%

4 Notes: 

5 1. All dollar values are expressed in 2015 dollars. Jobs are expressed in full-time equivalents.

6 2. Estimates for commercial and recreational effects are not combined because the effects for commercial fisheries are measured 

7 at the harvesting/processing level, whereas the effects of recreational fisheries are measured at the retail level.

8 Source: Estimated by TCW Economics using coefficients from the IMPLAN input-output model, and based on harvest estimates 

9 provided by the NMFS (personal communication with Enrique Patiño, March 17, 2017.

10 3.6. Cultural Resources - Ceremonial and Subsistence (C&S) Fisheries

11 Salmon and steelhead play a significant role in the Ceremonial and Subsistence cultural practices among 

12 Indian tribes in the project area. This important cultural resource may be affected by the alternatives 

13 analyzed in this EIS. Salmon and steelhead have always been and will continue to be a core symbol and 
US v Oregon EIS 67 2018 

1 foundation of tribal identity, health, individual identity, culture, spirituality, religion, emotional well2 being, and economy. 

3 Salmon evoke sharing, gifts from nature, responsibility to the resource, and connection to the land and 

4 water. They represent the ability of Indian cultures to endure; they facilitate the transmission of tribal 

5 fishing culture to younger members, who are taught from an early age to fish and to understand their 

6 responsibility to the salmon and its habitat. The struggle to affirm and maintain the right to fish has made 

7 salmon an even more evocative symbol of tribal identity. 

8 Salmon remain central in what is known as the first foods. The salmon was the first food to appear in 

9 early spring. First salmon ceremonies focus on thanking the fish for returning and assuring the entire 

10 community of a successful harvest. These ceremonies also draw attention to the responsibility Indian 

11 people have for providing a clean, welcoming, habitat for the returning fish. Family bands gathered along 

12 the Columbia River at their favorite or traditional fishing sites to catch and dry enough salmon to use for 

13 the year ahead. 

14 The tribes strive to keep at least some subsistence fisheries open the entire year and regard subsistence 

15 fishing as an extremely important way for tribal people to provide food for themselves. Even during 

16 commercial fisheries, a certain portion of the catch is normally retained for subsistence use. While not all 

17 tribal members currently participate in fisheries, those who fish typically share fish with family and 

18 friends. Sharing and informal distribution of fish help to bind the community in a system of relationships 

19 and obligations. Tribal subsistence harvest can also be used for trade or barter among tribes. 

20 This EIS incorporates by reference Subsection 3.4 of the Mitchell Act EIS, which details the importance 

21 of salmon to tribes, the ceremonial and subsistence harvests, and the role that salmon plays in the cultural 

22 viability of tribes in the area. It also details how hatchery-produced salmon and steelhead contribute to 

23 C&S harvest. As detailed in the Mitchell Act EIS, C&S harvests generally do not vary a great deal from 

24 year to year because fish are taken to meet the need. Subsistence fish are, in practice, the priority fish 

25 taken by a tribe. Tribes whose fisheries are depleted are helped by buying salmon from other tribes or 

26 receiving donations of fish. Tribes make an effort to keep salmon on hand or send out special boats for 

27 occasions that include: winter ceremonials, first salmon ceremony, naming ceremonies, and funerals. 

28 Some of these occasions require the use of traditional foods, including salmon, for both Indian and non29 Indian guests, hosts, and those who cook and serve. 
US v Oregon EIS 68 2018 

1 3.7. Environmental Justice

2 The Environmental Justice analysis area includes counties and communities that may be affected by the 

3 alternatives analyzed in this EIS. The analysis area encompasses all Indian tribes that were identified in 

4 the Mitchell Act EIS. It also encompasses all counties and communities in the states of Washington, 

5 Oregon, and Idaho that are associated with the Columbia River watershed as defined in Subsection 1.3. 

6 Coastal counties and communities identified in the Mitchell Act EIS outside of the project area are not 

7 included in the Environmental Justice analysis area.

8 3.7.1. Low Income and Minority Populations 

9 Section 3.4.3 of the Mitchell Act EIS defined the low income and minority thresholds for counties. This 

10 EIS incorporates the same methodology as Section 3.4.3 of the Mitchell Act EIS for defining low income 

11 and minority thresholds for counties. An environmental justice county is one whose minority or low12 income population was meaningfully greater than the state in which the county is located. Five population 

13 categories were considered: non-white, Native American, Hispanic, per capita income and poverty rate.

14 Tables 3-27 and 3-28 of the Mitchell Act EIS presented counties and communities in Washington and 

15 Oregon that exceeded the environmental justice thresholds for low income and/or minority populations. 

16 By incorporating by reference the analysis and the findings presented in those tables, 21 counties (Benton, 

17 Hood River, Jefferson, Marion, Morrow, Multnomah, Sherman, Umatilla, Wasco, Washington, and 

18 Whitman counties in Oregon and Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Franklin, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat, 

19 Okanogan, Walla Walla and Yakima in Washington), are identified as Environmental Justice

20 communities for this EIS.

21 3.7.2. American Indian Tribes

22 Executive Order 12898 and the Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance on Environmental 

23 Justice under NEPA (CEQ, 1997) requires that effects on federally-recognized Indian tribes also be 

24 analyzed. As the alternatives analyzed in this EIS may affect Indian tribes within the analysis area, they 

25 are included as Environmental Justice communities for this EIS. The tribes include: 

26 ● Burns Paiute Tribe

27 ● Coeur d’Alene Tribe

28 ● Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation

29 ● Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation

30 ● Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

31 ● Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
US v Oregon EIS 69 2018 

1 ● Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon

2 ● Cowlitz Indian Tribe

3 ● Fort McDermitt Paiute Shoshone Tribes

4 ● Kalispel Tribe of Indians 

5 ● Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 

6 ● Nez Perce Tribe

7 ● Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation

8 ● Shoshone Paiute Tribe of Duck Valley Indian Reservation 

9 ● Spokane Tribe of Indians 

10 
US v Oregon EIS 70 2018 

1 

2 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3 4.1. Introduction

4 As described in Section 1, the Proposed Action is to issue an ITS under ESA section 7 and sign a 10-year 

5 management agreement that establishes harvest policies and defines management frameworks for US v 

6 Oregon fisheries in the Columbia River between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2027. The six 

7 alternatives analyzed here are used to compare and contrast the effects on the resources that would result 

8 from the implementation of such harvest policies and management frameworks in the prosecution of US v 

9 Oregon fisheries between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2027. 

10 As described earlier in the document, in Chapters 1 and 3, NMFS is incorporating the existing analysis of 

11 hatchery effects from the Mitchell Act EIS (NMFS), which disclose the likely impacts of the hatchery 

12 production associated with a new US v Oregon management agreement. After careful review of the 

13 hatchery programs adopted in the proposed action and the hatchery programs analyzed in the Mitchell Act 

14 EIS, as detailed in Subsection 4.2.1, Salmonids, below, NMFS has incorporated the analysis of the 

15 Mitchell Act EIS alternatives to disclose the likely impacts, to the relevant resources, from the hatchery 

16 production included in the proposed action. Where the impacts may vary from those described in the 

17 Mitchell Act EIS, based on the comparative review detailed in Subsection 4.2.1, below, NMFS includes 

18 an assessment of the likely difference in impacts expected. These impacts are further detailed in the 

19 subsections that follow. 

20 4.1.1. Description of Modeled Metrics for Harvest Indicator Stocks and Abundance Indicator 

21 Stocks 

22 In order to compare the relative effect of each alternative on the resources listed in Section 3, we modeled 

23 the behavior of the previously described specific defined metrics for each alternative (see Subsection 3.2.1 

24 for a description of the defined metrics). Modeled outputs for these defined metrics are used to provide a 

25 quantitative assessment of effects on the resources under the six alternatives. 
US v Oregon EIS 71 2018 

1 Similarly to how we presented status quo conditions, we present the modeled outputs for defined metrics

2 for the Harvest Indicator Stocks and Abundance Indicator Stocks by providing estimates of escapement 

3 past fisheries, the number of fish harvested, harvest rate (proportion of the total “Stock” that was 

4 harvested or killed by fisheries) for each alternative, for each stock.

5 Recall from Subsection 3.2.1 the first two defined metrics measure the escapement of the Harvest and 

6 Abundance Indicator Stocks at defined locations. Fish returning to the Upper Columbia River are counted 

7 at Priest Rapids or Rock Island Dam and those returning to the Snake River are counted at Lower Granite 

8 Dam. This EIS models the expected abundance for a respective stock that would pass (escape) through 

9 fisheries in the US v Oregon agreement if that particular alternative were implemented. The expected 

10 escapement abundance outputs are modeled using recent historical minimum, average, and maximum run 

11 size information from 2005 to 2016. The harvest policies and management framework in the current 

12 management agreement have not changed since 2005. 

13 The second set of the defined metrics measure catch in the Treaty commercial and C&S, and Non-treaty 

14 commercial and recreational fisheries. The expected catch is modeled based on observations from the 

15 2005 through 2016 base years and reported showing the minimum, average, and maximum that would 

16 have occurred under each of the harvest policies analyzed. 

17 The third set of defined metrics measure harvest rates in the Treaty and Non-Treaty fisheries. Harvest 

18 rates are calculated by dividing the catch and associated fishing mortality by the abundance. The expected 

19 harvest rates are modeled based on observations from the 2005 through 2016 base years and reported 

20 showing the minimum, average, and maximum that would have occurred under each of the harvest 

21 policies analyzed. 

22 Implementing the previous US v Oregon agreement taught the parties that certain stocks were consistently 

23 limiting fisheries across the various seasons (season structure was described in Subsection 1.3.1). A 

24 limiting stock is one that constrains harvest during a season, by being the lowest in abundance relative to 

25 its management objective and therefore restricting access to more abundant stocks thus limiting total 

26 catch. The analysis in this EIS uses Harvest Indicator Stocks that are also the known limiting stocks, 

27 which allow for minimum and maximum catch estimates across each alternative. The modeled outputs for 

28 defined metrics for the Harvest Indicator Stocks and Abundance Indicator Stocks are presented in tables 

29 below. 

30 We make the explicit assumption that the environmental conditions and status of the fish stocks for the 

31 next 10 years will be similar to those observed in the recent past. This includes effects associated with 
US v Oregon EIS 72 2018 

1 climate change (discussed in Subsection 5.2.1). By using this short contemporary time frame of historical 

2 information (2005-2016) we assume recent variations of run sizes and harvest effects related to climate 

3 change will follow similar patterns during the next decade. We note that this time frame includes a broad 

4 range of run size and environmental conditions, including 2015 which was characterized by extreme 

5 temperature and related mortalities during upstream migration. The minimums reported in the analysis of 

6 alternatives will more closely represent the outcomes if adverse conditions resulting from climate change 

7 are more frequent over the next ten years than they were since 2005. 

8 US v Oregon fisheries have been managed under the current management framework since 2005. We can 

9 therefore use historical information to estimate numerical outputs for each of the defined metrics in our 

10 analysis. Our analysis is based on historical data made available by the US v Oregon TAC that is used to 

11 compare the relative differences in impacts to the resources among alternatives.

12 Some assumptions are necessary to compare the relative effects of different alternatives and minimize the 

13 complexity of the underlying analyses. Harvest policies and associated management frameworks are used 

14 to set catch levels. But the catch must also be allocated between the treaty and non-treaty fisheries, and 

15 subsequently the states and tribes then make decisions about how to allocate further into their respective 

16 fishing sectors. The allocation of catch may not affect biological outcomes, but does affect economic 

17 outcomes. Allocations between treaty and non-treaty fisheries are explicitly determined by the US v 

18 Oregon management agreement for certain stocks, but not for others. In the following analysis, we use the 

19 allocations specified in the agreement where they exist, and use historic patterns of allocations where it is 

20 not otherwise specified. The allocation between non-treaty commercial and recreational fisheries is 

21 determined by the states of Oregon and Washington outside of the US v Oregon management agreement. 

22 These allocation decisions have changed in the past and may well change in the future. However, for the 

23 purposes of comparing the effects of the different alternatives, we have made the assumption that future 

24 allocations will be the same as those observed in recent years. Likewise, allocations in tribal fisheries 

25 between ceremonial and subsistence (C&S), and commercial fisheries are made by the tribes based on 

26 year and fishery specific circumstances. We assume observations from the recent past encompass the 

27 range of outcomes likely to be observed during the course of the next agreement.

28 Results from the analysis are organized as follows. First, we show the results of the analysis for all 

29 alternatives for each of the Harvest Indicator and associated Abundance Indicator Stocks one by one. The 

30 defined metrics provide the basis for comparison of the relative effect of each alternative. This 

31 information is then used to examine the impacts of the alternatives on each subsequent resource identified 

32 in Section 3. 
US v Oregon EIS 73 2018 

1 We assume that all fish allowed under the "harvest policy" criteria for each alternative are caught even 

2 though in some cases, such as fall season fisheries where there are multiple limiting stocks, certain 

3 fisheries cannot always catch all their available fish from one Indicator Stock due to limits on other 

4 Indicator Stocks. In Subsections 4.2 through 4.7 we will examine one resource at a time and compare the 

5 relative effects on that resource from each alternative.

6 Escapement Goals

7 For each of the abundance indicator stocks, we use escapement-related goals to assess the conservation 

8 outcomes and impacts for each alternative. These are generally based on the population abundance 

9 recovery criteria that are summed at the ESU or DPS level and reported at the last upstream counting 

10 location - Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River and Priest Rapids or Rock Island Dam on the upper 

11 Columbia River. We further adjust the escapement goal at the last upstream counting station to account 

12 for subsequent mortality while migrating upstream from that final counting station and for the likelihood 

13 that fish arriving at the upstream counting station would distribute themselves unevenly to the individual 

14 tributaries. Fish that are not harvested but die as a result of injury during the fishery do not make it to the 

15 counting station, but fisheries are still held to meeting the escapement goal assessed at said location. In 

16 most cases this adjustment factor is 25 percent, meaning that we assume that only 75 percent survive to 

17 their final spawning ground. The 25 percent value is used as a surrogate absent better, stock specific 

18 information. However, for Snake River sockeye salmon, we have direct estimates of the survival rate 

19 from Lower Granite Dam to the Stanley Basin (55.4 percent) and use that value to approximate an 

20 escapement goal at Lower Granite Dam.

21 These goals should be viewed as approximations and examples of an approach and not recommendations 

22 for the specific criteria that should be used for implementing harvest policies and the related management 

23 frameworks. Nonetheless, they are used here to evaluate the relative effects of each alternative.

24 The escapement goal for natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon is 4,000 fish (4,000 fish = 3,000 fish 

25 divided by 0.75) measured at Rock Island Dam which approximates the aggregate abundance of natural26 origin spawners necessary to meet recovery objectives. The aggregate abundance of natural-origin 

27 spawners necessary to meet recovery objectives for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook 

28 salmon is 34,000 (34,000 fish = 25,500 fish divided by 0.75), measured at Lower Granite Dam. The 

29 escapement goal for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon used for evaluating the alternatives is 

30 20,000 hatchery and natural-origin fish (which requires 29,000 fish at the mouth of the Columbia River), 

31 measured at Priest Rapids Dam. This is consistent with the escapement goal used in the current 

32 management agreement and is used directly without expansion. For Snake River Sockeye salmon we use 
US v Oregon EIS 74 2018 

1 12,600 (12,600 fish = 7,000 fish divided by 0.554) fish to Lower Granite Dam. The escapement goal for 

2 natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon is 3,000 (3,000 fish = 2,250 fish divided by 0.75) natural3 origin fish at Lower Granite Dam. The escapement goals used for Snake River Sockeye salmon and 

4 Snake River fall Chinook salmon were both developed by using the aggregated total natural-origin 

5 population-level abundance targets from their respective ESA recovery plan that would achieve the 

6 abundance level delisting criteria (NMFS 2015a, 2015b). Developing a similar benchmark for Snake 

7 River steelhead, and Snake River B-Index steelhead in particular, is more problematic. Recovery level 

8 abundance criteria have been defined for some, but not all populations. As a consequence, we describe 

9 below the approach taken for this EIS. 

10 There are 23 populations in the Snake River steelhead DPS. Twenty-two are located above Lower Granite 

11 Dam. The Tucannon population is the exception. We have abundance-related recovery criteria for 11 of 

12 the 22 populations that sum to a total of 6,700 natural-origin steelhead. To approximate the recovery 

13 abundance of all 22 populations, we double the estimate to 13,400. The Snake River steelhead DPS 

14 includes both A-Index and B-Index fish. As described more thoroughly in Subsection 3.2.1.4, B-Index 

15 steelhead are generally older, larger, and have later run timing. Some populations have a higher 

16 proportion of B-Index fish, but none are entirely B-Index. We are not aware of a peer reviewed 

17 scientifically reviewed abundance based related recovery criterion for B-Index steelhead. We multiply 

18 13,400 by 0.15, the average proportion of all natural-origin steelhead at Lower Granite Dam that are 

19 designated B-Index as counted over the base period (2005 - 2015). The result is approximately 2,000. 

20 Using an abundance related benchmark identical to the approach in the analysis for natural-origin Snake 

21 River fall Chinook salmon would therefore be 2,700 (2,700 fish = 2,000 fish divided by 0.75). The actual, 

22 observed ten year average between 2005 and 2015 for natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead is 

23 4,700, which is a more conservative escapement benchmark, and so we chose to use that for the analysis.

24 The table format, shown in Text Box 4-1, is used in the sections that follow to provide the defined metrics

25 for each abundance indicator stock. 
US v Oregon EIS 75 2018 

1 Text Box 4-1. Format of defined metrics for each abundance indicator stock (fields have been 

2 left blank in this text box). 

A B C D E F G

River Mouth Treaty 

Harvest

Non-Treaty 

Harvest

Total 

HR

Esc. Past 

Fisheries Dam Count

min

max

ave

3 ● Column A. Minimum, Maximum, and Average: As described in Subsection 3.2, the minimum, 

4 maximum, and average run sizes were derived from 2005-2016 river mouth sizes. These run sizes 

5 are used as basis for each stock’s defined metrics. They are assumed to be constant for each stock 

6 to facilitate a comparison of harvest policies across each alternative. As explained in Subsection 

7 4.1.1, we assume recent variations of run sizes and harvest effects related to climate change will 

8 follow similar patterns during the next decade. 

9 ● Column B. River Mouth: Presents the expected minimum, maximum, and average projected run 

10 sizes for the period 2018-2027 at the mouth of the Columbia River. 

11 ● Columns C. Treaty Harvest: Presents the calculated treaty fisheries total harvest number for the 

12 stock

13 ● Column D. Non-Treaty Harvest: Presents the calculated non-treaty fisheries total harvest number 

14 for the stock

15 ● Column E. Total Harvest Rate. This shows the total harvest rate (treaty plus non-treaty harvest 

16 combined) as a percentage of the run size

17 ● Column F. Esc. Past Fisheries: The modeled number of fish that escape past the fisheries; i.e., the 

18 run size (Column B) minus the total harvest number (Column C plus Column D). 

19 ● Column G. Dam Count: this is the projected count of fish at the last upstream counting location. 

20 There are two other important indicators used in the figures in the subsections in Subsection 4.2: 

21 ● Spawning Escapement Goal – As discussed above under Escapement Goals, the modeled count at 

22 the last counting station (Column G) is further adjusted to account for the loss of fish between the 
US v Oregon EIS 76 2018 

1 counting station and their spawning ground. This loss includes mortality upstream of the counting 

2 station as well as uneven distribution to the individual tributaries.

3 ● Interdam Loss - This is calculated as the difference between Columns G and F, the difference in 

4 fish stocks between the mouth of the river and the last upstream counting station independent of 

5 fishing. The difference represents fish loses due to natural mortality or turnoff to mainstem 

6 tributaries, and mortality associated with hydro operations, illegal fishing, and habitat 

7 degradation. The difference is based on estimates developed by the US v Oregon TAC. While this 

8 number provides an illustrative benchmark by which to evaluate the effects on the stock, it is not 

9 a specific proposal for the number of fish that suffer interdam loss.

10 Impacts of fishing

11 Fisheries impact the environment by killing target species and thereby reducing fish abundance and 

12 spawning potential. Fisheries may also kill fish species that they do not target. These fish, known as 

13 bycatch, are killed when fishing operations unintentionally catch and discard non-target fish, potentially 

14 causing unobserved injury and mortality. These non-target fish may include the harvest indicator units 

15 that are the subject of this EIS. As explained in Section 1 and Section 2, a new US v Oregon management 

16 agreement would track salmonid harvest across a wide number of fisheries, including bycatch of 

17 salmonids in non-salmonid directed fisheries.

18 Implementing a new US v Oregon management agreement will result in the removal of salmonids from 

19 the environment for commercial, recreational, or ceremonial and subsistence (C&S) consumption. In the 

20 following Subsections (4.1.1.1 through 4.1.1.5) we provide the modeled outputs, as just described above, 

21 to the harvest indicator stocks known as limiting stocks in the form of harvest rates (recall a harvest rate is 

22 the ratio of fishery related mortality for a group of fish over its abundance in a defined period of time). 

23 Reducing fish abundance, and subsequent spawning population potential, can lead to impacts of 

24 population parameters. At levels of high fish removal an originally stable, mature and efficient ecosystem 

25 might be deprived of nutrient input that results in the ecosystem becoming immature and stressed. This 

26 happens in various ways. By targeting and reducing the abundance of high-value predators, fisheries 

27 modify the trophic chain and the flows of biomass (and energy) across the ecosystem as well as remove 

28 the nutrients from the system that are contained within the fish carcasses themselves.

29 Each harvest policy analyzed in this EIS results in a rate at which fish may be harvested. The direct 

30 inverse result of each harvest rate is a rate at which fish that are not harvested are able to escape past the 

31 fisheries and potentially return to the spawning grounds to spawn (e.g., if a harvest rate was 40 percent, 

32 then the subsequent escapement rate would be roughly 60 percent of any particular run size). Each 
US v Oregon EIS 77 2018 

1 alternative analyzed in this EIS only differs in the calculation of these two rates, however escapement 

2 estimates are presented in total numbers (e.g., if a harvest rate was 40 percent on a run size of 10,000, 

3 then 4,000 fish died from harvest (10,000 * 0.4 = 4,000), and the resulting escapement is 6,000 (10,000 - 

4 harvest of 4,000 = 6,000)). Therefore, the impacts of each alternative analyzed are the harvest rates and 

5 escapement totals. These will vary based on the alternative and the fluctuating projected fish run sizes. 

6 The subsections that follow (4.1.1.1 through 4.1.1.5) describe the impacts of the alternatives on each 

7 indicator stock. Subsection 4.2 compares these impacts of each alternative relative to status quo 

8 conditions and the other alternatives for each indicator stock. 

9 4.1.1.1. Upriver Spring Chinook Salmon 

10 For management purposes, Upriver spring Chinook salmon are defined in the agreement as all adult 

11 spring and Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon returning to areas upstream of Bonneville Dam 

12 between January 1 and June 15, which is the cutoff date between the winter/spring fisheries and the 

13 summer/fall fisheries. The Upriver spring Chinook salmon stock includes both hatchery and natural14 origin fish. Under the current agreement, Upriver spring Chinook salmon are managed using an 

15 abundance based management framework that depends on the abundance of Upriver spring Chinook 

16 salmon, natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, and natural-origin UCR spring 

17 Chinook salmon. Allowable harvest rates range from 5.5 percent to 17 percent (Table 4-1). The Parties 

18 use this stock definition for practical reasons. The number of Chinook salmon returning during that period 

19 and the catch of those fish are counted directly as they pass dams in the mainstem Columbia River. The 

20 stock includes fish from different ESUs and all of their component populations. It is not possible at this 

21 time to track the abundance and catch of individual ESUs or populations in season. The Upriver spring 

22 Chinook salmon stock is therefore managed in the aggregate. As a consequence, populations or other 

23 subcomponents of the stock may sometimes be subject to harvest rates that are lower or higher than the 

24 aggregate depending on their run timing and how the fishery is implemented in a particular year. For 

25 example, the summer component of the Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon ESU has a later run 

26 timing than the spring timed populations. As a consequence, in some years some portion of the later timed 

27 fish may still be in Zone 6 after the June 15 cutoff date and be subject to harvest rates for Upper 

28 Columbia summer Chinook salmon, which can be higher. However, it is also true that some Upper 

29 Columbia summer Chinook salmon are counted and caught during the spring management period. The 

30 June 15 cutoff date was selected recognizing that there was a need to find the midpoint of the overlapping 

31 run timing distributions of the Upriver spring Chinook salmon stock and Upper Columbia summer 

32 Chinook salmon. Although the abundance-based harvest rate schedule from Table 4.1 is applied to the 

33 aggregate Upriver spring Chinook salmon stock, available information does not suggest that there is a 
US v Oregon EIS 78 2018 

1 simple or systematic bias in how the fishery affects various components of the stock (Crozier et al. 2016).

2 Table 4-1. Spring Management Period Harvest Rate Schedule. 

Harvest Rate Schedule for Chinook Salmon in Spring Management Period

Total Upriver 

Spring and Snake 

River Summer 

Chinook Run Size

Snake River

Natural 

Spring/Summer 

Chinook Run

Size1

Treaty Zone 6 

Total Harvest 

Rate

Non-Treaty 

Natural Harvest 

Rate

Total Natural 

Harvest Rate2 

Non-Treaty Natural 

Limited Harvest 

Rate2 

<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%

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

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

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

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

7 2. If the Upper Columbia River natural spring Chinook salmon forecast is less than 1,000, then the total allowable mortality for treaty and non8 treaty fisheries combined would be restricted to 9 percent or less. Whenever Upper Columbia River natural fish restrict the total allowable 

9 mortality rate to 9 percent or less, than non-treaty fisheries would transfer 0.5 percent harvest rate to treaty fisheries. In no event would non10 treaty fisheries go below 0.5 percent harvest rate.

11 Each of the alternatives for Upriver spring Chinook salmon presumes that the catch balance provisions of 

12 the agreement continue to apply. Catch balancing requires that the total fishery mortality (landed catch 

13 plus release mortality) for non-treaty fishery cannot exceed the allowed treaty total harvest. Non-treaty 

14 spring season fisheries are mark selective and treaty fisheries are full retention. Treaty fisheries utilize 

15 total harvest rate limits and non-treaty fisheries utilize natural-origin harvest rate limits and this would be 

16 expected to continue into the future under any of the alternatives. As a consequence, the following tables 

17 show the total catch of fish when comparing treaty or non-treaty total harvest is equal (catch sharing), but 

18 the catch of natural-origin fish in the non-treaty fisheries is less than treaty fisheries.
US v Oregon EIS 79 2018 

1 4.1.1.1.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement

2 Under Alternative 1, fisheries would be managed using the abundance-based management framework that 

3 allows harvest rates to range from 5.5 percent to 17 percent. For the purpose of comparing the relative 

4 effects of the alternatives, we assume that extending the current US v Oregon agreement for the next ten 

5 years would result in harvest patterns similar to those of the last 12 years. Table 4-2 provides the 

6 minimum, maximum and average values for the defined metrics for Upriver spring Chinook salmon (a 

7 Harvest Indicator Stock). Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 provide defined metrics for natural-origin Snake River

8 spring/summer Chinook salmon and natural-origin Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon under 

9 Alternative 1, respectively (Abundance Indicator Stocks). The values for the defined metrics in these three 

10 tables are based on the projected run sizes. 

11 Under Alternative 1 (Extension), the harvest and escapement levels are unchanged from the status quo. 

12 Harvest fluctuates with the projected run size, meaning in years of low abundance harvest rates are lower 

13 than in years of high abundance. This results in escapement levels lower during years of low abundance, 

14 thereby reducing the adverse impact of removing fish from the spawning population during these years. 

15 Conversely, during years of high abundance, the greatest proportion of fish are harvested at the highest 

16 harvest rate. The resulting impact to the spawning population is negligible as the total number of fish 

17 escaping past the fisheries is still large.

18 Table 4-2. Defined Metrics for Upriver spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 1. 

Total 

Treaty 

Catch

Min. 

Expected

C&S

Max 

Expected

Comm.

Total 

Nontreaty 

Catch

Total 

Comm.

Total Z 

1-5 

Sport

Total Z 6 

- I395 

sport

Total 

Lower 

Snake 

Sport

Total 

NT 

Tribal

min 6,364 6,191 173 6,364 1,448 3,877 714 321 4

max 34,020 10,548 23,472 34,020 7,743 20,726 3,817 1,713 21

ave 17,868 10,340 7,528 17,868 4,067 10,886 2,005 900 11

19 Table 4-3. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon under 

20 Alternative 1. 

Snake River spring/ 

summer Chinook 

salmon river mouth

run size

Treaty 

Harvest

Nontreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Lower 

Granite 

Count

min 12,017 942 161 9.2% 10,914 8,360

max 44,014 5,037 862 13.4% 38,115 29,196

ave 26,269 2,645 453 11.8% 23,171 17,749

21 Table 4-4. Defined Metrics for natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 1. 

UCR Spring 

Chinook salmon

Treaty 

Harvest

Nontreaty Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Rock Island 

Count
US v Oregon EIS 80 2018 

river mouth run size Harvest

min 1,374 108 18 9.2% 1,248 1,101

max 5,032 576 97 13.4% 4,359 3,845

ave 3,003 302 51 11.8% 2,650 2,337

1 4.1.1.1.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management 

2 Under Alternative 2, fisheries would be managed using an abundance based management framework. 

3 Although other abundance based frameworks could be devised that would be more or less restrictive, the 

4 analysis assumes that the current framework would apply thus allowing harvest rates to range from 5.5 

5 percent to 17 percent. The relative merits of abundance based management as a harvest policy are 

6 discussed in Subsection 2.1.2. Because the frameworks under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are the 

7 same, the analytical results and impacts are also the same (Tables 4-5 through 4-6).

8 Table 4-5. Defined Metrics for Upriver spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 2. 

Total 

Treaty 

Catch

Min. 

Expected 

C&S

Max 

Expected 

Comm.

Total 

Nontreaty 

Catch

Total 

Comm.

Total Z 

1-5 

Sport

Total Z 

6 - I395 

sport

Total 

Lower 

Snake 

Sport

Total 

NT 

Tribal

min 6,364 6,191 173 6,364 1,448 3,877 714 321 4

max 34,020 10,548 23,472 34,020 7,743 20,726 3,817 1,713 21

ave 17,868 10,340 7,528 17,868 4,067 10,886 2,005 900 11

9 Table 4-6. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon under 

10 Alternative 2. 

Snake River spring/ 

summer Chinook 

salmon river mouth

run size

Treaty 

Harvest

Nontreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Lower 

Granite Count

min 12,017 942 161 9.2% 10,914 8,360

max 44,014 5,037 862 13.4% 38,115 29,196

ave 26,269 2,645 453 11.8% 23,171 17,749

11 Table 4-7. Defined Metrics for natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 2. 

UCR Spring 

Chinook salmon

river mouth run size

Treaty 

Harvest

Nontreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Rock Island 

Count

min 1,374 108 18 9.2% 1,248 1,101

max 5,032 576 97 13.4% 4,359 3,845

ave 3,003 302 51 11.8% 2,650 2,337

12 4.1.1.1.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate 

13 Under Alternative 3, fisheries would be managed using a fixed harvest rate of 11.3 percent. This is the 
US v Oregon EIS 81 2018 

1 average of the rates observed from 2005 to 2016. Although other fixed harvest rate levels could be 

2 devised that would be more or less restrictive, the average represents a plausible alternative that is used 

3 for comparison to the other alternatives. The fixed rate sets a limit on the total harvest rate. The analysis 

4 assumes that catch is distributed between fisheries using the average proportions observed during the 

5 2005 to 2016 base years. Table 4-8 shows the minimum, maximum and average values for the defined 

6 metrics for Upriver spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 3. Table 4-9 and Table 4-10 provide the 

7 minimum, maximum and average values for defined metrics for natural-origin Snake River

8 spring/summer Chinook salmon and natural-origin Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon under 

9 Alternative 3, respectively. In Table 4-8 the average expected C&S catch is greater than the maximum 

10 because in the past twelve years the tribes have allocated a greater proportion of the catch to C&S relative 

11 to commercial catch in the middle of the observed run size range. In other words, at the highest observed 

12 run size, less catch was allocated to C&S than in years of run sizes around the middle of the historical 

13 range.

14 Under Alternative 3, the harvest and escapement levels are constant. Harvest rate impacts occur 

15 constantly at the same proportions regardless of any fluctuation in projected run size. Therefore, in years 

16 of low abundance harvest rates are the same as those in years of high abundance. This restricts the 

17 negative impacts associated with removing a greater number of fish from the spawning population during 

18 years of high abundance, thereby providing a slightly positive increase in the escapement past fisheries 

19 during large run sizes. 

20 Table 4-8. Defined Metrics for Upriver spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 3. 

Total 

Treaty 

Catch

Min. 

Expected 

C&S

Max 

Expected 

Comm.

Total 

Nontreaty 

Catch

Total 

Comm.

Total Z 

1-5 

Sport

Total Z 

6 - I395 

sport

Total 

Lower 

Snake 

Sport

Total NT 

tribal

min 7,826 7,613 213 7,826 1,781 4,768 878 394 5

max 28,665 8,888 19,777 28,665 6,524 17,464 3,216 1,444 17

ave 17,108 10,335 6,773 17,108 3,894 10,423 1,919 862 10

21 Table 4-9. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon 

22 under Alternative 3. 

Snake River spring/ 

summer Chinook 

salmon river mouth

run size

Treaty 

Harvest

NonTreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Lower 

Granite Count

min 12,017 1,159 198 11.3% 10,660 8,166

max 44,014 4,244 727 11.3% 39,043 29,907

ave 26,269 2,533 434 11.3% 23,302 17,849
US v Oregon EIS 82 2018 

1 Table 4-10. Defined Metrics for natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 3. 

UCR Spring 

Chinook salmon

river mouth run size

Treaty 

Harvest

NonTreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Rock Island 

Count

min 1,374 132 22 11.3% 1,220 1,076

max 5,032 485 81 11.3% 4,466 3,939

ave 3,003 290 49 11.3% 2,664 2,350

2 4.1.1.1.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management 

3 Under Alternative 4, fisheries would be managed using a fixed escapement goal policy based on the 

4 abundance of natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon. For this example, the escapement goal was set 

5 at 4,000 natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon measured at Rock Island Dam. The escapement goal 

6 approximates the aggregate abundance of natural-origin spawners necessary to meet recovery objectives 

7 for the UCR spring Chinook salmon ESU, when accounting for the mortality that generally occurs 

8 upstream of the last counting location. In this example, if the expected escapement is below the 

9 escapement goal, the allowable harvest during the spring management period would be zero and 

10 Alternative 5 would best represent the expected outcome. Often under similar circumstances, a fixed 

11 escapement goal is coupled with a de minimis level of harvest opportunity to meet the minimal needs for 

12 tribal fisheries and allow limited access to other harvestable stocks. In this Alternative, the fixed 

13 escapement policy was coupled with a de minimis harvest rate cap of 1 percent for non-treaty fisheries 

14 and 5 percent for treaty fisheries. The de minimis rates are drawn from the lowest rates allowed in the 

15 abundance based harvest framework described in Alternative 1.

16 Other fixed escapement goal management objectives could have been used to explore the effect of fixed 

17 escapement goal policies. For example, the aggregate abundance of natural-origin spawners necessary to 

18 meet recovery objectives for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon is 25,500 and 

19 this could also be used as the fixed escapement goal policy. Irrespective of the fixed escapement goal 

20 selected, this type of harvest policy uses a weak stock as the basis for the harvest policy. Another 

21 approach would be to design a fixed harvest rate policy designed to maximize harvest opportunity. For 

22 example, setting an escapement goal based on the aggregate abundance of hatchery and natural-origin 

23 Upriver spring Chinook salmon would maximize harvest in the short term, but would do so at the expense 

24 of weaker stocks that would routinely be subject to higher harvest rates. Choosing a more conservative 

25 approach offers the highest likelihood of adhering to recovery plans. 

26 Table 4-11 illustrates what the minimum, maximum and average could be for the defined metrics for 

27 Upriver spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 4. Table 4-12 and Table 4-13 provide the minimum, 

28 maximum and average values for defined metrics for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook 
US v Oregon EIS 83 2018 

1 salmon and natural-origin Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 4, 

2 respectively. 

3 Analyzing this approach in more detail, that is harvest adhering to fixed escapement goals, may be 

4 defined in various ways. A fixed escapement goal may be defined as a number of fish escaping fisheries 

5 or it may be defined as a number of fish reaching a certain location after fisheries occur such as an 

6 upstream dam or spawning area. Fixed escapement goals imply that each fish exceeding the goal may be 

7 harvested. Under situations where run sizes are less than the escapement goal, these alternatives provide 

8 for a minimal level of fishing. This is a common practice in salmon management especially to allow 

9 some minimal opportunity to meet either treaty needs or to access other more abundant stocks. The 

10 natural-origin escapement goal for upper Columbia spring Chinook salmon was set at 4,000 fish. The 

11 average escapement past fisheries since 2005 is approximately 2,700. Historic relationships between 

12 natural-origin and total harvest rates were utilized to calculate treaty total harvest rates and non-treaty 

13 natural-origin harvest rates that would both meet the catch balance requirement and escape 4,000 natural14 origin upper Columbia fish past the fisheries. Using average post fishery loss rates an expected run size to 

15 Rock Island Dam (RIS) can be calculated. Post fishery loss includes a mix of natural and anthropogenic 

16 mortality such as passage loss through the hydrosystem.

17 Under Alternative 4 the impacts from harvest vary based on the run size, but the associated impacts 

18 towards modifying spawning population levels are constant. A fixed number of fish escape the fisheries. 

19 Harvest rates fluctuate as the projected run sizes fluctuate. In years of low abundance harvest rates are 

20 low, but in years of high abundance harvest rates are high. This is because all fish above the fixed 

21 escapement goal are deemed harvestable. During years of high abundance, negative impacts are 

22 maximized as all the fish above the escapement level are harvested. Thereby, compared to status quo 

23 conditions, Alternative 4 results in the lowest average level of escapement towards a total spawning 

24 population abundance. 

25 Table 4-11. Defined Metrics for Upriver spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 4 and 

26 Alternative 6. 

Total 

Treaty 

Catch

Min. 

Expected 

C&S

Max 

Expected 

Comm.

Total 

Nontreaty 

Catch

Total 

Comm.

Total Z 

1-5 

Sport

Total Z 

6 - I395 

sport

Total 

Lower 

Snake 

Sport

Total NT 

tribal

min 4,300 4,183 117 4,300 979 2,620 482 217 3

max 102,811 31,877 70,934 102,811 23,399 62,637 11,534 5,178 62

ave 26,468 11,541 14,928 26,468 6,024 16,126 2,969 1,333 16
US v Oregon EIS 84 2018 

1 Table 4-12. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon 

2 under Alternative 4 and Alternative 6. 

Snake River spring/ 

summer Chinook 

salmon river mouth

run size

Treaty 

Harvest

Nontreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Lower 

Granite Count

min 12,017 637 109 6.2% 11,271 8,634

max 44,014 15,221 2,606 40.5% 26,187 20,059

ave 26,269 3,919 671 17.5% 21,679 16,606

3 Table 4-13. Defined Metrics for natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 4 

4 and Alternative 6. 

UCR Spring 

Chinook salmon 

river mouth run size

Treaty 

Harvest

Nontreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Rock Island 

Count

min 1,374 73 12 6.2% 1,289 1,137

max 5,032 1,740 292 40.4% 3,000 2,646

ave 3,003 448 75 17.4% 2,480 2,187

5 4.1.1.1.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment

6 Under Alternative 5, harvest rates were assumed to be almost zero thus providing a benchmark for 

7 comparison to the other alternatives. Table 4-14 shows the maximum escapement of Upriver spring 

8 Chinook salmon that could occur absent all fishing. Table 4-15 and Table 4-16 show the maximum 

9 escapement of natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon and natural-origin Upper 

10 Columbia River spring Chinook salmon that could occur absent all fishing, respectively. 

11 Under Alternative 5, the impacts associated with commercial and recreational harvest are removed. This 

12 thereby provides the largest possible spawning population to the greatest extent possible each year.

13 Table 4-14. Defined Metrics for Upriver spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 5. 

Total 

Treaty 

Catch

Min

Expected 

C&S

Max 

Expected 

Comm.

Total 

Nontreaty 

Catch

Total 

Comm.

Total Z 

1-5 

Sport

Total Z 

6 - I395 

sport

Total 

Lower 

Snake 

Sport

Total NT 

tribal

min 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

max 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
US v Oregon EIS 85 2018 

1 Table 4-15. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon 

2 under Alternative 5. 

Snake River spring/ 

summer Chinook 

salmon river mouth 

run size

Treaty 

Harvest

NonTreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Lower 

Granite Count

min 12,017 0 0 0% 12,017 9,205

max 44,014 0 0 0% 44,014 33,715

ave 26,269 0 0 0% 26,269 20,122

3 Table 4-16. Defined Metrics for natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 5. 

UCR Spring 

Chinook salmon 

river mouth run size

Treaty 

Harvest

Nontreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Rock Island 

Count

min 1,374 0 0 0% 1,374 1,212

max 5,032 0 0 0% 5,032 4,438

ave 3,003 0 0 0% 3,003 2,649

4 4.1.1.1.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated Harvest 

5 Under the No Action—Uncoordinated Harvest alternative the federal parties would not sign the new 

6 agreement, leading to tremendous uncertainty. As described in Subsection 2.2.6, the state and tribal 

7 parties might choose to forego harvest, a potential outcome that is described in Alternative 5. On the other 

8 hand, the parties could also choose to act independently to implement fisheries resulting in uncoordinated 

9 harvest that, at the upper end, would be constrained by the capacity of the various fishing sectors to catch 

10 fish. Resulting harvest levels could greatly exceed those observed in recent years. It is of course difficult 

11 to predict the level of fishing that would occur under this alternative, but the outcome can be 

12 approximated by the results and impacts described under Alternative 4. 

13 Therefore, Alternative 6 results in aggressive harvest rates that range from 6.2 percent minimum to 40.4 

14 percent maximum, with an average of 17.4 percent as shown in tables 4-11 through 4-13. This compares 

15 to an average harvest rate under the status quo conditions of 11.8 percent (Table 3-5). 

16 Under Alternative 6, as just described, the highest levels of impacts observed in Alternative 4 are 

17 expected to occur. This results in maximizing negative impacts associated with removing fish from a 

18 resulting spawning population to the greatest extent during years of high abundance, and thereby results 

19 in the lowest average level of escapement towards a total spawning population.

20 4.1.1.2. Upper Columbia Summer Chinook Salmon

21 For management purposes, Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon are defined in the agreement as all 

22 Chinook salmon passing Bonneville Dam between June 16 and July 31. The Upper Columbia summer 
US v Oregon EIS 86 2018 

1 Chinook salmon stock includes both hatchery and natural-origin fish. In recent years, the stock has been 

2 abundant providing significant harvest opportunity and therefore can be used to illustrate harvest policy 

3 alternatives that apply to healthy stocks. 

4 Under the current agreement, summer Chinook salmon are managed using a mix of harvest policies

5 (Table 4-17). When the run size is less than 29,000, fisheries are managed using an abundance based 

6 harvest rate framework with harvest rates ranging from 7 percent to 17 percent. At higher run sizes, the 

7 stock is managed using a modified fixed escapement policy that allows for some of the otherwise 

8 harvestable fish to accrue to escapement to better inform management decisions in the future. As a 

9 consequence, at higher abundance, the expected escapements range from 29,000 to 41,500. If the fixed 

10 escapement policy was without this feature, expected escapements would never exceed 29,000. Upper 

11 Columbia summer Chinook salmon are generally managed to achieve 50/50 sharing between treaty and 

12 non-treaty fisheries. Under the current framework a greater proportion of the catch is allocated to the 

13 treaty fishery at low run size. 

14 Table 4-17. Summer Management Period Chinook salmon 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
US v Oregon EIS 87 2018 

River Mouth 

Run Size

Max. Treaty 

Total 

Harvest 

Rate

Treaty 

Harvest

Max Nontreaty Total 

Harvest 

Rate

Non-treaty 

Harvest

Escapement

Past 

Fisheries

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

1 Each alternative presumes the status quo treaty/non-treaty allocation under the US v Oregon agreement 

2 where the harvestable number of Chinook salmon are shared 50/50 at any run above the escapement goal 

3 with the treaty fisheries receiving a larger share at very low run sizes. The allocation for non-treaty 

4 fisheries includes non-treaty sport and commercial impacts in the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

5 (PFMC) management area as well as Wanapum and Colville tribal fishery impacts in the upper Columbia. 

6 These two tribal groups are separate from the other treaty tribes and their harvest is considered as non7 treaty catch. These alternatives do not specifically analyze impacts to natural-origin fish as the summer 

8 Chinook salmon hatchery and natural-origin proportions are not available from TAC. 

9 4.1.1.2.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement 

10 Under Alternative 1, fisheries would be managed using the mixed harvest management framework 

11 described above. That would allow for harvest rates that range from 7 percent to nearly 60 percent. Table 

12 4-18 provides the minimum, maximum and average values for the defined metrics for Upper Columbia 

13 summer Chinook salmon. 

14 

 15 
US v Oregon EIS 88 2018 

1 Table 4-18. Defined Metrics for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 1 

Non-treaty Treaty

Upper 

Columbia

summer 

Chinook 

River 

Mouth Ocean

NonTreaty 

Comm.

Sport 

Z 1-5

Sport 

Z 6

Sport 

Mcn 

- 

PRD

Sport 

Above 

PRD

NonTreaty 

Tribal

Total 

NonTreatyTreaty 

C&S

Treaty 

Comm.

Total 

Treaty

Total 

Harvest

Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Priest 

Rapids 

Count

min 37,000 808 688 752 103 36 820 792 4,000 400 3,600 4,000 8,000 29,000 23,867

max 134,000 8,485 7,221 7,901 1,085 377 8,614 8,317 42,000 4,200 37,800 42,000 84,000 50,000 41,150

ave 74,417 3,944 3,356 3,672 504 175 4,003 3,866 19,521 1,952 17,569 19,521 39,042 35,375 29,114

2 
US v Oregon EIS 89 2018 

1 Under Alternative 1 (Extension), the harvest and escapement levels are unchanged from the status quo. 

2 Harvest fluctuates with the projected run size, meaning in years of low abundance harvest rates are lower 

3 than in years of high abundance. This results in escapement levels lower during years of low abundance, 

4 thereby reducing the adverse impact of removing fish from the spawning population during these years. 

5 Conversely, during years of high abundance, the greatest proportion of fish are harvested at the highest 

6 harvest rate. The resulting impact to the spawning population is negligible as the total number of fish 

7 escaping past the fisheries is still large.

8 4.1.1.2.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management 

9 Under Alternative 2 fisheries would be managed using a simple abundance management framework based 

10 on the abundance of Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon. In the example, the total harvest rate 

11 would range from 20 percent to 60 percent with the catch shared equally between treaty and non-treaty 

12 fisheries (10 percent to 30 percent for each) (Table 4-19). Table 4-20 provides the minimum, maximum 

13 and average values for the defined metrics for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon. Because the 

14 frameworks under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are the same, the analytical results and impacts are also 

15 the same.

16 Table 4-19. Abundance-based harvest rate schedule for Upper Columbia summer Chinook 

17 salmon. 

Run Size Allowed Total Harvest Allowed Treaty or 

Non-treaty Harvest

Allowed Treaty or 

Non-treaty Harvest 

Rate

37,000 7,400 3,700 10.0%

52,000 20,800 10,400 20.0%

58,000 23,200 11,600 20.0%

60,000 30,000 15,000 25.0%

61,000 30,500 15,250 25.0%

71,000 35,500 17,750 25.0%

75,000 40,500 20,250 27.0%

78,000 42,120 21,060 27.0%

83,000 44,820 22,410 27.0%

87,000 50,460 25,230 29.0%

97,000 56,260 28,130 29.0%
US v Oregon EIS 90 2018 

134,000 80,400 40,200 30.0%

1 
US v Oregon EIS 91 2018 

1 Table 4-20. Defined Metrics for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 2 

Non-treaty Treaty

Upper 

Columbia

summer 

Chinook

salmon river 

mouth run size Ocean

NonTreaty 

Comm.

Sport 

Z 1-5

Sport 

Z 6

Sport 

Mcn - 

PRD

Sport 

Above 

PRD

NonTreaty 

Tribal

Total 

NonTreatyTreaty 

C&S

Treaty 

Comm.

Total 

Treaty

Total 

Harvest

Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Priest 

Rapids 

Count

min 37,000 748 636 696 96 33 759 733 3,700 370 3,330 3,700 7,400 29,600 24,361

max 134,000 8,122 6,911 7,562 1,039 361 8,244 7,961 40,200 4,020 36,180 40,200 80,400 53,600 44,113

ave 74,417 3,889 3,309 3,621 497 173 3,948 3,812 19,248 1,925 17,324 19,248 38,497 35,920 29,562

2 
US v Oregon EIS 92 2018 

1 4.1.1.2.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate

2 Under Alternative 3, fisheries would be managed using a fixed harvest rate of 42 percent which is the 

3 recent year average. In this example, we presume that the catch would be shared equally between the 

4 treaty and non-treaty fisheries. Table 4-21 provides the minimum, maximum and average values for the 

5 defined metrics for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon.

6 Under Alternative 3, the harvest and escapement levels are constant. Harvest rate impacts occur 

7 constantly at the same proportions regardless of any fluctuation in projected run size Therefore, in years 

8 of low abundance harvest rates are the same as those in years of high abundance. This restricts the 

9 negative impacts from removing a greater number of fish from the spawning population during years of 

10 high abundance, thereby providing a slightly positive increase in the escapement past fisheries during 

11 large run sizes.

12 4.1.1.2.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management 

13 Under Alternative 4, fisheries would be managed using a fixed escapement goal of 29,000, but does not 

14 include other features of the management framework described under Alternative 1. Table 4-22 provides 

15 the minimum, maximum and average values for the defined metrics for Upper Columbia summer 

16 Chinook salmon. 

17 Under Alternative 4 the impacts from harvest vary based on the run size, but the associated impacts 

18 towards modifying spawning population levels are constant with a fixed escapement level. A fixed 

19 number of fish escape the fisheries. Harvest rates fluctuate as the projected run sizes fluctuate. In years of 

20 low abundance harvest rates are low, but in years of high abundance harvest rates are high. This is 

21 because all fish above the fixed escapement goal are deemed harvestable. During years of high 

22 abundance, negative impacts are maximized as all the fish above the escapement level are harvested. 

23 Thereby, compared to status quo conditions, Alternative 4 results in the lowest average level of 

24 escapement towards a total spawning population abundance.

25 4.1.1.2.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment

26 Under Alternative 5, commercial and recreational harvest rates were assumed to be zero thus providing a 

27 bench for comparison to the other alternatives. Table 4-23 shows the maximum escapement of Upper 

28 Columbia summer Chinook salmon that could occur absent all fishing.

29 Under Alternative 5, the impacts associated with most harvest are removed. This thereby provides the 

30 largest possible spawning population to the greatest extent possible each year.
US v Oregon EIS 93 2018 

1 Table 4-21. Defined Metrics for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 3 

Non-treaty Treaty

Upper Columbia

summer Chinook

salmon river mouth

run size Ocean

NonTreaty 

Comm.

Sport 

Z 1-5

Sport 

Z 6

Sport 

Mcn 

- 

PRD

Sport 

Above 

PRD

NonTreaty 

Tribal

Total 

NonTreatyTreaty 

C&S

Treaty 

Comm.

Total 

Treaty

Total 

Harvest

Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Priest 

Rapids 

Count

min 37,000 1,570 1,336 1,462 201 70 1,593 1,539 7,770 777 6,993 7,770 15,540 21,460 17,662

max 134,000 5,685 4,838 5,294 727 253 5,771 5,572 28,140 2,814 25,326 28,140 56,280 77,720 63,964

ave 74,417 3,157 2,687 2,940 404 140 3,205 3,095 15,628 1,563 14,065 15,628 31,255 43,162 35,522

2 Table 4-22. Defined Metrics for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 4/6

Non-treaty Treaty

Upper Columbia

summer Chinook

salmon river mouth

run size Ocean

NonTreaty 

Comm.

Sport 

Z 1-5

Sport 

Z 6

Sport 

Mcn - 

PRD

Sport 

Above 

PRD

NonTreaty 

Tribal

Total 

NonTreatyTreaty 

C&S

Treaty 

Comm.

Total 

Treaty

Total 

Harvest

Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Priest 

Rapids 

Count

min 37,000 808 688 752 103 36 820 792 4,000 400 3,600 4,000 8,000 29,000 23,867

max 134,000 10,607 9,026 9,876 1,357 471 10,767 10,396 52,500 5,250 47,250 52,500 105,000 29,000 23,867

ave 74,417 4,588 3,904 4,272 587 204 4,657 4,497 22,708 2,271 20,438 22,708 45,417 29,000 23,867

3 Table 4-23. Defined Metrics for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 5 

Non-treaty Treaty

Upper Columbia

summer Chinook

salmon river mouth

run size Ocean

NonTreaty 

Comm.

Sport 

Z 1-

5

Sport 

Z 6

Sport 

Mcn 

- 

PRD

Sport 

Above 

PRD

NonTreaty 

Tribal

Total 

NonTreatyTreaty 

C&S

Treaty 

Comm.

Total 

Treaty

Total 

Harvest

Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Priest 

Rapids 

Count

min 37,000 808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37,000 30,451

max 134,000 10,607 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134,000 110,282

ave 74,417 4,588 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74,417 61,245

4 
US v Oregon EIS 94 2018 

1 4.1.1.2.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated harvest

2 Under the No Action—Uncoordinated Harvest alternative, the level of fishing can be approximated by the 

3 results and impacts described under Alternative 4 resulting in aggressive harvest rates, therefore 

4 Alternative 6 results range from 21.6 percent minimum to 78.4 percent maximum and an average of 61.0 

5 percent as shown in table 4-22. This compares to an average Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon 

6 harvest rate under the status quo conditions of 52.5 percent (Table 3-7).

7 Under Alternative 6, as just described, the highest levels of impacts observed in Alternative 4 are 

8 expected to occur. This results in maximizing negative impacts associated with removing fish from a 

9 resulting spawning population to the greatest extent during years of high abundance, and thereby results 

10 in the lowest average level of escapement towards a total spawning population.

11 4.1.1.3. Upriver Sockeye Salmon

12 For management purposes, Upriver sockeye salmon include stocks returning to the Okanogan, 

13 Wenatchee, and Snake rivers. These are primarily natural-origin fish. In recent years at least, the 

14 Okanogan and Wenatchee stocks have been healthy with substantial surpluses available for harvest. 

15 Snake River sockeye salmon are listed under the ESA as endangered. Upriver sockeye salmon are 

16 managed using what is nominally an abundance based harvest rate schedule that allows for rates that 

17 range from 6 percent to 8 percent (1 percent for non-treaty fisheries and 5 to 7 percent for treaty Indian 

18 fisheries) (Table 4-24). Since the upriver run has exceeded 50,000 in all recent years, the current 

19 framework is effectively a fixed harvest rate framework that allows for a harvest rate of 8 percent. Under 

20 the current agreement, the harvest rates are limited by the status of Snake River sockeye and are not 

21 structured to provide greater access to the more abundant Okanogan and Wenatchee stocks. 

22 Table 4-24. Upriver sockeye salmon harvest framework. 

Upriver Sockeye Run Size Harvest Rate on Upriver Sockeye

<50,000 5%

50 to 75,000 7%

>75,000 7% with further discussion

23 

24 4.1.1.3.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement 

25 Under Alternative 1 fisheries would be managed using the two step abundance based schedule described 

26 above. At run sizes less than 50,000 the total allowed harvest rate is 6 percent and at 50,000 and greater, 
US v Oregon EIS 95 2018 

1 the allowed total harvest rate is 8 percent. The non-treaty portion of the total harvest rate is limited to 1

2 percent at all run sizes. Tables 4-25 and 4-26 show the defined metrics for upriver and Snake River 

3 sockeye salmon, respectively.

4 Under Alternative 1 (Extension), the harvest and escapement levels are unchanged from the status quo. 

5 Harvest fluctuates with the projected run size, meaning in years of low abundance harvest rates are lower 

6 than in years of high abundance. This results in escapement levels lower during years of low abundance, 

7 thereby reducing the adverse impact of removing fish from the spawning population during these years. 

8 Conversely, during years of high abundance, the greatest proportion of fish are harvested at the highest 

9 harvest rate. The resulting impact to the spawning population is negligible as the total number of fish 

10 escaping past the fisheries is still large. 

11 Table 4-25. Defined Metrics for Upriver sockeye salmon under Alternative 1. 

River 

Mouth 

Run

Size

Comm. Sport

Total 

Nontreaty

Treaty 

C&S

Treaty 

Comm.

Total 

Treaty

Total 

Harvest

Escapement

Past 

Fisheries

min 27,000 50 220 270 203 1,148 1,350 1,620 25,380

max 648,000 1,194 5,286 6,480 6,804 38,556 45,360 51,840 596,160

ave 277,833 512 2,266 2,778 2,901 16,440 19,342 22,120 255,713

12 Table 4-26. Defined Metrics for Snake River sockeye salmon under Alternative 1. 

Snake River

sockeye 

salmon run 

size

Total Harvest Total HR Escapement

Past Fisheries

Lower 

Granite 

Count

min 124 7 6.0% 117 97

max 2,977 238 8.0% 2,739 2,273

ave 1,276 102 7.7% 1,174 974

13 4.1.1.3.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management 

14 Under Alternative 2, fisheries would be managed using an expanded abundance based harvest rate 

15 schedule that is tied more directly to conservation related abundance objectives. In this example, a river 

16 mouth run size of 13,750 for Snake River sockeye salmon approximates the aggregate abundance 

17 necessary to meet abundance related recovery objectives for the ESU. A run size of 13,750 accounts for 

18 upstream migration losses that occur between the river mouth and Stanley Basin, the endpoint of the 

19 migration corridor for Snake River sockeye salmon. Under this framework, harvest rates range from 6

20 percent to 11 percent depending on the abundance of Snake River sockeye salmon (Table 4-27). Tables 4-

21 28 and 4-29 show the defined metrics for upriver and Snake River sockeye salmon for Alternative 2.

22 Under Alternative 2, the harvest and escapement levels are slightly changed from the status quo, but only 
US v Oregon EIS 96 2018 

1 at high abundances. Harvest fluctuates with the projected run size, meaning in years of low abundance 

2 harvest rates are lower than in years of high abundance. This results in escapement levels lower during 

3 years of low abundance, thereby reducing the adverse impact of removing fish from the spawning 

4 population during these years. Conversely, during years of high abundance, the greatest proportion of fish 

5 are harvested at the highest harvest rate. The resulting impact to the spawning population is negligible as 

6 the total number of fish escaping past the fisheries is still large.

7 Table 4-27. Abundance-based harvest rate schedule for Upriver sockeye salmon. 

River Mouth Run

size All Sockeye 

Stocks

Minimum Snake 

River Run Size at 

CR Mouth

Non-Treaty 

Total Harvest 

Rate

Treaty Total 

Harvest Rate

Total 

Harvest Rate

<50,000 <1,000 1% 5.00% 6.00%

50,000 1,000 1% 7.00% 8.00%

75,000 2,500 1% 7.50% 8.50%

100,000 3,000 1% 8.00% 9.00%

125,000 4,000 1% 8.25% 9.25%

150,000 5,000 1% 8.50% 9.50%

175,000 6,000 1% 8.75% 9.75%

200,000 8,000 1% 9.00% 10.00%

225,000 10,000 1% 9.50% 10.50%

250,000 12,500 1% 10.00% 11.00%

>300,000 >13,750 >1% >10.0 >11.0%

8 

9 Table 4-28. Defined Metrics for Upriver sockeye salmon under Alternative 2. 

River 

Mouth 

Run

Size

Comm. Sport

Total 

Nontreaty

Treaty 

C&S

Treaty 

Comm.

Total 

Treaty

Total 

Harvest

Escapement

Past 

Fisheries

min 27,000 50 220 270 203 1,148 1,350 1,620 25,380

max 648,000 2,388 10,572 12,960 10,692 60,588 71,280 84,240 563,760

ave 277,833 611 2,707 3,318 4,071 23,071 27,143 30,461 247,372
US v Oregon EIS 97 2018 

1 Table 4-29. Defined Metrics for Snake River sockeye salmon under Alternative 2. 

Snake River

sockeye salmon 

run size

Total Harvest Total HR Escapement

Past Fisheries

Lower Granite 

Count

min 124 7 6.0% 117 97

max 2,977 387 13.0% 2,590 2,150

ave 1,276 140 9.7% 1,136 943

2 4.1.1.3.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate

3 Under Alternative 3 fisheries would be managed using a fixed harvest rate of 8 percent. This is similar to 

4 Alternative 1 except the 8 percent total harvest rate would apply to all run sizes. This alternative would 

5 not be as conservative as Alternative 1 at the lowest run sizes. Tables 4-30 and 4-31 show the defined 

6 metrics for Upriver and Snake River sockeye salmon for Alternative 3.

7 Under Alternative 3, the harvest and escapement levels are constant. Harvest rate impacts occur 

8 constantly at the same proportions regardless of any fluctuation in projected run size. Therefore, in years 

9 of low abundance harvest rates are the same as those in years of high abundance. This restricts the 

10 negative impacts associated with removing a greater number of fish from the spawning population during 

11 years of high abundance, thereby providing a slightly positive increase in the escapement past fisheries 

12 during large run sizes. 

13 Table 4-30. Defined Metrics for Upriver sockeye salmon under Alternative 3. 

River 

Mouth 

Run

Size

Comm. Sport

Total 

NonTreaty

Treaty 

C&S

Treaty 

Comm.

Total 

Treaty

Total 

Harvest

Escapement

Past 

Fisheries

min 27,000 50 220 270 284 1,607 1,890 2,160 24,840

max 648,000 1,194 5,286 6,480 6,804 38,556 45,360 51,840 596,160

ave 277,833 512 2,266 2,778 2,917 16,531 19,448 22,227 255,607

14 Table 4-31. Defined Metrics for Snake River sockeye salmon under Alternative 3. 

Snake River

sockeye salmon 

run size

Total Harvest Total HR Escapement

Past Fisheries

Lower Granite 

Count

min 124 10 8.0% 114 95

max 2,977 238 8.0% 2,739 2,273

ave 1,276 102 8.0% 1,174 974

15 4.1.1.3.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management 

16 Under Alternative 4 fisheries would be managed using a fixed escapement goal of 150,000 Upriver 

17 sockeye salmon past fisheries while still allowing for a 6 percent total harvest rate for runs less than the 

18 goal. In this example, the management framework is focused on the abundance of Upriver sockeye 
US v Oregon EIS 98 2018 

1 salmon and Snake River sockeye salmon are no longer the limiting stock. The 6 percent harvest rate 

2 provides for de minimis fisheries at low abundance. Otherwise, the harvest rate would be reduced to zero. 

3 The escapement past fisheries target of 150,000 approximates the aggregate abundance necessary meet 

4 escapement goals for the Wenatchee and Okanogan stocks. Tables 4-32 and 4-33 show the defined 

5 metrics for upriver and Snake River sockeye salmon for Alternative 4.

6 Under Alternative 4 the impacts from harvest vary based on the run size, but the associated impacts 

7 towards modifying spawning population levels are constant with a fixed escapement level. A fixed 

8 number of fish escape the fisheries. Harvest rates fluctuate as the projected run sizes fluctuate. In years of 

9 low abundance harvest rates are low, but in years of high abundance harvest rates are high. This is 

10 because all fish above the fixed escapement goal are deemed harvestable. During years of high 

11 abundance, negative impacts are maximized as all the fish above the escapement level are harvested. 

12 Thereby, compared to status quo conditions, Alternative 4 results in the lowest average level of 

13 escapement towards a total spawning population abundance.

14 Table 4-32 Defined Metrics for Upriver sockeye salmon under Alternative 4 and Alternative 6. 

River 

Mouth 

Run

Size

Comm. Sport

Total 

Nontreaty

Treaty 

C&S

Treaty 

Comm.

Total 

Treaty

Total 

Harvest

Escapement

Past Fisheries

min 27,000 50 220 270 203 1,148 1,350 1,620 25,380

max 648,000 45,877 203,123 249,000 37,350 211,650 249,000 498,000 150,000

ave 277,833 14,170 62,739 76,909 11,607 65,772 77,379 154,288 123,545

15 Table 4-33. Defined Metrics for Snake River sockeye salmon under Alternative 4 and Alternative 

16 6. 

Snake River

sockeye salmon 

run size

Total Harvest Total HR Escapement

Past Fisheries

Lower Granite 

Count

min 124 7 6.0% 117 97

max 2,977 2,288 76.9% 689 572

ave 1,276 709 36.8% 567 471

17 4.1.1.3.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment

18 Under the Alternative 5, harvest rates on sockeye salmon were assumed to be zero thus providing a bench 

19 for comparison to the other alternatives. Tables 4-34 and 4-45 show the maximum escapement of Upriver 

20 sockeye salmon and Snake River sockeye salmon that could occur absent all fishing.

21 Under Alternative 5, the impacts associated with harvest are removed. This thereby provides the largest 

22 possible spawning population to the greatest extent possible each year.

23 Table 4-34. Defined Metrics for Upriver sockeye salmon under Alternative 5. 
US v Oregon EIS 99 2018 

River 

Mouth 

Run Size

Commercial Sport

Total 

Nontreaty

Treaty 

C&S

Treaty 

Commercial 

Total 

Treaty

Total 

Harvest

min 27,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

max 648,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ave 277,833 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Table 4-35. Defined Metrics for Snake River sockeye salmon under Alternative 5.

Snake River

sockeye salmon 

run size

Total Harvest Total HR Escapement

Past Fisheries

Lower Granite 

Count

min 124 0% 0% 124 103

max 2,977 0% 0% 2,977 2,471

ave 1,276 0% 0% 1,276 1,059

2 4.1.1.3.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated harvest

3 Under the No Action—Uncoordinated Harvest alternative, the level of fishing can be approximated by the 

4 results and impacts described under Alternative 4, resulting in aggressive harvest rates that range from 6

5 percent minimum to 76.9 percent maximum and an average of 36.8 percent as shown in Tables 4-32. This 

6 compares to an average Upriver sockeye salmon harvest rate under the status quo conditions of 8 percent 

7 (Table 3-9).

8 Under Alternative 6, as just described, the highest levels of impacts observed in Alternative 4 are 

9 expected to occur. This results in maximizing adverse impacts associated with removing fish from a 

10 resulting spawning population to the greatest extent during years of high abundance, and thereby results 

11 in the lowest average level of escapement towards a total spawning population. 

12 4.1.1.4. Upriver Fall Chinook Salmon 

13 For management purposes, Upriver fall Chinook salmon are defined as any of the fall Chinook salmon 

14 stocks passing Bonneville from August 1-December 31. The stock includes both hatchery and natural15 origin fish. Upriver fall Chinook salmon include a “tule” type which is an earlier maturing fall Chinook 

16 salmon which historically spawned in tributaries downstream of Celilo falls, and a “bright” stock of later 

17 maturing fish which historically spawned primarily in mainstem and tributary areas upstream of Celilo 

18 falls however bright fall Chinook salmon likely utilized areas downstream of Bonneville as well. The 

19 upriver stocks include an upriver bright (URB) fall Chinook salmon which includes all hatchery and 

20 natural bright stock fish originating upstream of McNary Dam and natural-origin fish originating in the 

21 Deschutes River. The URB stock includes the ESA listed Snake River fall Chinook salmon ESU. The 

22 other upriver stocks include the pool upriver bright (PUB) stock, the Bonneville Pool Hatchery (BPH) 

23 stock, and the soon to be defunct Bonneville upriver bright (BUB) stock (the last return of adult BUBs 
US v Oregon EIS 100 2018 

1 will likely occur in 2017, with the possibility of a small amount of six year old fish returning in 2018). 

2 The PUB stock includes all hatchery and any natural-origin bright stock fish originating from tributaries 

3 other than the Deschutes between Bonneville and McNary Dams. Under the current agreement, Upriver 

4 fall Chinook salmon are managed using an abundance based harvest schedule that depends on the 

5 abundance of upriver fall Chinook salmon and natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon. 

6 Allowable harvest rates range from 21.5 percent to 45 percent (Table 4-36).

7 Table 4-36. Fall management period Chinook salmon harvest rate schedule. 

Expected 

URB River 

Mouth Run

Size

Expected River 

Mouth Snake 

River Naturalorigin Run Size1

Treaty Total 

Harvest 

Rate

Non-treaty 

Harvest Rate

Total 

Harvest 

Rate

Expected 

Escapement of 

Snake River

Natural-origin

Past Fisheries

< 60,000 < 1,000 20% 1.50% 21.5% 784

60,000 1,000 23% 4.00% 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% 11.00% 38.00% 3,720

8,000 30% 15.00% 45.00% 4,400

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

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

10 4.1.1.4.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement

11 Under Alternative 1 fisheries would be managed using the abundance based schedule described above. 

12 Tables 4-37 and 4-38 provide the minimum, maximum and average values for defined metrics for Upriver 

13 fall Chinook salmon and natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 1. For 

14 reference, the abundance related recovery objective for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon is 

15 an escapement of 3,000 at Lower Granite Dam. 

16 Under Alternative 1 (Extension), the harvest and escapement levels are unchanged from the status quo. 

17 Harvest fluctuates with the projected run size, meaning in years of low abundance harvest rates are lower 

18 than in years of high abundance. This results in escapement levels lower during years of low abundance, 

19 thereby reducing the adverse impact of removing fish from the spawning population during these years. 

20 Conversely, during years of high abundance, the greatest proportion of fish are harvested at the highest 

21 harvest rate. The resulting impact to the spawning population is negligible as the total number of fish 

22 escaping past the fisheries is still large. 
US v Oregon EIS 101 2018 

1 Table 4-37. Defined Metrics for Upriver fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 1. 

Total 

SAFE

Total 

Comm.

Total 

Lower 

River 

Sport

Total 

Sport

Expect.

Treaty 

C&S

Expect.

Treaty 

Comm.

Total 

Treaty

Total 

NonTreaty

Total 

Harvest

Esc. Past 

Fisheries

min 180 3,657 2,775 3,265 1,848 42,849 44,697 6,923 51,620 109,431

max 4,767 96,614 73,317 86,259 16,980 393,700 410,680 182,872 593,553 540,925

ave 2,214 44,870 34,050 40,060 8,078 187,303 195,381 84,930 280,311 268,788

2 Table 4-38. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon under 

3 Alternative 1.

Snake River fall 

Chinook salmon 

river mouth run 

size

HR (less due to 

MSF) Harvest Esc. Past Fisheries

Lower Granite 

Count

min 5,808 25.9% 1,504 4,304 3,228

max 40,916 43.9% 17,957 22,959 17,219

ave 19,804 41.0% 8,470 11,334 8,501

4 4.1.1.4.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management 

5 Under Alternative 2 fisheries would be managed using an abundance based management framework. 

6 Although other abundance based frameworks could be devised that would be more or less restrictive, the 

7 analysis assumes that the current framework would apply thus allowing harvest rates to range from 21.5 

8 percent to 45 percent. Because the frameworks under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are the same, the 

9 analytical results and impacts are also the same (Tables 4-39 and 4-40).

10 Table 4-39. Defined Metrics for Upriver fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 2. 

Total 

SAFE

Total 

Comm.

Total 

Lower 

River 

Sport

Total 

Sport

Expect. 

Treaty 

C&S

Expect. 

Treaty 

Comm.

Total 

Treaty

Total 

Nontreaty

Total 

Harvest

Esc. Past 

Fisheries

min 180 3,657 2,775 3,265 1,848 42,849 44,697 6,923 51,620 109,431

max 4,767 96,614 73,317 86,259 16,980 393,700 410,680 182,872 593,553 540,925

ave 2,214 44,870 34,050 40,060 8,078 187,303 195,381 84,930 280,311 268,788

11 Table 4-40. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon under 

12 Alternative 2.

Snake River fall 

Chinook salmon 

river mouth run 

size

HR Harvest Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Lower Granite 

Count

min. 5,808 25.9% 1,504 4,304 3,228

max. 40,916 43.9% 17,957 22,959 17,219

ave. 19,804 41.0% 8,470 11,334 8,501
US v Oregon EIS 102 2018 

1 4.1.1.4.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate

2 Under Alternative 3 fisheries would be managed using a fixed harvest rate of 40.9 percent for ESA-listed 

3 Snake River fall Chinook salmon. This is the average rate observed over the last twelve years. Tables 4-

4 41 and 4-42 provide the minimum, maximum and average values for defined metrics for Upriver fall 

5 Chinook salmon and natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 3. 

6 Under Alternative 3, the harvest and escapement levels are constant. Harvest rate impacts occur 

7 constantly at the same proportions regardless of any fluctuation in projected run size. Therefore, in years 

8 of low abundance harvest rates are the same as those in years of high abundance. This restricts the 

9 negative impacts associated with removing a greater number of fish from the spawning population during 

10 years of high abundance, thereby providing a slightly positive increase in the escapement past fisheries 

11 during large run sizes. 

12 Table 4-41. Defined Metrics for Upriver fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 3. 

Total 

SAFE

Total 

Comm.

Total 

Lower 

River 

Sport

Total 

Sport

Expect. 

Treaty 

C&S

Expect. 

Treaty 

Comm.

Total 

Treaty

Total 

Nontreaty

Total 

Harvest

Esc. Past 

Fisheries

min 587 11,887 9,020 10,613 2,330 54,027 56,357 22,499 78,856 82,194

max 4,132 83,732 63,541 74,758 16,414 380,577 396,991 158,489 555,480 578,997

ave 2,000 40,527 30,755 36,183 7,944 184,203 192,148 76,711 268,859 280,241

13 Table 4-42. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon under 

14 Alternative 3. 

Snake River fall 

Chinook salmon 

river mouth run 

size

HR Harvest Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Lower Granite 

Count

min 5,808 40.9% 2,375 3,433 2,575

max 40,916 40.9% 16,729 24,187 18,140

ave 19,804 40.9% 8,097 11,707 8,780

15 4.1.1.4.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management 

16 Under Alternative 4 fisheries would be managed using a fixed escapement goal of 3,000 natural-origin 

17 Snake River fall Chinook salmon to Lower Granite Dam. To account for the additional mortality that 

18 occurs during upstream migration, the escapement goal of 3,000 to Lower Granite Dam is expanded to 

19 4,000. This expansion is an approximation of the interdam loss that occurs absent fishing based on 

20 estimates of conversion loss from the US v Oregon TAC and is an illustration of the approach rather than 

21 a specific proposal. At the highest Snake River fall Chinook salmon run sizes, harvest rates on the PUB 

22 and BUB stocks would severely limit expected escapement of these stocks. Where negative escapement 

23 past fisheries is shown, the model is in effect showing that harvest rates on the PUB and BUB stocks are 
US v Oregon EIS 103 2018 

1 excessive based on historic allocations and fishery patterns. Tables 4-43 and 4-44 provide the minimum, 

2 maximum and average values for defined metrics for Upriver fall Chinook and natural-origin Snake River 

3 fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 4.

4 Under Alternative 4 the impacts from harvest vary based on the run size, but the associated impacts 

5 towards modifying spawning population levels are constant with a fixed escapement level. A fixed 

6 number of fish escape the fisheries. Harvest rates fluctuate as the projected run sizes fluctuate. In years of 

7 low abundance harvest rates are low, but in years of high abundance harvest rates are high. This is 

8 because all fish above the fixed escapement goal are deemed harvestable. During years of high 

9 abundance, negative impacts are maximized as all the fish above the escapement level are harvested. 

10 Thereby, compared to status quo conditions, Alternative 4 results in the lowest average level of 

11 escapement towards a total spawning population abundance.
US v Oregon EIS 104 2018 

1 Table 4-43. Defined Metrics for Upriver fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 4 and Alternative 6. 

Total 

SAFE

Z-1-5 

Comm. B 10 Z 1-5 Sport

Total 

Lower 

River 

Sport

Z-6 

Sport

McN-I 

395 

sport

Total 

Sport

Total 

Nontreaty

Expect.

Treaty 

C&S

Expect.

Treaty 

Comm.

Total 

Treaty

Total 

Harvest

Esc. Past 

Fisheries

min 241 8,360 1,721 6,644 8,365 716 539 9,620 18,221 892 17,329 18,221 36,442 76,558

max 4,817 166,782 34,342 132,547 166,889 14,285 10,752 191,926 363,525 17,799 345,726 363,525 727,050 68,950 

ave 2,065 71,514 14,725 56,834 71,559 6,125 4,610 82,295 155,874 7,632 148,242 155,874 311,747 73,525 

2 Table 4-44. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 4 and Alternative 6. 

Snake River fall 

Chinook salmon 

river mouth run 

size

HR Harvest Esc. Past Fisheries Lower Granite 

Count

min 5,808 31.1% 1,808 4,000 3,000

max 40,916 90.2% 36,916 4,000 3,000

ave 19,804 71.6% 15,804 4,000 3,000

3 
US v Oregon EIS 105 2018 

1 4.1.1.4.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment

2 Under Alternative 5, harvest rates were assumed to be zero thus providing a bench for comparison to the 

3 other alternatives. Tables 4-45 and 4-46 show the maximum escapement of Upriver fall Chinook salmon 

4 and natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon that would occur absent all fishing.

5 Under Alternative 5, the impacts associated with harvest are removed. This thereby provides the largest 

6 possible spawning population to the greatest extent possible each year. 

7 Table 4-45. Defined Metrics for Upriver fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 5. 

Total 

SAFE

Total 

Comm.

Total 

Lower 

River 

Sport

Total 

Sport

Expected 

Treaty 

C&S

Expected 

Treaty 

Comm.

Total 

Treaty

Total 

Nontreaty

Total 

Harvest

min 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

max 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 Table 4-46. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon under 

9 Alternative 5. 

Snake River fall 

Chinook salmon 

river mouth run 

size

HR (less due to 

MSF) Harvest Esc. Past Fisheries

Lower Granite 

Count

min 5,808 0% 0 5,808 4,356

max 40,916 0% 0 40,916 30,687

ave 19,804 0% 0 19,804 14,853

10 4.1.1.4.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated harvest

11 Under the No Action—Uncoordinated Harvest alternative, the level of fishing can be approximated by the 

12 results and impacts described under Alternative 4, resulting in aggressive harvest rates that range from 

13 31.1 percent minimum to 90.2 percent maximum and an average of 71.6 percent as shown in tables 4-43 

14 and 4-44. This compares to an average Snake River fall Chinook salmon harvest rate under the status quo 

15 conditions of 41.0 percent (Table 3-8).

16 Under Alternative 6, as just described, the highest levels of impacts observed in Alternative 4 are 

17 expected to occur. This results in maximizing adverse impacts associated with removing fish from a 

18 resulting spawning population to the greatest extent during years of high abundance, and thereby results 

19 in the lowest average level of escapement towards a total spawning population. 

20 4.1.1.5. Snake River Steelhead

21 Upriver steelhead returning to areas above Bonneville Dam have a complex life history and protracted run 

22 timing that introduces considerable complexity into the harvest management process. Although steelhead 

23 are present in the system throughout the year, most migrate through the areas above Bonneville Dam 

24 during the fall management period. For that reason and to reduce the complexity of the analysis of harvest 

25 policy alternatives, the analysis here focuses on steelhead management during the fall season.

26 Under the current agreement, Snake River B-Index steelhead are used as an indicator stock. Snake River 

27 B-Index steelhead are defined as those that pass above Bonneville dam between July 1 and October 31 

28 and are at least 78 cm in length. B-Index steelhead return primarily to areas in the Snake River. B-Index 

29 steelhead are used as an indicator because they can be visually identified based on their length, are 

30 general subject to higher harvest rates because of their size, and were, for the most part, depressed relative 

31 to other stocks in the basin. Harvest rate limits for B-Index steelhead therefore provide protection for the 
US v Oregon EIS 106 2018 

1 smaller A-Index components of the run. Under the current agreement, fisheries are managed during the 

2 fall season using an abundance based harvest rate schedule that depends on the abundance of natural3 origin Snake River B-Index steelhead. Allowable harvest rates on natural-origin fish range from 15 

4 percent to 22 percent (Table 4-47). 

5 Table 4-47. Fall Management Period Steelhead Harvest Rate Schedule.

Forecast 

Bonneville Total 

Snake River BIndex Steelhead 

Run Size

River Mouth 

URB Run Size

Treaty Total B 

Harvest Rate

Non-treaty 

Natural-origin BIndex 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-Index Steelhead are defined as steelhead measuring ≥78 cm

6 4.1.1.5.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement

7 Under Alternative 1 fisheries would be managed using the abundance based harvest rate schedule 

8 described above that limits the harvest of natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead to 15 percent to 

9 22 percent. Tables 4-48 and 4-49 show the defined metrics for Snake River B-Index (hatchery and 

10 natural-origin combined) and natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead, respectively.

11 Under Alternative 1 (Extension), the harvest and escapement levels are unchanged from the status quo. 

12 Harvest fluctuates with the projected run size, meaning in years of low abundance harvest rates are lower 

13 than in years of high abundance. This results in escapement levels lower during years of low abundance, 

14 thereby reducing the adverse impact of removing fish from the spawning population during these years. 

15 Conversely, during years of high abundance, the greatest proportion of fish are harvested at the highest 

16 harvest rate. The resulting impact to the spawning population is negligible as the total number of fish 

17 escaping past the fisheries is still large.

18 4.1.1.5.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management 

19 Under Alternative 2 fisheries would be managed using the same abundance-based harvest rate schedule as 

20 Alternative 1. Because the frameworks under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are the same, the analytical 

21 results and impacts are also the same (Tables 4-50 and 4-51).

22 4.1.1.5.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate

23 This alternative uses a fixed total natural-origin Snake River B-Index harvest rate for the tribal fishery and 

24 a fixed 2 percent natural-origin Snake River B-Index harvest rate for the non-treaty fishery.

25 Under Alternative 3, the harvest and escapement levels are constant. Harvest rate impacts occur 

26 constantly at the same proportions regardless of any fluctuation in projected run size. Therefore, in years 

27 of low abundance harvest rates are the same as those in years of high abundance (Tables 4-52 and 4-53). 

28 This restricts the negative impacts associated with removing a greater number of fish from the spawning 

29 population during years of high abundance, thereby providing a slightly positive increase in the 

30 escapement past fisheries during large run sizes.

31 4.1.1.5.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management 

32 This alternative uses an escapement goal of 4,700 natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead at Lower 
US v Oregon EIS 107 2018 

1 Granite which is based on the 10 year average run size. This was expanded to an equivalent run size at 

2 Bonneville Dam of 8,200 using TACs run reconstruction methodology. For run sizes under 8,200 natural3 origin Snake River B-Index steelhead, our analysis assumes de minimis fisheries of 7% for treaty fisheries 

4 and 0.7% for non-Indian fisheries. 

5 Under Alternative 4 the impacts from harvest vary based on the run size, but the associated impacts 

6 towards modifying spawning population levels are constant with a fixed escapement level. A fixed 

7 number of fish escape the fisheries. Harvest rates fluctuate as the projected run sizes fluctuate. In years of 

8 low abundance harvest rates are low, but in years of high abundance harvest rates are high. This is 

9 because all fish above the fixed escapement goal are deemed harvestable. During years of high 

10 abundance, negative impacts are maximized as all the fish above the escapement level are harvested. 

11 Thereby, compared to status quo conditions, Alternative 4 results in the lowest average level of 

12 escapement towards a total spawning population abundance.
US v Oregon EIS 108 2018 

1 Table 4-48. Defined Metrics for Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 1. 

Run

Size

Z 1-5 

Comm.

Z 1-5 

Sport

Treaty 

C & S

Treaty 

Comm.

Total 

Treaty

Z 6- i395 

Sport

Total 

Sport Total NT Total Catch

Escapement

Past Fisheries

Expected 

Granite Run

min 11,780 56 161 77 1,455 1,531 1,333 1,494 1,550 3,081 8,699 8,118

max 94,476 458 1,327 945 17,950 18,895 10,992 12,319 12,777 31,672 62,804 58,609

ave 48,575 235 680 471 9,416 9,416 5,631 6,310 6,545 15,961 32,614 30,436

2 Table 4-49. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 1. 

Run

Size

Total 

Treaty

Treaty 

HR

Total 

NT NT HR

Total 

Catch

Total 

HR

Escapement

Past Fisheries

Lower 

Granite 

Count

min 2,420 417 17.2% 48 2.0% 465 19.2% 1,955 1,130

max 19,951 5,148 25.8% 399 2.0% 5,547 27.8% 14,404 8,326

ave 10,220 2,565 25.1% 204 2.0% 2,769 27.1% 7,451 4,307

3 Table 4-50. Defined Metrics for Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 2. 

Run

Size

Z 1-5 

Comm.

Z 1-5 

Sport

Treaty 

C & S

Treaty 

Comm.

Total 

Treaty

Z 6- i395 

Sport

Total 

Sport Total NT Total Catch

Escapement

Past Fisheries

Lower 

Granite 

Count

min 11,780 56 161 77 1,455 1,531 1,333 1,494 1,550 3,081 8,699 8,118

max 94,476 458 1,327 945 17,950 18,895 10,992 12,319 12,777 31,672 62,804 58,609

ave 48,575 235 680 471 9,416 9,416 5,631 6,310 6,545 15,961 32,614 30,436

4 Table 4-51. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 2. 

Run

Size

Total 

Treaty

Treaty 

HR

Total 

NT NT HR Total Catch

Total 

HR

Escapement

Past Fisheries

Lower 

Granite 

Count

min 2,420 417 17.2% 48 2.0% 465 19.2% 1,955 1,130

max 19,951 5,148 25.8% 399 2.0% 5,547 27.8% 14,404 8,326

ave 10,220 2,565 25.1% 204 2.0% 2,769 27.1% 7,451 4,307
US v Oregon EIS 109 2018 

1 Table 4-52. Defined Metrics for Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 3. 

Run

Size

Z 1-5 

Commercial

Z 1-5 

Sport

Treaty 

C & S

Treaty 

Commercial

Total 

Treaty

Z 6- i395 

Sport

Total 

Sport

Total 

NT

Total 

Catch

Escapement

Past 

Fisheries

Lower 

Granite 

Count

min 11,780 56 161 106 2,014 2,120 1,333 1,494 1,550 3,670 8,110 7,568

max 94,476 458 1,327 850 16,155 17,006 10,992 12,319 12,777 29,782 64,693 60,373

ave 48,575 235 680 437 8,306 8,743 5,631 6,310 6,545 15,288 33,286 31,063

2 Table 4-53. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 3. 

Run

Size

Total 

Treaty

Treaty 

HR

Total 

NT NT HR Total Catch

Total 

HR

Escapement

Past Fisheries

Lower 

Granite 

Count

min 2,420 578 23.9% 48 2.0% 626 25.9% 1,794 1,037

max 19,951 4,633 23.2% 399 2.0% 5,032 25.2% 14,919 8,623

ave 10,220 2,382 23.3% 204 2.0% 2,586 25.3% 7,634 4,412

3 Table 4-54. Defined Metrics for Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 4 and Alternative 6. 

Run

Size

Z 1-5 

Commercial

Z 1-5 

Sport

Treaty 

C & S

Treaty 

Commercial

Total 

Treaty

Z 6- i395 

Sport

Total 

Sport

Total 

NT

Total 

Catch

Escapement

Past Fisheries

Lower 

Granite 

Count

min 11,780 19 56 34 648 682 467 523 542 1,225 10,555 9,850

max 94,476 1,122 3,250 2,170 41,234 43,404 26,929 30,179 31,301 74,706 19,770 18,450

ave 48,575 348 1,008 580 11,018 11,598 8,355 9,364 9,712 21,310 27,265 25,444

4 Table 4-55. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 4 and Alternative 6. 

Run

Size

Total 

Treaty

Treaty 

HR

Total 

NT NT HR Total Catch

Total 

HR

Escapement

Past Fisheries

Lower 

Granite 

Count

min 2,420 169 7.0% 17 0.7% 186 7.7% 2,234 1,291

max 19,951 10,774 54.0% 978 4.9% 11,752 58.9% 8,199 4,739

ave 10,220 2,879 28.2% 303 3.0% 3,182 31.1% 7,038 4,068

5 
US v Oregon EIS 110 2018 

1 4.1.1.5.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment

2 Under Alternative 5, harvest rates on Snake River B-Index steelhead were assumed to be zero thus 

3 providing a benchmark for comparison to the other alternatives. Tables 4-56 and 4-57 show the maximum 

4 escapement of Snake River B-Index and natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead that could occur 

5 absent all fishing.

6 Under Alternative 5, the impacts associated with harvest are removed. This thereby provides the largest 

7 possible spawning population to the greatest extent possible each year.

8 Table 4-56. Defined Metrics for Snake River B-Index steelhead under Alternative 5. 

Run

Size

Z 1-5 

Comm.

Z 1-5 

Sport

Treaty 

C & S

Treaty 

Comm.

Total 

Treaty

Z 6-

i395 

Sport

Total

Sport

Total 

NT

Total 

Catch

min 11,780 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

max 94,476 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ave 48,575 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9 Table 4-57. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead under 

10 Alternative 5. 

Run Size

Total 

Treaty

Treaty 

HR

Total 

NT NT HR

Total 

Catch

Total 

HR

Escapement

Past 

Fisheries

Lower 

Granite 

Count

min 2,420 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2,420 1,399

max 19,951 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 19,951 11,532

ave 10,220 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 10,220 5,907

11 4.1.1.5.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated harvest

12 Under the No Action—Uncoordinated Harvest alternative, the level of fishing can be approximated by the 

13 results and impacts described under Alternative 4, resulting in aggressive harvest rates that range from 7.7

14 percent minimum to 58.9 percent maximum and an average of 31.1 percent as shown in tables 4-54 

15 through 4-55. This compares to an average Snake River B-Index steelhead harvest rate under the status 

16 quo conditions of 27.1 percent (Table 3-11). 

17 Under Alternative 6, as just described, the highest levels of impacts observed in Alternative 4 are 

18 expected to occur. This results in maximizing adverse impacts associated with removing fish from a 

19 resulting spawning population to the greatest extent during years of high abundance, and thereby results 

20 in the lowest average level of escapement towards a total spawning population.

21 4.2. Fish

22 4.2.1. Salmonids

23 Salmonids in the Columbia River Basin that would be affected by the Proposed Action include five 
US v Oregon EIS 111 2018 

1 species of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus sp.), including steelhead. Recall that each alternative analyzed 

2 in this EIS uses the rate at which fish may be harvested to assess the impact of each alternative. These 

3 rates provide the levels at which fish abundance is reduced, and subsequent spawning population potential 

4 is conversely impacted. These species impacted are: 

5 ● Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

6 ○ Upper Columbia River spring-run - ESA-listed 

7 For natural-origin Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon the average harvest rate and average 

8 escapement past fisheries are the same for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 (Table 4-58, Subsection 

9 4.1.1.1.1 and Subsection 4.1.1.1.2). The average harvest rate of Alternative 3 is the lowest of all 

10 alternatives that provide fishing opportunity, but not by much (Table 4-58, Subsection 4.1.1.1.3). The 

11 average escapement past fisheries of Alternative 3 is the highest of all alternatives that provide fishing 

12 opportunity, but not by much. Therefore impacts to the spawning escapement level are a slight positive 

13 under Alternative 3. Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 have the highest harvest rates and the lowest average 

14 escapements past fisheries of all the alternatives (Table 4-58, Subsection 4.1.1.1.4 and Subsection 

15 4.1.1.1.6). This results in a high negative impact to spawning escapement for these two alternatives. 

16 Alternative 5 has the lowest overall average harvest rate (0 percent) and the highest average escapement 

17 past fisheries of all alternatives because Alternative 5 does not provide any fishing opportunity (other than 

18 limited C&S harvest) but provides a positive impact to spawning escapement. 

19 Table 4-58. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for natural-origin UCR spring Chinook 

20 salmon. 

Total HR Esc. Past Fisheries Rock Island Dam Count

Min Max Ave Min Max Ave Min Max Ave

Alternative 1 9.2% 13.4% 11.8% 1,248 4,359 2,650 1,101 3,845 2,337

Alternative 2 9.2% 13.4% 11.8% 1,248 4,359 2,650 1,101 3,845 2,337

Alternative 3 11.3% 11.3% 11.3% 1,220 4,466 2,664 1,076 3,939 2,350

Alternative 4/6 6.2% 40.4% 17.4% 1,289 3,000 2,480 1,137 2,646 2,187

Alternative 5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1,374 5,032 3,003 1,212 4,438 2,649

 21 
US v Oregon EIS 112 2018 

1 

2 Figure 4-1. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon at 

3 minimum, average, and maximum run sizes expected. 

4 Figure 4-1 illustrates the minimum, maximum and average defined metrics values for UCR spring 

5 Chinook salmon, along with its escapement goal at Rock Island Dam. The escapement goals were defined 

6 in Subsection 4.1.1. The aggregate abundance of natural-origin spawners necessary to meet recovery 

7 objectives for natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon is 3,000. And with an average survival rate of 

8 75 percent, the escapement goal at Rock Island Dam is 4,000. At a maximum observed river mouth run 

9 size used for modeling, of all alternatives that provide harvest, Alternative 3 is the one that comes closest 

10 to reaching the recovery target abundance of 4,000 to Rock Island Dam. All alternatives, except 

11 Alternative 5 show some level of harvest. 
US v Oregon EIS 113 2018 

1 ○ Snake River spring/summer-run - ESA-listed

2 For natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon the average harvest rate and average 

3 escapement past fisheries are the same for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 (Table 4-59, Subsection 

4 4.1.1.2.1 and Subsection 4.1.1.2.2). The average harvest rate of Alternative 3 is the lowest of all 

5 alternatives that provide fishing opportunity, but not by much (Table 4-59, Subsection 4.1.1.2.3). The 

6 average escapement past fisheries of Alternative 3 is the highest of all alternatives that provide fishing 

7 opportunity, but not by much. Therefore impacts to the spawning escapement level are a slight positive 

8 under Alternative 3. Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 have the highest harvest rates and the lowest average 

9 escapements past fisheries of all the alternatives (Table 4-59, Subsection 4.1.1.2.4 and Subsection 

10 4.1.1.2.6). This results in a high negative impact to spawning escapement for these two alternatives. 

11 Alternative 5 has the lowest overall average harvest rate (0 percent) and the highest average escapement 

12 past fisheries of all alternatives because Alternative 5 does not provide any fishing opportunity (other than 

13 limited C&S harvest) but provides a positive impact to spawning escapement. 

14 Table 4-59. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for natural-origin Snake River

15 spring/summer Chinook salmon 

Total HR Esc. Past Fisheries Lower Granite Run

Min Max Ave Min Max Ave Min Max Ave

Alternative 1 9.2% 13.4% 11.8% 10,914 38,115 23,171 8,360 29,196 17,749

Alternative 2 9.2% 13.4% 11.8% 10,914 38,115 23,171 8,360 29,196 17,749

Alternative 3 11.3% 11.3% 11.3% 10,660 39,043 23,302 8,166 29,907 17,849

Alternative 4/6 6.2% 40.5% 17.5% 11,271 26,187 21,679 8,634 20,059 16,606

Alternative 5 0% 0% 0% 12,017 44,014 26,269 9,205 33,715 20,122
US v Oregon EIS 114 2018 

1 

2 Figure 4-2. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer 

3 Chinook salmon at minimum, average, and maximum run sizes expected 

4 Figure 4-2 illustrates the minimum, maximum and average defined metrics values for natural-origin 

5 Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, along with its current escapement goal. The aggregate 

6 abundance of natural-origin spawners necessary to meet recovery objectives for natural-origin Snake 

7 River spring/summer Chinook salmon is 25,500. With an average survival rate of 75 percent, the 

8 escapement goal at Lower Granite Dam is 34,000. All alternatives, except Alternative 5 show some level 

9 of commercial and recreational harvest. None of the modeled outputs for all alternatives meet the 

10 escapement goal. Escapement past fisheries is consistently higher for Alternative 5 than for the other four 

11 alternatives. Modeled outputs for escapement past fisheries under Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 are 
US v Oregon EIS 115 2018 

1 consistently lower than for all other alternatives, except at the minimum runsize Alternative 3 is the

2 lowest. 

3 ○ Middle Columbia River spring- run 

4 Effects to Middle Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon are assumed to be the same as those 

5 represented by Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon effects as fisheries are limited by the 

6 number of Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon that can be caught and are closed once that is 

7 achieved. This means impacts to Middle Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon will always be less 

8 than those to Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon as fisheries are never constrained for this 

9 stock due to it being healthier than the Snake River stock. The Middle Columbia River spring-run 

10 Chinook salmon migrate at the same time as the Snake River stock, and therefore we expect impacts to 

11 this ESU to vary proportionally to harvest impacts of Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon. 

12 ○ Upper Columbia River summer-run 

13 Upper Columbia River summer-run Chinook salmon is not an ESA-listed ESU. It is both a Harvest 

14 Indicator and, because it is a single ESU, an Abundance Indicator Stock. The average harvest rate for this 

15 stock is the lowest for Alternative 3, aside Alternative 5 that involves no fishing, other than limited C&S 

16 harvest (Table 4-60, Subsection 4.1.1.2.3 and Subsection 4.1.1.2.5). Therefore impacts to the spawning 

17 escapement level are a slight positive under Alternative 3 but a positive impact under Alternative 5. The 

18 average harvest rate is almost the same for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 (Table 4-60, Subsection 

19 4.1.1.2.1 and Subsection 4.1.1.2.2). The highest average harvest rate is for Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 

20 (Table 4-60, Subsection 4.1.1.2.4 and Subsection 4.1.1.2.6). This results in a high negative impact to 

21 spawning escapement for these two alternatives. The average escapement past fisheries is almost the same 

22 for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. The highest average escapement past fisheries, apart from Alternative 

23 5, is for Alternative 3 (Table 4-60). 
US v Oregon EIS 116 2018 

1 Table 4-60. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for Upper Columbia summer Chinook 

2 salmon. 

Total HR Esc. Past Fisheries Priest Rapids Dam Count

Min Max Ave Min Max Ave Min Max Ave

Alternative 1 21.6% 62.7% 52.5% 29,000 50,000 35,375 23,867 41,150 29,114

Alternative 2 20.0% 60.0% 51.7% 29,600 53,600 35,920 24,361 44,113 29,562

Alternative 3 42.0% 42.0% 42.0% 21,460 77,720 43,162 17,662 63,964 13,756

Alternative 4/6 21.6% 78.4% 61.0% 29,000 29,000 29,000 23,867 23,867 23,867

Alternative 5 0% 0% 0% 37,000 134,000 74,417 30,451 110,282 61,245

 3 
US v Oregon EIS 117 2018 

1 

2 Figure 4-3. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon at 

3 minimum, average, and maximum run sizes expected 

4 ○ Deschutes River summer/fall-run 

5 Effects to Deschutes River summer/fall-run Chinook salmon are assumed to be the same as those 

6 represented by Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon. Fisheries are limited by the number of Upper 

7 Columbia River summer Chinook salmon that can be caught and are closed once that is achieved. This 

8 means impacts to Deschutes River summer/fall-run Chinook salmon will always be less than those to 

9 Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon as fisheries are never constrained for this stock. The Deschutes 

10 River summer/fall-run Chinook salmon migrate at the same time as the Upper Columbia summer 

11 Chinook salmon stock, and therefore we expect impacts to this ESU to vary proportionally to harvest 

12 impacts of Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon stock. 
US v Oregon EIS 118 2018 

1 ○ Snake River fall-run - ESA-listed

2 For Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon the average harvest rate and average escapement past fisheries 

3 are the same for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 (Table 4-61, Subsection 4.1.1.4.1 and Subsection 

4 4.1.1.4.2). The average harvest rate of Alternative 3 is the lowest of all alternatives that provide fishing 

5 opportunity, but not by much (Table 4-61). The average escapement past fisheries of Alternative 3 is the 

6 highest of all alternatives that provide fishing opportunity, but not by much (Table 4-61, Subsection 

7 4.1.1.4.3). Therefore impacts to the spawning escapement level are a slight positive under Alternative 3. 

8 Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 have the highest harvest rates and the lowest average escapements past 

9 fisheries of all the alternatives (Table 4-61, Subsection 4.1.1.4.4 and Subsection 4.1.1.4.6). This results in 

10 a high negative impact to spawning escapement for these two alternatives. Alternative 5 has the lowest 

11 overall average harvest rate (0 percent) and the highest average escapement past fisheries of all 

12 alternatives because Alternative 5 does not provide only limited fishing opportunity but provides a 

13 positive impact to spawning escapement. 

14 Table 4-61. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for natural-origin Snake River fall 

Chinook salmon.1 15 

Total HR Esc. Past Fisheries Lower Granite Count

Min Max Ave Min Max Ave Min Max Ave

Alternative 1 25.9% 43.9% 41.0% 4,305 22,960 11,334 3,228 17,216 8,499

Alternative 2 25.9% 43.9% 41.0% 4,305 22,960 11,334 3,228 17,216 8,499

Alternative 3 40.9% 40.9% 40.9% 3,434 24,187 11,707 2,575 18,136 8,778

Alternative 4/6 31.1% 90.2% 71.6% 4,000 4,000 4,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

Alternative 5 0% 0% 0% 5,808 40,916 19,804 4,356 30,687 14,853 

1. Recall that escapement goal development is discussed in Subsection 4.1.1.
US v Oregon EIS 119 2018 

1 

2 Figure 4-4. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook 

3 salmon at minimum, average, and maximum run sizes expected. 

4 Figure 4-4 illustrates the minimum, maximum and average defined metrics values for natural-origin 

5 Snake River fall Chinook salmon. There is a small difference for the minimum, average, and maximum 

6 harvest and escapement values between Alternatives 1 through 3. Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 offer the 

7 highest harvest opportunity, but also provides for the lowest escapement. The differences in escapement 

8 numbers between Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 are small for minimum, average and maximum values. 

9 Escapement for Alternative 2 is somewhat lower than for Alternative 1 and Alternative 3. Alternative 5 

10 offers the most escapement and zero harvest (other than limited C&S harvest). For the average observed 

11 river mouth run size, the modeled output for all alternatives meet the escapement goal, except Alternative 

12 4 and Alternative 6. For the minimum observed river mouth run size, all of the alternatives modeled 
US v Oregon EIS 120 2018 

1 outputs exceed the escapement goal of 3,000, except Alternative 3, Alternative 4, and Alternative 6. For 

2 the average and maximum observed river mouth run sizes, the modeled outputs for Alternative 4/6 meets 

3 the escapement goal, but all other alternatives exceed the escapement goal.

4 ● Coho salmon (O. kisutch) 

5 Harvest policy for the management of Upriver coho salmon has not been set in the prior US v Oregon 

6 agreements except to specify limitations to insure 50/50, treaty/non-treaty sharing of the catch. This is 

7 expected to continue under a new US v Oregon agreement as the success of reintroduction programs in 

8 basins upstream of The Dalles Dam are evaluated and possibly expanded to other areas. Reintroduction of 

9 coho salmon into areas upstream of The Dalles Dam is still underway at this point in time. It is currently 

10 unknown the level upriver areas could support in terms of coho salmon abundance and escapement. 

11 Upriver coho salmon fall fisheries are therefore yet to be developed, but instead are currently only limited 

12 by the harvest policies that are set for steelhead and fall Chinook salmon. Fisheries targeting these two 

13 species operate during the fall and simply retain coho salmon as bycatch, but there is no harvest policy in 

14 the US v Oregon agreement specific for a conservation requirement for coho salmon upstream of 

15 Bonneville Dam. Therefore with no harvest policy for the management of Upriver coho salmon there will 

16 be no limits to fisheries based on coho salmon. Harvest impacts to coho salmon will vary proportionally 

17 with Snake River B-Index steelhead harvest impacts, meaning if there is a large abundance of Snake 

18 River B-Index steelhead then higher numbers of coho salmon will be caught as bycatch in fisheries 

19 targeting Snake River B-Index steelhead. If Snake River B-Index steelhead are low in abundance then 

20 lower harvest impacts to coho salmon will occur as fisheries targeting salmonids will be curtailed due to 

21 Snake River B-Index steelhead low abundances. For these reasons, the analysis does not include detailed 

22 review of the effects of each alternative on coho salmon interception.

23 ● Sockeye salmon (O. nerka) 

24 ○ Okanogan River ESU. 

25 ○ Lake Wenatchee ESU. 

26 ○ Snake River ESU

27 For Snake River sockeye salmon, the average harvest rate for alternatives providing fishing opportunity is 

28 lowest for Alternative 1 (Table 4-62, Subsection 4.1.1.3.1). The average harvest rate of Alternative 3 is 

29 the second lowest of all alternatives that provide fishing opportunity, but not different than Alternative 1 

30 (Table 4-62, Subsection 4.1.1.3.3). The average escapement past fisheries of Alternative 1 and Alternative 

31 3 are the highest of all alternatives that provide fishing opportunity (Table 4-62, Subsection 4.1.1.3.1 and 

32 Subsection 4.1.1.3.3). Therefore impacts to the spawning escapement level are a slight positive under 

33 these Alternatives. Alternative 2 has no change in impact relative to the status quo. Alternative 4 and 
US v Oregon EIS 121 2018 

1 Alternative 6 have the highest harvest rates and the lowest average escapements past fisheries of all the 

2 alternatives (Table 4-62, Subsection 4.1.1.3.4 and Subsection 4.1.1.3.6). This results in a high negative 

3 impact to spawning escapement for these two alternatives. Alternative 5 has the lowest overall average 

4 harvest rate (0 percent) and the highest average escapement past fisheries of all alternatives because 

5 Alternative 5 provides only limited C&S fishing opportunity but provides a positive impact to spawning 

6 escapement. 

7 Table 4-62. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for Snake River sockeye salmon. 

Total HR Esc. Past Fisheries Lower Granite Count 

Min Max Ave Min Max Ave Min Max Ave

Alternative 1 6.0% 8.0% 7.7% 117 2,739 1,174 97 2,273 974

Alternative 2 6.0% 13.0% 9.7% 117 2,590 1,136 97 2,150 943

Alternative 3 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 114 2,739 1,174 95 2,273 974

Alternative 4/6 6.0% 76.9% 36.8% 117 689 567 97 572 471

Alternative 5 0% 0% 0% 124 2,977 1,276 103 2,471 1,059
US v Oregon EIS 122 2018 

1 

2 Figure 4-5. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for Snake River sockeye salmon at minimum, 

3 average, and maximum run sizes expected. 

4 Figure 4-5 illustrates the minimum, maximum and average defined metrics values for Snake River

5 sockeye salmon. For the minimum values, there is practically no difference between alternatives, except 

6 that Alternative 5 has curtailed harvest. For the average values and maximum values, Alternative 4 and 

7 Alternative 6 offer the highest harvest opportunity, but also provide for the lowest escapements. The 

8 differences in escapement numbers between Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 are small for minimum, 

9 average and maximum values. Escapement for Alternative 2 is somewhat lower than for Alternative 1 and 

10 Alternative 3. Alternative 5 offers the most escapement and zero harvest. None of the alternatives 

11 modeled outputs meet the escapement goal. 

12 ● Steelhead (O. mykiss) 

13 Steelhead limits are constrained by Snake River Basin B-Index steelhead, by being the lowest in 
US v Oregon EIS 123 2018 

1 abundance and therefore restricting access to more abundant stocks and limiting total catch. Fisheries are 

2 therefore limited by the number of Snake River Basin B-Index steelhead that can be caught and fisheries 

3 are closed once that is achieved. This means impacts to every other steelhead stock will always be less 

4 than those to Snake River Basin B-Index steelhead as fisheries are never constrained for any other 

5 steelhead stock due to them being healthier than the B-Index stock. Other steelhead migrate at the same 

6 time as the Snake River Basin B-Index steelhead stock, and therefore we expect impacts to other DPSs to 

7 vary proportionally to harvest impacts of Snake River Basin B-Index steelhead. But the harvest impacts to 

8 the other DPSs are lower, likely much lower, as these other DPSs are greater in abundance, than those to 

9 Snake River Basin B-Index steelhead, and effects were not modeled or analyzed in this EIS. 

10 We expect harvest and resulting escapement levels, and therefore impacts, to these DPSs to vary 

11 proportionally to catch of B-Index fish. 

12 ○ Southwest Washington DPS. 

13 ○ Lower Columbia River DPS. 

14 ○ Upper Willamette River DPS. 

15 ○ Mid-Columbia River DPS. 

16 ○ Upper Columbia River DPS. 

17 ○ Snake River Basin DPS. 

18 

19 For Snake River Basin B-Index steelhead the average harvest rate and average escapement past fisheries 

20 are the same for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 (Table 4-63, Subsection 4.1.1.5.1 and Subsection 

21 4.1.1.5.2). The average harvest rate of Alternative 3 is the lowest of all alternatives that provide fishing 

22 opportunity, but not by much (Table 4-63, Subsection 4.1.1.5.3). The average escapement past fisheries of 

23 Alternative 3 is the highest of all alternatives that provide fishing opportunity, but not by much (Table 4-

24 63, Subsection 4.1.1.5.3). Therefore impacts to the spawning escapement level are a slight positive under 

25 Alternative 3. Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 have the highest harvest rates and the lowest average 

26 escapements past fisheries of all the alternatives (Table 4-63, Subsection 4.1.1.5.4 and Subsection 

27 4.1.1.5.6). This results in a high negative impact to spawning escapement for these two alternatives. 

28 Alternative 5 has the lowest overall average harvest rate (0 percent) and the highest average escapement 

29 past fisheries of all alternatives because Alternative 5 provides limited fishing opportunity but provides a 

30 positive impact to spawning escapement.
US v Oregon EIS 124 2018 

1 Table 4-63. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for natural-origin Snake River B-Index 

2 steelhead. 

Total HR Esc. Past Fisheries Lower Granite Count

Min Max Ave Min Max Ave Min Max Ave

Alternative 1 19.2% 27.8% 27.1% 1,955 14,404 7,451 1,130 8,326 4,307

Alternative 2 19.2% 27.8% 27.1% 1,955 14,404 7,451 1,130 8,326 4,307

Alternative 3 25.9% 25.2% 25.3% 1,794 14,919 7,634 1,037 8,623 4,412

Alternative 4/6 7.7% 58.9% 31.1% 2,234 8,199 7,038 1,291 4,739 4,068

Alternative 5 0% 0% 0% 2,420 19,951 10,220 1,399 11,532 5,907

3 

4 

5 Figure 4-6. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead

6 at minimum, average, and maximum run sizes expected. 
US v Oregon EIS 125 2018 

1 Figure 4-6 illustrates the minimum, maximum and average defined metrics values for natural-origin 

2 Snake River B-Index steelhead. For the minimum values, there is practically no difference between 

3 alternatives, except that Alternative 5 has almost zero harvest. For the average values and maximum 

4 values, Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 offer the highest harvest opportunity, but also provide for the 

5 lowest escapements. The differences in escapement numbers between Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 are 

6 small for minimum, average and maximum values. Escapement for Alternative 2 is somewhat lower than 

7 for Alternative 1 and Alternative 3. Alternative 5 offers the most escapement and almost zero harvest. 

8 For the minimum observed river mouth run size, none of the alternatives modeled outputs meet the 

9 escapement goal of 4,700. For the average observed river mouth run size, the modeled output for 

10 Alternative 5 meets the escapement goal, but all other alternatives also almost meet the escapement goal. 

11 For the maximum observed river mouth run size, all of the alternatives modeled outputs meet the 

12 escapement goal.

13 In summary, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 on natural-origin Upper Columbia River spring Chinook 

14 salmon, natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, natural-origin Snake River fall 

15 Chinook salmon, and natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead would not impact the current status 

16 quo conditions. The effects of Alternative 3 on these same resources is practically the same as those of 

17 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, but generally provides a slight positive impact to spawning escapement. 

18 Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 have the greatest effects (largest harvest) on all affected salmonid species, 

19 especially for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon, natural-origin Snake River spring/summer 

20 Chinook salmon, natural-origin Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon, Snake River sockeye 

21 salmon and natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead. Only for Upper Columbia summer Chinook 

22 salmon are the effects of Alternative 4 or 6 lower than for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. This results in a high 

23 negative impact to spawning escapement for these two alternatives across all stocks. Alternative 5 has the 

24 lowest harvest impacts on all salmonid species because it involves curtailed fishing, and therefore 

25 provides a positive impact to spawning escapement across all stocks. None of the alternatives, including 

26 Alternative 5, meet the escapement goal for Snake River sockeye salmon. 

27 Hatchery Effects on Salmonid Populations

28 The operation of salmon and steelhead hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin, including the hatchery 

29 programs contained in a new US v Oregon management agreement, results in impacts to ESA-listed and 

30 non-listed salmon and steelhead. As discussed earlier in this EIS, the impacts of Columbia River 

31 hatcheries were disclosed in the Mitchell Act EIS. For this reason, NMFS is incorporating Section 4 of 

32 the Mitchell Act EIS into our impacts analysis here.
US v Oregon EIS 126 2018 

1 As described in detail in Subsection 3.2.3.1, General Risks and Benefits of Hatchery programs to Salmon 

2 and Steelhead Species, in the Mitchell Act EIS and Appendix B of this EIS, hatchery salmon and 

3 steelhead programs can have beneficial effects to these species but also pose risks. Those beneficial 

4 effects include potential increases to abundance by increasing populations and helping maintain at-risk 

5 populations threatened by extirpation, benefits to productivity by providing nutrients and improving 

6 spawning gravel conditions, and to spatial structure by expanding spatial distribution. Additionally, 

7 hatcheries pose risks to natural-origin salmon and steelhead populations in the form of effects to 

8 abundance and productivity through competition, predation, disease and harvest. Interbreeding of 

9 hatchery and natural-origin fish can negatively affect genetic diversity and productivity, by interfering 

10 with the natural forces that strengthen the population genetics and by introducing maladaptive genetic 

11 changes. The presence of hatchery fish can lead to impacts to natural-origin populations from competition 

12 for resources such as food and spawning sites, and to predation by hatchery fish on natural-origin fish. 

13 Finally, hatchery facilities have impacts that result from the operation of weirs and other structures that 

14 can disrupt migrations, water intakes that risk entrainment and impingement, removal of water from the 

15 stream, discharge of effluent into streams, and impacts to river flows that interfere with migration and 

16 spawning.

17 Each of the alternatives in this action will continue to result in impacts from hatchery operations. As 

18 discussed in Subsection 1.3.2, above, hatchery production is incorporated into a new US v Oregon

19 management agreement. Although individual programs are technically independent of harvest goals and 

20 would be expected to continue under any of the alternatives, continued impacts from the collective 

21 hatchery production in the Columbia River basin adopted cumulatively in a new US v Oregon

22 management agreement is considered part of the impacts discussed here. 

23 In addition to disclosing hatchery impacts generally at a basin-wide level, the Mitchell Act EIS disclosed 

24 impacts at the ESU/DPS-level as well as for each hatchery program, species by species, for each of its six 

25 hatchery alternatives, which can be viewed in the Mitchell Act EIS appendices (NMFS 2014b) 

26 (Appendices C-F).

27 NMFS has reviewed the Mitchell Act EIS and determined that it contains an analysis of 113 of the 115 

28 programs incorporated into a new US v Oregon management agreement, and therefore the impacts 

29 disclosed in the Mitchell Act EIS comprise a significant portion of the impacts of the current action. 

30 However, two programs in the new US v Oregon management agreement were not analyzed in the 

31 Mitchell Act EIS, and 42 of the programs that were analyzed there have either increased or decreased in 

32 size, resulting in potential changes to the impacts of individual programs. To update the analysis for this 
US v Oregon EIS 127 2018 

1 EIS, NMFS has reviewed the changes program-by-program and assessed how the impacts could differ 

2 from those reported in the Mitchell Act EIS. This review and its conclusions are found in Appendix B of 

3 this document. 

4 Overall, the comparison of total programs, species by species, reveals that the production incorporated 

5 into a new US v Oregon management agreement falls within the range of total hatchery production 

6 analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS for US v Oregon specific production, with the exception of sockeye

7 salmon programs, which doubles the total production analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS, and coho salmon 

8 programs, which are proposed to be 2 percent greater than the upper limit of programs analyzed in the 

9 Mitchell Act EIS. 

10 Table 4-64. Comparison of Hatchery Program Production Referenced in the proposed US v 

11 Oregon Management Agreement Compared to the Hatchery Production Analyzed 

12 in the Mitchell Act EIS (NMFS 2014b).

Hatchery

Species

Total 

Proposed US v 

Oregon

Releases

Mitchell Act EIS total 

Releases (same programs, 

range across alternatives)

Percent of US v Oregon

Production Analyzed in 

Mitchell Act EIS

spring 

Chinook 

salmon

19,236,461 14,741,000 to 20,936,000 77% - 109% 

summer 

Chinook 

salmon

5,996,569 5,465,000 to 7,517,000 91% - 125% 

fall 

Chinook 

salmon

42,176,000 4,359,000 to 42,680,000 10% - 101% 

sockeye

salmon 1,000,000 500,000 50% 

steelhead 6,783,300 6,085,000 to 8,167,000 90% - 120%

coho

salmon 8,550,000 2,508,000 to 8,400,000 29%-98% 

Total 83,742,330 33,658,000 to 88,200,000 40% - 105%

13 
US v Oregon EIS 128 2018 

Proposed # US 

v Oregon

Programs

MA EIS Analyzed # 

Programs

% of US v Oregon programs 

analyzed in Mitchell Act

spring 

Chinook 

salmon

39 39 100% 

summer 

Chinook 

salmon

14 13 92% 

fall 

Chinook 

salmon

16 15 93% 

sockeye 

salmon 1 1 100% 

steelhead 32 32 100%

coho 

salmon 13 12 92% 

Total 115 112 97%

1 At the species level, the production referenced in a new US v Oregon management agreement will result 

2 in the same overall impacts to both listed and unlisted salmonids. The 2 percent increase in coho salmon 

3 does not significantly alter the effects of coho salmon production generally in the basin, and the increase 

4 in sockeye salmon production represents a single program which is proposed to double its capacity. For 

5 all other salmonid species, the production levels fall within the range of overall impacts analyzed in the 

6 Mitchell Act EIS. However, the program changes may result in changes to how each program impacts 

7 salmonid populations. For detailed program-by-program changes and assessment of impacts, please refer 

8 to Appendix B.

9 Chinook Salmon

10 As detailed in Table 4-64 above, the hatchery production levels of Chinook salmon, referenced in a new 

11 US v Oregon management agreement, are well represented in the range of production analyzed in the 

12 Mitchell Act EIS alternatives. Therefore, NMFS is incorporating by reference the likely effects of the

13 Chinook salmon hatchery production, analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS alternatives, in consideration of 

14 any program changes, as described above and in Appendix B, to the Chinook salmon ESUs impacted by 

15 new US v Oregon management agreement harvest actions.

16 ● Upper Columbia River spring-run 

17 Based on analysis of the Mitchell Act EIS alternatives, and considering any differences in release number 
US v Oregon EIS 129 2018 

1 from the proposed programs (Appendix B, Table 2), NMFS expects that: negative hatchery effects to the 

2 productivity and abundance of this ESU would likely decrease overall, due to the reduction in total spring 

3 Chinook salmon hatchery production; negative hatchery effects to population genetic diversity would 

4 likely decrease, slightly, due to the reduction in total spring Chinook salmon hatchery production; and 

5 risk of competition and predation from hatchery fish to this ESU would likely remain consistent with 

6 status quo conditions, due to the overall hatchery salmon and steelhead production in the Upper Columbia 

7 River area.

8 ● Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon ESU

9 Based on the analysis of the Mitchell Act EIS alternatives, and considering any differences in release 

10 number from the proposed programs (Appendix B, Table 2), NMFS expects that: negative hatchery 

11 effects to the productivity of this ESU would likely increase, slightly, overall; while negative hatchery 

12 effects to abundance would likely be increased slightly, overall, given the potential use of more natural13 origin fish in the hatchery broodstocks; negative hatchery effects to population genetic diversity would 

14 likely increase, slightly, overall; hatchery risk of competition and predation, from hatchery fish, to this 

15 ESU, would increase, slightly, due to likely increases in overall hatchery spring/summer Chinook and 

16 coho salmon production in the Snake River Basin.

17 ● Upper Columbia River summer-run Chinook salmon ESU 

18 Based on the analysis of the Mitchell Act EIS alternatives, and considering the differences in release 

19 number from the proposed programs (Appendix B, Table 2), NMFS expects that: negative hatchery 

20 effects to the productivity and abundance of this ESU would likely decrease, overall; negative hatchery 

21 risks to population genetic diversity would likely be decreased; and hatchery risk of competition and 

22 predation, from hatchery fish, to this ESU would likely remain consistent with status quo conditions, due 

23 to the overall hatchery salmon and steelhead production in the Upper Columbia River area.

24 ● Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon ESU 

25 Based on the analysis of the Mitchell Act EIS alternatives, and considering the differences in release 

26 number from the proposed programs (Appendix B, Table 2), NMFS expects that: negative hatchery 

27 effects to the productivity of this ESU would likely remain constant while abundance of natural-origin 

28 spawners would likely be reduced, slightly, given the potential use of more natural-origin fish in the 

29 hatchery broodstock; hatchery risks to population genetic diversity would also, likely remain constant; 

30 hatchery risk of competition and predation from hatchery fish to this ESU would likely increase, slightly, 

31 due to likely increases in overall hatchery spring/summer Chinook and coho salmon production in the 

32 Snake River Basin.
US v Oregon EIS 130 2018 

1 Coho Salmon (above Bonneville Dam)

2 As detailed above in Table 4-64, the hatchery production level of coho salmon, overall, referenced in a 

3 new US v Oregon management agreement, is slightly higher than the production level analyzed in the 

4 Mitchell Act EIS analysis. Therefore, NMFS is incorporating by reference the likely effects of the coho 

5 salmon hatchery production, analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS, in consideration of any program changes, 

6 as described above and in Appendix B, to the coho salmon populations impacted by a new US v Oregon

7 management agreement. 

8 Based on the analysis of the Mitchell Act EIS alternatives, and considering the differences in release 

9 number from the proposed programs (Appendix B, Table 2), NMFS expects: the beneficial hatchery 

10 effects to coho salmon abundance from the programs would be higher; the hatchery effects to coho 

11 salmon productivity would likely remain constant; hatchery risks to coho salmon population genetic 

12 diversity would increase, slightly; and hatchery risks of competition and predation from hatchery fish to 

13 these coho salmon populations would likely increase, slightly. 

14 Sockeye Salmon

15 As detailed above in Table 4-64, the hatchery production level of sockeye salmon, referenced in a new US 

16 v Oregon management agreement, is higher than the production level analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS 

17 analysis. Therefore, NMFS is summarizing here and incorporating by reference the likely effects of 

18 sockeye salmon hatchery production, analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS alternatives, in consideration of 

19 any program changes, as described above and in Appendix B, to the sockeye salmon ESUs impacted by a 

20 new US v Oregon management agreement. 

21 ● Snake River Sockeye Salmon ESU

22 Based on the analysis of the Mitchell Act EIS alternatives, and considering the differences in release 

23 number from the proposed programs (Appendix B, Table 2), NMFS expects: the abundance benefits from 

24 the program would likely be higher, relative to the programs analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS 

25 alternatives; the benefits to productivity would likely be lower, relative to the programs analyzed in the 

26 Mitchell Act EIS alternatives; the risks to population genetic diversity may increase, relative to the 

27 programs analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS alternatives; and hatchery risks of competition and predation 

28 from hatchery fish to this ESU would likely increase, slightly, due to likely increases in overall hatchery 

29 spring/summer Chinook and coho salmon production in the Snake River Basin.

30 Steelhead
US v Oregon EIS 131 2018 

1 As detailed above, the hatchery production levels of steelhead, referenced in a new US v Oregon

2 management agreement, are well represented in the Mitchell Act EIS analysis. Therefore, NMFS is 

3 summarizing here and incorporating by reference the likely effects of the steelhead hatchery production, 

4 analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS alternatives, and in consideration of any program changes, as described 

5 above and in Appendix B to the steelhead DPSs impacted by a new US v Oregon management agreement. 

6 ● Snake River Steelhead DPS

7 Based on the analysis of the Mitchell Act EIS alternatives, and considering the differences in release 

8 number from the proposed programs (Appendix B, Table 2), NMFS expects that: negative hatchery 

9 effects to the productivity of this DPS would likely decrease, with an overall decrease in hatchery 

10 steelhead production; negative hatchery effects to the abundance of this DPS would also, likely, decrease; 

11 hatchery effects to population genetic diversity would also, likely, decrease for this population. Risk of 

12 competition and predation, from hatchery fish, to this DPS would likely decrease, slightly, due to 

13 decreases in overall hatchery steelhead in the Snake River Basin.

14 4.2.2. ESA-Listed Fish Species (non-salmonids)

15 There is potential for incidental take of non-salmonid ESA-listed green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris, 

16 Threatened, 71 Fed. Reg. 17757) in fisheries directed at white sturgeon. However, in 2008 NMFS 

17 determined the total expected annual take of Southern DPS green sturgeon associated with prospective US 

18 v Oregon non-treaty commercial white sturgeon fisheries was estimated annually to be 14 fish and zero in 

19 treaty Indian fisheries (NMFS 2008b). Between 2008 and 2013, salmon fisheries largely replaced white 

20 sturgeon seasons, further limiting the possibility of catching green sturgeon. Effective 2014, policies 

21 adopted by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission and Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission 

22 prohibited the retention of white sturgeon in all non-Indian fisheries downstream of Bonneville Dam (JSR 

23 2016), thereby reducing the likelihood of catching green sturgeon to near zero. Therefore there is no 

24 discernable effect on green sturgeon from any of the alternatives. 

25 In 2008 the USFWS determined encounters with bull trout (salvelinus confluentus) were expected to be 

26 extremely limited in fisheries subject to a US v Oregon agreement (USFWS 2008). USFWS determined 

27 bull trout may only rarely or intermittently be present in mainstem locations. In general, bull trout are too 

28 small to be taken in gear types known to be used by treaty and non-treaty commercial fisheries. 

29 Recreational fisheries in the mainstem Columbia and Snake Rivers are not allowed to keep bull trout and 

30 all bull trout incidentally hooked in recreational fisheries must be released immediately. Therefore there is 

31 no discernable effect on bull trout from any of the alternatives. 

32 Neither harvest policy nor salmon harvest strategies used in prospective US v Oregon fisheries are 
US v Oregon EIS 132 2018 

1 expected to incidentally take ESA-listed Pacific Eulachon (thaleichthys pacificus, Threatened, 79 Fed. 

2 Reg. 20802). Therefore there is no discernable effect on Pacific Eulachon from any of the alternatives.

3 Based on the analysis of the Mitchell Act EIS alternatives, the levels of hatchery produced salmon and 

4 steelhead smolts included in the Agreement would not substantially change the impacts to bull trout as 

5 either a prey base (hatchery juveniles) or through potential competition (returning hatchery adults). Nor 

6 would the impacts to eulachon, through predation from hatchery salmon and steelhead change. 

7 4.2.3. Other Non-Salmonids (non ESA-listed Fish Species)

8 Harvest policies are not set in the US v Oregon agreement for fisheries directed at the following species:

9 ● White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) 

10 ● American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) 

11 ● Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) 

12 ● Walleye (Sander vitreus) 

13 The US v Oregon agreement does not specify conservation specific needs for any of these fish. Instead, 

14 these species are mentioned in the agreement as very small levels of salmon or steelhead bycatch might 

15 occur during fisheries targeting these species. The agreement would memorialize the Parties commitment 

16 to responsible management of these species. The parties to the US v Oregon management agreement 

17 track any salmon or steelhead bycatch, regardless of the low level, to ensure they remain static and 

18 accounted for in allocation and fishery management calculations. The level of effort for these fisheries 

19 have remained relatively unchanged and we expect this level of effect to continue. Therefore we expect 

20 no discernable effect on these species under any of the alternatives relative to status quo, but they are 

21 included in this EIS as a new US v Oregon management agreement references fisheries targeting these 

22 species so that bycatch of salmonid resources are accounted for. We account for impacts to from 

23 salmonid bycatch in the salmonid resource Subsections.

24 Based on the analysis of the Mitchell Act EIS alternatives, the hatchery programs included in the 

25 Agreement would not substantially alter the total production of salmon and steelhead throughout the 

26 Columbia River Basin. As such, we would not expect a discernible difference in effects to other species 

27 of fish, from the hatchery programs included in a new US v Oregon management agreement. 

28 4.3. Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients 

29 In reviewing the differences in production levels between the agreement-referenced programs and those 

30 analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS, NMFS considered the increases in production, for some programs, and 

31 the decreases in production, for some programs, represented by the programs in a new US v Oregon
US v Oregon EIS 133 2018 

1 agreement, relative to the programs, as analyzed, in the Mitchell Act EIS. The small scale of these 

2 changes, in numbers of fish, and the relationship of that change to the total production at the facilities 

3 used makes it difficult to estimate the likely change in facility effects (as described in Subsection 3.3) to 

4 water quality from these production differences. Additionally, considering that the facilities operating in 

5 the Columbia River basin, including the facilities associated with the production in a new US v Oregon

6 agreement, operate under existing federal Clean Water Act (CWA), National Pollution Discharge 

7 Elimination System (NPDES) permits (when required), NMFS concludes that the differences in the 

8 hatchery program releases, included in the US v Oregon Agreement, relative to the programs analyzed in 

9 the Mitchell Act EIS, are not likely to have substantively different effects to the water quality where they 

10 operate. 

11 As discussed in Subsection 3.3, anadromous species such as salmon and steelhead are important 

12 components of the freshwater ecosystem, particularly for their role in transporting nutrients upstream 

13 from the marine ecosystem. There is no difference in hatchery production under any of the alternatives.

14 Therefore, our assumption is the potential level of marine derived nutrients from hatchery production 

15 entering the Columbia River Basin is constant and stable across every alternative.

16 Under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 there will be a decrease in nutrients transported upstream in 

17 comparison to Alternative 5 because fish carcasses will be removed through harvest. Harvest would 

18 reduce nutrients to aquatic organisms, including listed salmon and steelhead, and limit stream engineering 

19 from spawning adult salmon. Table 4-65 and Figure 4-7 show the total harvest and indicates the level of 

20 reduced fish carcasses that would be distributed in the ecosystem. Alternative 5 would lead to an 

21 immediate positive effect and improvement over time relative to the other alternatives as there would be 

22 more marine derived nutrients deposited throughout the Columbia River Basin.
US v Oregon EIS 134 2018 

1 Table 4-65. Total treaty and non-treaty harvests of all salmon and steelhead species by 

2 minimum, maximum, and average run size abundances expected over the next 10 

3 years.

Treaty Total Harvest

(all species)

Non-Treaty Total Harvest

(all species) Total 

Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Avg

Alternative 1 

Extension 57,972 550,955 261,528 19,137 278,149 131,142 392,670 

Alternative 2 

Abundance 57,672 575,075 269,056 18,818 288,947 131,909 400,965 

Alternative 3

Fixed Harvest 75,963 516,162 254,213 39,915 234,551 119,908 374,121 

Alternative 4 / 6

Fixed 

Escapement / 

Uncoordinated 

Harvest

55,906 1,080,590 417,420 49,700 999,239 384,890 802,310 

Alternative 5

Fishing 

curtailment

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

4 

5 Figure 4-7. Total Treaty and Non-Treaty harvests of all salmon and steelhead species by average run size

6 abundances expected over the next 10 years.

7 Alternative 3 results in the highest average escapement past fisheries, as it results in the lowest harvest 
US v Oregon EIS 135 2018 

1 total (Table 4-65), but relative to Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, it is a low difference (6 percent), and 

2 since the majority of fish harvested are hatchery fish, and hatchery fish normally return to traps and 

3 hatcheries, the reduction in available carcasses would not equal the number of fish harvested. Alternative 

4 4 and Alternative 6 result in the lowest number of carcasses distributed compared to the other alternatives, 

5 as both result in the highest average harvest total (Table 4-65). Alternative 5 would have the maximum 

6 stream bed modification effect due to it resulting in the largest number of escaping adults, while the other 

7 alternative would show negligible differences between each other given the slight differences in 

8 escapement.

9 4.4. Wildlife 

10 As discussed in Subsection 3.4 fisheries have the potential to affect wildlife through interactions between 

11 wildlife and fishing gear and through changes in the availability of fish as prey. Wildlife that are most 

12 likely to be affected by fishing activities are seabirds and marine mammals. Analyses conducted for 

13 wildlife were based on the use of literature representing the best available science and other studies. 

14 4.4.1. Seabirds, Raptors, and Other Piscivorous Birds 

15 Seabirds prey on juvenile salmon as they migrate down the Columbia River, primarily in the estuary 

16 (downstream of Bonneville Dam), and in the tailraces of some dams. Seabirds that prey on juvenile 

17 salmon include Caspian terns, Double-crested cormorants, and several species of gulls. Guillemots, 

18 murres, and puffins also prey on juvenile salmon, primarily in the ocean. However, they are considered 

19 to be a minor source of predation. Seabirds do not prey on adult salmon at any time during upstream 

20 migration.

21 None of the harvest alternatives examined in this EIS are expected to directly affect seabirds by reducing 

22 their prey base, which do not include adult salmon. It is possible the harvest alternatives (Alternatives 1 

23 through 6) could indirectly affect seabirds by reducing a potential food supply (by reducing the potential 

24 spawning population size). Seabirds are known to feed on juvenile salmon in the Columbia River estuary. 

25 However, the majority of the juvenile salmon eaten by seabirds originate from hatcheries downstream of 

26 Bonneville Dam. Since the alternatives do not affect the hatchery program release sizes, their production 

27 of juvenile salmon is not expected to be reduced. As such, this food source for seabirds would be 

28 maintained. However, the capacity limit of the current spawning habitat does not always allow for 

29 increased juvenile production at higher escapement numbers. In general harvest has been curtailed from 

30 historically much higher levels, which has resulted in passing higher numbers of adult fish through 

31 fisheries to the terminal area spawning grounds. Despite these increases in escapements the adult salmon 

32 and steelhead run sizes have not resulted in productivity levels high enough to change their respective 
US v Oregon EIS 136 2018 

1 ESA-status (NWFSC 2016). Therefore, an increase in escapement of adult fish to terminal spawning areas 

2 does not simply translate into an increase in juvenile salmonids. All alternatives would have a similar 

3 positive effect when salmonid abundance is sufficient to meet escapement goals, which is to produce 

4 juveniles at the maximum level of current habitat capacity.

5 Raptors (bald eagles, turkey vultures, osprey), corvids (crows, ravens), and numerous species of gulls 

6 prey on returning adult salmonids, primarily post-spawn adults. Since Pacific salmon die after spawning, 

7 post-spawn adults provide an important food source for these birds in the late summer, fall, and early 

8 winter. In general, adult salmon are not susceptible to bird predation until they are either actively 

9 spawning or are in a post-spawn condition. 

10 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would have no impact change relative to status quo levels of adults 

11 available as prey to these birds. Alternative 3 would have a slightly positive impact as its average harvest 

12 is lower than that of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, thereby providing a larger number of prey items 

13 available. Alternative 4 and Alternative 6, with the largest harvest, would have the most noticeable 

14 negative impact on these birds by removing the largest numbers of available prey items. Alternative 5 

15 would offer the most adult salmonids as prey since they would not be harvested en route to the spawning 

16 grounds, thereby providing a positive impact. This alternative would maximize post-spawn adults as a 

17 food source. 

18 Based on the analysis of the Mitchell Act EIS alternatives, the hatchery production included in the 

19 Agreement would not be expected to change the current availability of juvenile salmonid prey base for 

20 seabirds and the resulting adult returns would be well within annual variability of total salmon and 

21 steelhead returns, so would not have a discernable effect on the availability of adult salmon and steelhead 

prey. 22 

23 4.4.2. Marine Mammals 

24 Subsection 3.4.2 indicates fisheries occur in areas known to be inhabited by seals and sea lions and these 

25 mammals prey on adult salmonids that are also target of the fisheries. Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 

26 would have no impact change relative to status quo levels of adults available as prey for marine mammals 

27 while Alternative 3 would have a slightly positive impact as its average harvest is lower than that of 

28 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Alternative 4 and Alternative 6, with the largest harvest, would have the 

29 most noticeable negative effect on these marine mammals, as they remove the largest number of adults 

30 available as prey. Alternative 5 would offer the most adult salmonids as prey since most would not be 

31 harvested resulting in a positive impact.
US v Oregon EIS 137 2018 

1 Alternatives examined in this analysis represent options for controlling harvest inside the Columbia 

2 River. Any anadromous fish taken or not taken through fisheries inside the Columbia River would not be 

3 available to Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW) given that the fish would have already passed 

4 through their respective ocean habitat, prior to having been subject to the fisheries examined in this 

5 analysis. However, the capacity limit of the current spawning habitat does not always allow for increased 

6 juvenile production at higher escapement numbers. In general harvest has been curtailed from historically 

7 much higher levels, which has resulted in passing higher numbers of adult fish through fisheries to the 

8 terminal area spawning grounds. Despite these increases in escapements the adult salmon and steelhead 

9 run sizes have not resulted in productivity levels high enough to change their respective ESA-status 

10 (NWFSC 2016). Therefore, an increase in escapement of adult fish to terminal spawning areas does not

11 simply translate into an increase in juvenile salmonids that would eventually serve as adult prey for the 

12 SRKW. There is no discernable difference between the alternatives on the effect to SRKW.

13 As detailed in Table 4-64, above, the production of hatchery Chinook salmon included in the Agreement, 

14 falls within the range of hatchery Chinook salmon production analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS. Based on 

15 that analysis, the hatchery production Chinook salmon included in the Agreement would likely increase 

16 the number of adult Columbia River Basin Chinook salmon in the ocean, slightly. This increase, however, 

17 would likely be within the range of annual natural variability and would be difficult to distinguish from 

18 other sources of variability. Therefore, the Chinook salmon hatchery production included in the 

19 Agreement would not be expected to add a substantial benefit for the population abundance of the 

20 SRKW. 

21 4.5. Economics 

22 This economic analysis evaluates harvest-related effects from implementing harvest policy alternatives in 

23 the project area, relative to existing conditions as described in Subsection 3.5, Economics. This analysis 

24 focuses on analyzing effects related to commercial and recreational fishing activity directed on the five 

25 harvest indicator stocks identified in Subsection 3.5: Upriver spring Chinook salmon, Upper Columbia 

26 summer Chinook salmon, Upriver fall Chinook salmon, Upriver sockeye salmon, and Snake River B27 Index steelhead. The analysis identifies the effects of the harvest policy alternatives on the number of fish 

28 harvested in affected commercial fisheries in the Columbia River mainstem, catch and effort associated 

29 with affected recreational fisheries in the Columbia River mainstem, and changes in different metrics of 

30 economic value, including the ex-vessel value of commercial landings and estimates of trip-related 

31 expenditures by recreational anglers. 

32 Potential changes in the direct and indirect contribution of the harvest policy alternatives to employment 
US v Oregon EIS 138 2018 

1 and personal income in the four economic impact subregions of the Columbia River basin are estimated. 

2 The numbers of jobs estimated in this analysis below are expressed as full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs. 

3 However, most jobs in the commercial fishing industry are part-time positions due to the seasonality of 

4 commercial salmon fishing. Many persons engaged in commercial salmon fishing also participate in other 

5 fisheries and/or have other occupations. This situation should be considered in interpreting the 

6 employment effects presented for estimated job changes associated with commercial fisheries (and to a 

7 lesser extent, jobs associated with businesses that support recreational fishing activity). 

8 In summary, considering all potential economic effects from the harvest policy alternatives for the US v 

9 Oregon Project Area, under existing conditions (Subsection 3.5, Economics), the value to tribal and non10 tribal commercial fishers and to non-tribal recreational fishers, and the employment and personal income 

11 contribution to the regional and local economy overall, has a moderate positive effect in the economic 

12 analysis area. This is because of the contribution to income and jobs that are primarily associated with 

13 tribal commercial and non-tribal recreational fisheries. The harvest policy alternatives also affect salmon 

14 and steelhead for ceremonial and subsistence fishing, as discussed in Subsection 4.6, Cultural 

15 Resources—C&S Harvest.

16 Table 4-66. Comparative summary of economic effects under the alternatives.

Status Quo 

Conditions

Alternative 1 

(Extension) 

Alternative 2

(Abundancebased)

Alternative 3

(Fixed Rate)

Alternative 4 / 6 

(Escapementbased / 

Uncoordinated 

fishing)

Alternative 5

(Fishing 

curtailment)

Moderate 

positive 

Moderate 

positive Low positive Low negative High positive High negative

17 It should be noted that the information presented in this section is organized first by harvest policy 

18 alternative and then generally follows the organization in Subsection 3.5, Economics (commercial 

19 fisheries, recreational fisheries, and contributions to regional economic activity). As indicated in 

20 Subsection 3.5, Economics, values in the following subsections are not rounded to aid the reader in 

21 finding corresponding numbers between tables and text. The use of unrounded numbers, however, should 

22 not be interpreted as suggestive of unusually high levels of precision in the estimates. All numbers 

23 presented represent a reasonable estimate of the underlying values. Information on methods and analyses 

24 used in this analysis is presented in Appendix A, Economic Methods. 

25 4.5.1. Alternative 1 – Extension of Current Agreement 

26 Under Alternative 1, the harvest policy would support the same level of harvest as under the status quo 
US v Oregon EIS 139 2018 

1 condition, the same number of salmon and steelhead would be harvested in commercial and recreational 

2 fisheries as described in Subsection 3.5, Economics. 

3 4.5.1.1. Commercial Fisheries

4 Upriver Spring Chinook Salmon 

5 Under Alternative 1, the commercial harvest of Upriver spring Chinook salmon (11,606 fish) would be 

6 the same as under the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 65 percent (7,528 

7 fish) of the harvest and non-tribal fisheries about 35 percent (4,078 fish) of the harvest. Ex-vessel values 

8 associated with the total harvest of Upriver spring Chinook salmon ($848,193) also would be the same as 

9 under status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 65 percent ($493,029) of total ex10 vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for about 35 percent ($355,164) of the value. Details of ex-vessel 

11 value and harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix 

12 A, Table A-7. 

13 Upper Columbia Summer Chinook Salmon

14 Under Alternative 1, the commercial harvest of Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon (24,791 fish) 

15 would be the same as under the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 71 percent 

16 (17,569 fish) and non-tribal fisheries about 29 percent (7,222 fish) of the harvest. Ex-vessel values 

17 associated with the total harvest of Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon ($854,787) also would be 

18 the same as under status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 66 percent ($565,958) 

19 of total ex-vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for about 34 percent ($288,829) of the value. Details of 

20 ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in 

21 Appendix A, Table A-8. 

22 Upriver Fall Chinook Salmon 

23 Under Alternative 1, the commercial harvest of Upriver fall Chinook salmon (232,173 fish) would be the 

24 same as under the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 81 percent (187,303 

25 fish) of the harvest and non-tribal fisheries about 19 percent (44,870 fish) of the harvest. Ex-vessel values 

26 associated with the total harvest of Upriver fall Chinook salmon ($8,373,007) also would be the same as 

27 under status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 77 percent ($6,457,182) of total ex28 vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for about 23 percent ($1,915,825) of the value. Details of ex-vessel 

29 value and harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix 

30 A, Table A-9. 
US v Oregon EIS 140 2018 

1 Upriver Sockeye Salmon

2 Under Alternative 1, the commercial harvest of Upriver sockeye salmon (16,952 fish) would be the same 

3 as under the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 97 percent (16,440 fish) of the 

4 harvest and non-tribal fisheries about 3 percent (512 fish) of the harvest. Ex-vessel values associated with 

5 the total harvest of Upriver sockeye ($110,569) also would be the same as under status quo conditions, 

6 with tribal fisheries accounting for about 97 percent ($106,825) of total ex-vessel value and non-tribal 

7 fisheries for about 3 percent ($3,744) of the value. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish 

8 by subregion, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-10. 

9 Snake River Steelhead

10 Under Alternative 1, the commercial harvest of Snake River B-Index steelhead (8,946 fish) would be the 

11 same as under the status quo condition, with tribal fishers harvesting all of the fish Some steelhead are 

12 caught by non-tribal fishers as incidental take but cannot be sold. Ex-vessel values associated with the 

13 total harvest of Snake River B-Index steelhead ($122,799) also would be the same as under status quo 

14 conditions, with tribal fishers harvesting all of the fish and accounting for the total ex-vessel value Details 

15 of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of fishery are provided 

16 in Appendix A, Table A-11. 

17 Summary

18 Under Alternative 1, the total commercial harvest across all harvest indicator units would be the same as 

19 under the status quo conditions (294,466 fish), including the harvest of 237,785 fish in tribal fisheries and 

20 56,681 fish in non-tribal fisheries. The total ex-vessel value of the commercial harvest would be 

21 $10,309,356, including $7,745,794 in tribal fisheries and $2,563,562 in non-tribal fisheries.

22 4.5.1.2. Recreational Fisheries 

23 Under Alternative 1, recreational catch and effort targeting the five harvest indicator stocks (71,366 fish 

24 and 342,318 angler trips) would be the same as under the status quo condition. Trip-related expenditures 

25 associated with the total recreational effort targeting the five harvest indicator stocks ($45,465,572) also 

26 would be the same as under status quo conditions. The Lower Columbia River subregion accounts for 

27 about 72 percent of the recreational catch, about 70 percent of angler effort, and about 79 percent of trip28 related expenditures. Details of recreational catch, estimated angler trips and trip-related angler 

29 expenditures by subregion and alternative are provided in Appendix A, Table A-12. 
US v Oregon EIS 141 2018 

1 4.5.1.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity 

2 Under Alternative 1, the contribution of commercial and recreational fisheries to regional economic 

3 activity would be identical to status quo conditions. Table A-13 in Appendix A presents the personal 

4 income and jobs by alternatives and subregion for commercial and recreational fisheries. 

5 Commercial Fisheries: Harvest and primary processing of salmon caught in tribal and non-tribal 

6 commercial fisheries is estimated to generate $16.2 million in personal income and 419 Full-time 

7 Equivalent (FTE) jobs. More than two-thirds of this activity would occur in the Mid-Columbia River 

8 subregion. 

9 Recreational Fisheries: Recreational fishing activities targeting salmon and steelhead generate an 

10 estimated $27.9 million in personal income and 672 jobs in the Columbia River region. More than two11 thirds of the jobs and income would occur in the Lower Columbia River subregion, with most of the 

12 remainder in the Mid-Columbia River subregion. 

13 4.5.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management Alternative 

14 Under Alternative 2, the same level of commercial harvest and recreational catch and effort as under the 

15 status quo condition and Alternative 1. 

16 4.5.2.1. Commercial Fisheries

17 Upriver Spring Chinook Salmon 

18 Under Alternative 2, the commercial harvest of Upriver spring Chinook salmon (11,606 fish) would be 

19 the same as under the status quo condition and Alternative 1, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 65 

20 percent (7,528 fish) of the harvest and non-tribal fisheries about 35 percent (4,078 fish) of the harvest . 

21 Ex-vessel values associated with the total harvest of Upriver spring Chinook salmon ($848,193) also 

22 would be the same as under status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 65 percent 

23 ($493,029) of total ex-vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for about 35 percent ($355,164) of the value. 

24 Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of fishery are 

25 provided in Appendix A, Table A-7. 

26 Upper Columbia Summer Chinook Salmon

27 Under Alternative 2, the commercial harvest of Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon (24,791 fish) 

28 would be the same as under the status quo condition and Alternative 1, with tribal fisheries accounting for 

29 about 71 percent (17,569 fish) of the harvest and non-tribal fisheries about 29 percent (7,222 fish) of the 
US v Oregon EIS 142 2018 

1 harvest. Ex-vessel values associated with the total harvest of Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon 

2 ($854,787) also would be the same as under status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for 

3 about 66 percent ($565,958) of total ex-vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for about 34 percent 

4 ($288,829) of the value. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, 

5 and type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-8. 

6 Upriver Fall Chinook Salmon 

7 Under Alternative 2, the commercial harvest of Upriver fall Chinook salmon (232,173 fish) would be the 

8 same as under the status quo condition and Alternative 1, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 81 

9 percent (187,303 fish) of the harvest and non-tribal fisheries about 19 percent (44,870 fish) of the harvest. 

10 Ex-vessel values associated with the total harvest of Upriver fall Chinook salmon ($8,373,007) also 

11 would be the same as under status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 77 percent 

12 ($6,457,182) of total ex-vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for about 23 percent ($1,915,825) of the 

13 value. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of fishery 

14 are provided in Appendix A, Table A-9. 

15 Upriver Sockeye Salmon

16 Under Alternative 2, the commercial harvest of Upriver sockeye salmon (23,683 fish) would increase by 

17 6,631 fish relative to the status quo condition and Alternative 1, with tribal fisheries accounting for more 

18 than 98 percent (6,631 fish) of the harvest increase and non-tribal fisheries about 2 percent (99 fish) of the 

19 increase. Ex-vessel values associated with the harvest of Upriver sockeye salmon ($154,386) also would 

20 increase relative to status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 97 percent ($149,916) 

21 of total ex-vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for about 3 percent ($4,471) of the value. Details of ex22 vessel value and harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in 

23 Appendix A, Table A-10. 

24 Snake River Steelhead

25 Under Alternative 2, the commercial harvest of Snake River B-Index steelhead (8,945 fish) would be the 

26 same as under the status quo condition, with tribal fishers harvesting all of the fish. Some steelhead are 

27 caught by non-tribal fishers as incidental take but these fish cannot be sold. Tribal fisheries Ex-vessel 

28 values associated with the total harvest of Snake River steelhead ($122,799) also would be the same as 

29 under status quo conditions, with tribal fishers harvesting all of the fish. Some steelhead are caught by 

30 non-tribal fishers as incidental take but these fish cannot be sold. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest 
US v Oregon EIS 143 2018 

1 number of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-11. 

2 Summary 

3 As compared to status quo conditions, the total commercial harvest across all harvest indicator units under 

4 Alternative 2 would be slightly higher (6,384 fish), with all of the harvest increase occurring in tribal 

5 fisheries. Sockeye salmon accounts for all of the increase, offset by a reduction of 245 fish of Upriver 

6 spring Chinook salmon stocks. The overall ex-vessel value also would increase (by $31,869), with the 

7 value of the reduced harvest of summer Chinook salmon stocks slightly offsetting the value of the 

8 increased tribal harvest of sockeye salmon. 

9 4.5.2.2. Recreational Fisheries 

10 Under Alternative 2, recreational catch and effort targeting the five harvest indicator stocks (71,366 fish 

11 and 342,318 angler trips) would be the same as under the status quo condition. Trip-related expenditures 

12 associated with the total recreational effort targeting the five harvest indicator stocks ($45,465,572) also 

13 would be the same as under status quo conditions. The Lower Columbia River subregion accounts for 

14 about 72 percent of the recreational catch, about 70 percent of angler effort, and about 79 percent of trip15 related expenditures. Details of recreational catch, estimated angler trips and trip-related angler 

16 expenditures by subregion and alternative are provided in Appendix A, Table A-12. 

17 4.5.2.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity 

18 Under Alternative 2, the contribution of commercial and recreational fisheries to regional economic 

19 activity would be identical to status quo conditions. Table A-13 in Appendix A presents the personal 

20 income and jobs by alternatives and subregion for commercial and recreational fisheries. 

21 Commercial Fisheries: Harvest and primary processing of salmon caught in tribal and non-tribal 

22 commercial fisheries is estimated to generate $16.2 million in personal income and 419 FTE jobs. More 

23 than two-thirds of this activity would occur in the Mid-Columbia River subregion. 

24 Recreational Fisheries: Recreational fishing activities targeting salmon and steelhead generate an 

25 estimated $27.9 million in personal income and 672 jobs in the Columbia River region. More than two26 thirds of the jobs and income would occur in the Lower Columbia River subregion, with most of the 

27 remainder in the Mid-Columbia River subregion. 

28 4.5.3. Alternative 3 – Fixed Harvest Rate

29 Under Alternative 3, the total commercial harvest would decline by 13,864 salmon and steelhead relative
US v Oregon EIS 144 2018 

1 to the status quo condition. The only harvest indicator stock in which there would be an increase in fish 

2 harvested relative to status quo conditions would be Upriver sockeye salmon. 

3 4.5.3.1. Commercial Fisheries

4 Upriver Spring Chinook Salmon 

5 Under Alternative 3, the commercial harvest of Upriver spring Chinook salmon (10,677 fish) would 

6 decrease relative to status quo condition, with a decrease of 755 fish in the tribal harvest and a decrease of 

7 174 fish of the non-tribal harvest. Ex-vessel values of Upriver spring Chinook salmon also would 

8 decrease relative to status quo condition, with a decrease of $49,478 in the tribal harvest of Upriver spring

9 Chinook salmon and a decrease of $15,146 in the non-tribal harvest value. Details of ex-vessel value and 

10 harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table 

A-7. 11 

12 Upper Columbia Summer Chinook Salmon

13 Under Alternative 3, the commercial harvest of Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon (19,846 fish) 

14 would decline relative to status quo condition, with a decrease of about 3,504 fish in the tribal harvest of 

15 Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon and a decrease of 1,441 fish) in the non-tribal harvest. Ex16 vessel values of Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon also would decrease relative to status quo 

17 condition, with a decrease of $112,878 in the tribal harvest of Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon 

18 and a decrease of $57,618 in the non-tribal harvest value. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number 

19 of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-8. 

20 Upriver Fall Chinook Salmon 

21 Under Alternative 3, the commercial harvest of Upriver fall Chinook salmon (224,731 fish) would decline 

22 relative to status quo condition, with a decrease of 3,100 fish in the tribal harvest of Upriver fall Chinook 

23 salmon and a decrease of 4,342 fish in the non-tribal harvest. Ex-vessel values of upriver fall Chinook 

24 salmon also would decrease relative to status quo condition, with a decrease of $106,855 in the tribal 

25 harvest of Upriver fall Chinook salmon and a decrease of $185,412 in the non-tribal harvest value. Details 

26 of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of fishery are provided 

27 in Appendix A, Table A-9. 

28 Upriver Sockeye Salmon

29 Under Alternative 3, the commercial harvest of Upriver sockeye salmon (17,043 fish) would increase 
US v Oregon EIS 145 2018 

1 relative to status quo condition, with a small increase of 91 fish in the tribal harvest and no change in the 

2 non-tribal harvest. Ex-vessel values of Upriver sockeye salmon also would slightly increase relative to 

3 status quo condition, with an increase of $592 in the tribal harvest of Upriver sockeye salmon and no 

4 change in the ex-vessel value of the non-tribal harvest. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of 

5 fish by subregion, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-10. 

6 Snake River Steelhead

7 Under Alternative 3, the commercial harvest of B-Index Snake River steelhead (8,306 fish) would decline 

8 relative to status quo condition, with a decrease of 639 fish in the tribal harvest of Snake River steelhead. 

9 Ex-vessel values of Snake River steelhead also would decrease relative to status quo condition, with a 

10 decrease of $8,769 in the tribal harvest value of Snake River B-Index steelhead. Details of ex-vessel value 

11 and harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, 

12 Table A-11. 

13 Summary

14 As compared to status quo conditions, the total commercial harvest across all harvest indicator units under 

15 Alternative 3 would be lower (by 13,864 fish), with about 57 percent (7,907 fish) of the harvest decrease 

16 occurring in tribal fisheries and 43 percent (5,957 fish) occurring in non-tribal fisheries. Most of the 

17 overall decrease in harvest would occur in the Upper Columbia summer and fall Chinook salmon 

18 fisheries. The overall ex-vessel value would decrease by $535,563. 

19 4.5.3.2. Recreational Fisheries 

20 Under Alternative 3, recreational catch and effort targeting the five harvest indicator stocks (65,132 fish 

21 and 312,986 angler trips) would represent a decline (6,234 fish and 29,332) angler trips relative to the 

22 status quo condition. Total trip-related expenditures associated with the recreational effort targeting the 

23 five harvest indicator stocks ($441,119,593) would decrease by $4,345,979 relative to status quo 

24 conditions. The Lower Columbia River subregion would account for about a 72 percent of decrease in 

25 recreational catch, about 70 percent of decrease in angler effort, and about 75 percent of the decrease in 

26 total trip-related expenditures. Details of recreational catch, estimated angler trips and trip-related angler 

27 expenditures by subregion and alternative are provided in Appendix A, Table A-12. 

28 4.5.3.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity 

29 Under Alternative 3, impacts are slightly more negative than under status quo conditions, Alternative 1 

30 and Alternative 2. Overall economic impacts under Alternative 3 are the second lowest among the five 

31 alternatives, being more positive than only Alternative 5. Table A-13 in Appendix A presents the personal 
US v Oregon EIS 146 2018 

1 income and jobs by alternatives and subregion for commercial and recreational fisheries. 

2 Commercial Fisheries: Overall impacts from tribal and non-tribal commercial fisheries would be $841 

3 thousand in personal income and 21 FTE jobs lower than under Existing Conditions and Alternative 1. 

4 The decrease in commercial fishing activity is split between the Lower Columbia (-$359,000 income and 

5 -8 jobs) and Mid-Columbia subregions (-$482,000 income and -13 jobs). 

6 Recreational Fisheries: Under Alternative 3, impacts from recreational fishing would be $2.4 million 

7 income and 57 FTE jobs lower than under Existing conditions and Alternative 1. The reduction in 

8 recreational fishing impacts would mainly occur in the Lower Columbia (-$1.7 million income and -38 

9 jobs) and Mid-Columbia subregions (-$700,000 income and -19 jobs). A decrease of $16,000 income and 

10 1 FTE job is also projected for Lower Snake River subregion. 

11 4.5.4. Alternative 4 – Escapement-based Management 

12 Under Alternative 4, the commercial harvest of salmon and steelhead would increase relative to the status 

13 quo condition. The only harvest indicator stock that would be harvested less than under status quo 

14 conditions would be Upriver fall Chinook salmon. 

15 4.5.4.1. Commercial Fisheries

16 Upriver Spring Chinook Salmon 

17 Under Alternative 4, the commercial harvest of Upriver spring Chinook salmon (20,968 fish) would be 

18 much greater than under the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 81 percent 

19 (7,400 fish) of the harvest, and non-tribal fisheries about 19 percent (1,962 fish) of the harvest. Ex-vessel 

20 values associated with the total harvest of Upriver spring Chinook salmon ($1,503,704) also would 

21 increase relative to status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 65 percent ($977,652) 

22 of total ex-vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for about 35 percent ($526,052) of the value. Details of 

23 ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in 

24 Appendix A, Table A-7. 

25 Upper Columbia Summer Chinook Salmon

26 Under Alternative 4, the commercial harvest of Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon (28,838 fish) 

27 would be much greater than under the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 71 

28 percent (20,438 fish) of the harvest and non-tribal fisheries about 29 percent (8,401fish) of the harvest. 

29 Ex-vessel values associated with the total harvest of Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon

30 ($994,344) also would increase relative to status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 
US v Oregon EIS 147 2018 

1 66 percent ($658,372) of total ex-vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for about 34 percent ($335,972) of 

2 the value. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of 

3 fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-8. 

4 Upriver Fall Chinook Salmon 

5 Under Alternative 4, the commercial harvest of Upriver fall Chinook salmon (219,756 fish) would be 

6 lower than under the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 67 percent (148,242 

7 fish) and non-tribal fisheries about 33 percent (71,514 fish) of the total harvest. The number of fish 

8 harvested by non-tribal fishers represents an increase of 26,644 fish, whereas the number of fish caught 

9 by tribal fishers represents a decrease of 39,061 fish. Ex-vessel values associated with the total harvest of 

10 Upriver fall Chinook salmon ($8,164,049) also would be lower than under status quo conditions, with the 

11 value of tribal fisheries decreasing by $1,346,609) of the ex-vessel value of non-tribal fisheries increasing 

12 by 1,137,651. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of 

13 fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-9. 

14 Upriver Sockeye Salmon

15 Under Alternative 4, the commercial harvest of Upriver sockeye salmon (79,942 fish) would be much 

16 greater than under the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 65 percent (65,772 

17 fish) and non-tribal fisheries about 35 percent (14,170 fish) of the total harvest. Ex-vessel values 

18 associated with the total harvest of Upriver sockeye ($530,993) also would be much higher than under 

19 status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 65 percent ($320,553) and non-tribal 

20 fisheries for about 35 percent ($99,871) of the total value of Upriver sockeye salmon. Details of ex-vessel 

21 value and harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix 

22 A, Table A-10. 

23 Snake River Steelhead

24 Under Alternative 4, the commercial harvest of Snake River B-Index steelhead (11,018 fish) would 

25 increase relative to the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for all of the fish caught. Ex26 vessel values associated with the total harvest of Snake River B-Index steelhead ($151,257) would 

27 represent an increase of about 23 percent relative to status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting 

28 for all of the increase in ex-vessel value. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by 

29 subregion, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-11. 
US v Oregon EIS 148 2018 

1 Summary

2 As compared to status quo conditions, the total commercial harvest across all harvest indicator units under 

3 Alternative 4 would be substantially higher (by 66,055 fish), with 36 percent (22,612 fish) of the harvest 

4 increase occurring in tribal fisheries and 64 percent (43,388 fish) occurring in non-tribal fisheries. 

5 Sockeye salmon accounts most of the harvest increase, followed by harvest increases in Upriver spring

6 Chinook salmon and summer Chinook salmon; decreases in the harvest of Upriver fall Chinook salmon 

7 would offset the increases in the harvest of other harvest indicator stocks. The total ex-vessel value of the 

8 commercial harvest would increase by $1,034,992. 

9 4.5.4.2. Recreational Fisheries 

10 Under Alternative 4, recreational catch and effort targeting the five harvest indicator stocks (183,211 fish 

11 and 895,961 angler trips) would increase substantially (by 111,845 fish and 553,643 angler trips) relative 

12 to the status quo condition. Total trip-related expenditures associated with the recreational effort targeting 

13 the five harvest indicator stocks ($111,821,173) would increase by $6,635,600 relative to status quo 

14 conditions. The Lower Columbia River subregion would account for more than 90 percent of the increase 

15 in recreational catch, angler effort, and total trip-related expenditures. Details of recreational catch, 

16 estimated angler trips and trip-related angler expenditures by subregion and alternative are provided in 

17 Appendix A, Table A-12. 

18 4.5.4.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity 

19 Under Alternative 4, overall economic impacts are the most positive among the five Alternatives. Table 

20 A-13 in Appendix A presents the personal income and jobs by alternatives and subregion for commercial 

21 and recreational fisheries. 

22 Commercial Fisheries: Overall impacts from tribal and non-tribal commercial fisheries would be $1.6 

23 million income and 34 FTE jobs greater than under Existing Conditions and Alternative 1. Increases 

24 would occur in the Lower Columbia subregion (+$2.3 million income and +51 jobs) and Lower Snake 

25 River subregion (+$186 thousand income and +6 jobs), while the Mid-Columbia subregion would see a 

26 decrease of $622 thousand income and 17 jobs. 

27 Recreational Fisheries: Under Alternative 4, overall impacts from recreational fishing would be $45.2 

28 million income and 1,042 FTE jobs greater than under Existing conditions and Alternative 1. More than 

29 90 percent of the increase in recreational fishing impacts would occur in the Lower Columbia subregion 

30 (+$41.9 million income and +954 jobs). Increases would also occur in the Mid-Columbia (+$3.1 million 

31 income and +82 jobs) and Lower Snake River subregions (+186 thousand and +6 jobs). 
US v Oregon EIS 149 2018 

1 4.5.5. Alternative 5 - Fishing curtailment

2 Under Alternative 5, commercial and recreational fisheries targeting the harvest indicator stocks and other 

3 Columbia River stocks would be terminated. 

4 4.5.5.1. Commercial Fisheries

5 Upriver Spring Chinook Salmon 

6 Under Alternative 5, no commercial harvest of Upriver spring Chinook salmon would occur, resulting in 

7 the elimination of 7,528 fish harvested in tribal fisheries and 4,078 fish in non-tribal fisheries. Ex-vessel 

8 values associated with the total harvest of Upriver spring Chinook salmon also would be lost, with the 

9 value to tribal fisheries being reduced by $493,029 and the value to non-tribal fisheries being reduced by 

10 $355,164. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of 

11 fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-7. 

12 Upper Columbia Summer Chinook Salmon

13 Under Alternative 5, no commercial harvest of Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon would occur, 

14 resulting in the elimination of 17,569 fish harvested in tribal fisheries and 44,870 fish in non-tribal 

15 fisheries. Ex-vessel values associated with the total harvest of Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon 

16 also would be lost, with the value to tribal fisheries being reduced by $565,928 and the value to non-tribal 

17 fisheries being reduced by $288,829. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by subregion, 

18 alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-8. 

19 Upriver Fall Chinook Salmon 

20 Under Alternative 5, no commercial harvest of Upriver fall Chinook salmon would occur, resulting in the 

21 elimination of 187,303 fish harvested in tribal fisheries and 4,078 fish in non-tribal fisheries. Ex-vessel 

22 values associated with the total harvest of Upriver fall Chinook salmon would also be lost, with the value 

23 to tribal fisheries being reduced by $6,457,182 and the value to non-tribal fisheries being reduced by 

24 $1,915,825. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of 

25 fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-9. 

26 Upriver Sockeye Salmon

27 Under Alternative 5, no commercial harvest of Upriver sockeye salmon would occur, resulting in the 

28 elimination of 16,440 fish harvested in tribal fisheries and 512 in non-tribal fisheries. Ex-vessel values 

29 associated with the total harvest of Upriver sockeye salmon would be lost, with the value to tribal 
US v Oregon EIS 150 2018 

1 fisheries being reduced by $ $106,825 and the value to non-tribal fisheries being reduced by $3,744. 

2 Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, and type of fishery are 

3 provided in Appendix A, Table A-10. 

4 Snake River Steelhead

5 Under Alternative 5, no commercial harvest of Snake River B-Index steelhead would occur, resulting in 

6 the elimination of 8,945 fish harvested in tribal fisheries (Table 4.5.1.1-5). Ex-vessel values associated 

7 with the total harvest of Snake River steelhead also would be lost, with the value to tribal fisheries being 

8 reduced by $122,799 . Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by subregion, alternative, and 

9 type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-11. 

10 Summary

11 Under Alternative 5, there would be no commercial fisheries targeting the harvest indicator stocks and 

12 other stocks that are commercially harvested. The economic effects would be the total loss of commercial 

13 harvest and ex-vessel value under existing conditions as described in Subsection 3.5, Economics. 

14 4.5.5.2. Recreational Fisheries 

15 Under Alternative 5, all recreational catch and effort targeting the five harvest indicator stocks and other 

16 Columbia River stocks would be eliminated, resulting in a loss of 111,845 fish caught, 342,318 angler 

17 trips, and $45,465,572 in trip-related angler expenditures. Details of recreational catch, estimated angler 

18 trips and trip-related angler expenditures by subregion and alternative are provided in Appendix A, Table 

19 A-12. 

20 4.5.5.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity

21 Under Alternative 5, overall economic impacts are the most negative among the five harvest policy 

22 alternatives. A complete loss of the commercial and recreational fishing income and employment 

23 estimated under status quo conditions would be expected to occur under this alternative. Table A-13 in 

24 Appendix A presents the personal income and jobs by alternatives and subregion for commercial and 

25 recreational fisheries. 

26 Commercial Fisheries: Overall impacts from tribal and non-tribal commercial fisheries would be $16.2 

27 million income and 419 FTE jobs lower than under status quo conditions and Alternative 1 and 

28 Alternative 2. Elimination of all commercial fishing activity directed at harvest indicator stocks in all 

29 subregions where it occurs under status quo conditions would be expected under this alternative. 

30 Recreational Fisheries: Under Alternative 5, overall impacts from recreational fishing would be $27.9 
US v Oregon EIS 151 2018 

1 million income and 672 FTE jobs lower than under Existing conditions and Alternative 1. Elimination of 

2 all recreational fishing activity targeting harvest indicator stocks in all subregions under status quo 

3 conditions would be expected. 

4 4.5.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated Harvest 

5 Under Alternative 6, overall impacts would be assumed to be those observed under Alternative 4 at the 

6 highest harvest level.

7 4.6. Cultural Resources—Ceremonial & Subsistence (C&S) Fisheries

8 As described in Subsection 3.6, C&S Harvest is based on need and is considered a priority in that it 

9 typically occurs before fish are taken for commercial purposes. An increase in the C&S needs at a 

10 particular time, or a decrease in runs that lead to a reduction in fish available for harvest, may further 

11 reduce the fish available for commercial tribal harvests.

12 Table 4-67 and Figure 4-8 present a summary of the estimated availability for C&S based on the harvest 

13 modeling results as explained in Subsection 4.1. The values in the table and chart that follows are used to 

14 compare the relative numerical and proportional differences among alternatives, and they should not be 

15 considered precise predictions of actual harvests in the future.

16 Table 4-67. C&S harvest of all salmon and steelhead species by minimum, maximum, and 

17 average run size abundances expected over the next 10 years. 

Minimum % change 

from Alt 1 Maximum % change from Alt 1 Average % change from Alt 1

Alternative 1 

Extension 8,718 100% 39,477 100% 23,742 100% 

Alternative 2 

Abundance 8,688 0% 43,185 9% 24,885 5% 

Alternative 3

Fixed Harvest 11,109 27% 35,770 -9% 23,196 -2% 

Alternative 4 / 6

Fixed Escapement / 

Uncoordinated

6,704 -23% 102,814 163% 37,563 58% 

Alternative 5

Fishey Curtailment 0* -100% 0* -100% 0* -100% 

18 * This alternative may include some very limited treaty fishing opportunity to meet base ceremonial needs of the 

19 tribes. However, the amounts cannot be quantified and depend on the specific needs as discussed in Subsection 3.6. 
US v Oregon EIS 152 2018 

1 

2 Figure 4-8. Total C&S harvest of all salmon and steelhead species by minimum, maximum, and average 

3 run size abundances expected over the next 10 years.

4 * See footnote to Table 4-77 above regarding ceremonial harvest.

5 Under Alternative 1, Extension, Alternative 2, Abundance, and Alternative 3, Fixed Harvest, tribes in the 

6 project area would be able to continue their C&S harvest without substantial changes to tribal cultural 

7 viability. The differences between the minimum and maximum harvest for each alternative is based on the 

8 modelled run sizes as described in Subsection 4.1. In years with low runs, any deficit in C&S harvest 

9 needs will likely be taken from the commercial harvest as the C&S harvest is the priority. This decision is 

10 made by the tribes as needed.

11 Under Alternative 4, Fixed Escapement, and Alternative 6, Uncoordinated Harvest, the modelled C&S 

12 harvest presents a wider range as compared to Alternative 1. The minimum C&S harvest, in years with 

13 low runs, may be as low as 6,704 fish, or 23 percent less than Alternative 1, while the maximum C&S 

14 harvest may be more than double (163 percent) that of Alternative 1 in years with high runs. C&S harvest 

15 levels under Alternative 4 or Alternative 6 may not be sufficient to meet C&S needs in years with low 

16 runs, thereby either directly negatively affecting the tribal cultural viability, or, more likely, reducing the 

17 available commercial harvest. The effects of Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 on cultural resources would 

18 therefore be medium negative.

19 Under Alternative 5, Voluntary Fishery Curtailment, there would be some very limited treaty fishing 

20 opportunity to meet base ceremonial needs of the tribes. However, C&S harvest would be largely 

21 curtailed. While salmon and steelhead could be purchased or obtained from other sources, the 
US v Oregon EIS 153 2018 

1 fundamental role that salmon play in the lives of Indian tribes would be affected. This Alternative, 

2 therefore, results in a high negative effect on cultural resources. 

3 Based on the analysis of the Mitchell Act EIS alternatives, the hatchery production included in the 

4 Agreement, would not be expected to alter the amount of fish available for Columbia River tribal C&S

5 harvest.

6 4.7. Environmental Justice 

7 Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

8 and Low-Income Populations, states that “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental 

9 justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

10 adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 

11 populations and low-income populations.” Further, the environmental justice analysis also determine 

12 whether such populations or communities have been sufficiently involved in the decision-making process.

13 Environmental justice is not an impact category standing alone. First, it must be determined if impacts in 

14 other impacts categories are adverse under any alternative, and, if so, whether such impacts may be felt 

15 disproportionately by environmental justice populations. Effects of the alternatives on fish, marine16 derived nutrients, and wildlife would not impact environmental justice populations. However, the effects 

17 of alternatives on both Economics and Cultural Resources may impact environmental justice populations. 

18 These populations are the Indian tribes and those living in the 28 counties and 2 communities described in 

19 Subsection 3.7. 

20 4.7.1. Cultural Resources - Ceremonial & Subsistence (C&S) 

21 Alternative 1 (Extension), Alternative 2 (Abundance), and Alternative 3 (Fixed Harvest) do not have an 

22 adverse effect on cultural resources among Indian tribes (Section 4.6). However, Alternative 4 (Fixed 

23 Escapement), Alternative 5 (Fishing Curtailment), and Alternative 6 (Uncoordinated) result in a negative 

24 effect. Given the significance of salmon and steelhead to Indian tribes, and given that this significance is 

25 not paralleled among other populations that may be affected by the C&S harvest, these negative effects 

26 would be disproportionate. This disproportionate effect cannot be quantified as no metric can be 

27 attributed to the importance of this cultural resource to Indian tribes and because the importance of the 

28 C&S harvest among communities other than Indian tribes is essentially zero. 

29 Environmental Justice Determination: Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 would result in a disproportionate adverse 

30 Cultural Resources effect on Indian tribes as it pertains to C&S fisheries. 
US v Oregon EIS 154 2018 

1 4.7.2. Economics 

2 Indian Tribes

3 Indian tribes are defined as an Environmental Justice population for this EIS in Section 3.5. The change in 

4 tribal and non-tribal commercial harvest by harvest indicator stock, presented in Subsection 4.5.1 to 4.5.6, 

5 was analyzed to determine whether any of the alternatives would result in a disproportionate adverse 

6 effect on the tribes. Table 4-68 presents these findings based on the number of fish. The corresponding 

7 economic values for the commercial harvest are proportional to the number of fish and can be found in 

8 Subsections 4.5.1.1, 4.5.2.1, 4.5.3.1, 4.5.4.1 and 4.5.5.1. 

9 As shown in Table 4-68, Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 would result in a 198 percent increase in tribal 

10 commercial harvest for Upriver spring Chinook salmon compared to a corresponding non-tribal 

11 commercial increase of 48 percent. Similarly, Alternative 2 would result in a 40 percent increase in tribal 

12 commercial harvest for Upriver sockeye salmon, compared to no increase for the non-tribal commercial 

13 harvest. Both examples are positive disproportionate effects on an Environmental Justice population.
US v Oregon EIS 155 2018 

1 Table 4-68. Change in Tribal vs Non-Tribal Commercial Harvest by Harvest Indicator Stock and Alternative (Summarized from 

2 Appendix B). 

Change 

from 

Existing 

Conditions

Fish % Fish % Fish % Fish % Fish % 

Tribal / 

Non-tribal Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 / 6 Alternative 5

Upper 

Spring 

Chinook

T 0 0 0 0 -755 -10 14,928 198 -7,528 -100 

NT 0 0 0 0 -174 -4 1,962 48 -4,078 -100

Upper 

Columbia 

Summer 

Chinook

T 0 0 -245 -1 -3,504 -20 2,869 16 -17,569 -100 

NT 0 0 0 0 -1,441 -20 1,179 16 -7,222 -100

Upriver Fall 

Chinook T 0 0 0 0 -3,100 -2 -39,061 -21 -187,303 -100 

NT 0 0 0 0 -4,342 -10 26,644 59 -44,870 -100

Upriver

Sockeye T 0 0 6,631 40 91 0.5 49,332 300 -16,440 -100 

NT 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,658 2,667 -512 -100

Snake River 

B-Index 

Steelhead

T 0 0 0 0 -639 -7 2,073 23 -8,945 -100 

NT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 
US v Oregon EIS 156 2018 

1 Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 would result in a larger non-tribal commercial increase for Upriver 

2 sockeye salmon when compared to the tribal increase. However, given that the fact that the corresponding 

3 tribal harvest numbers are significantly higher under existing conditions and under Alternative 1, the 

4 change in non-tribal harvest would not be a disproportionate adverse effect. For example, non-tribal 

5 commercial harvest for Upriver Sockeye would increase by 300 percent from 16,440 to 49,332 under 

6 Alternatives 4 or 6. The corresponding non-tribal harvest would increase by 2,667 percent from 512 to 

7 13,658 fish. 

8 Tribal commercial harvest (and associated revenue) of Upriver fall Chinook salmon would decrease by 21 

9 percent under Alternative 4 and Alternative 6, while the non-tribal commercial harvest would increase 

10 disproportionately by 59 percent. 

11 Alternative 5 does not represents a disproportionate economic effect on Indian tribes because tribes and 

12 non-tribes are equally affected.

13 Environmental Justice Determination: Alternatives 4 and 6 result in a disproportionate adverse economic 

14 effect on Indian tribes as it pertains to Upriver fall Chinook salmon. However, given that Upriver fall

15 Chinook salmon represents the largest percentage (64 percent) of all harvest indicator stocks under 

16 Alternatives 4 and 6, this EIS analysis concludes that the disproportionate effect of Upriver fall Chinook 

17 salmon represents that of Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 as a whole. 

18 Counties

19 The economic impacts of the Proposed Action are presented by subregion within the study area as 

20 described in Subsection 4.5. It is not possible to determine the specific economic impact on each county 

21 for the following reasons:

22 1) The economic model applies the overall harvest management framework to each subregion in 

23 order to determine the harvest opportunities. Further dividing the subregion forecast to each 

24 county would result in a proportional distribution among the counties in that region. 

25 2) Fish captured in one geographic area may be landed in a different geographic area. 

26 Therefore, while the study area does include Environmental Justice counties as presented in Subsection 

27 3.7, the analysis cannot determine whether the economic effects of any alternative result in a 

28 disproportionate effect on any of these Environmental Justice counties.

29 4.7.3. Public Participation

30 CEQ’s EJ Guidance require that agencies develop appropriate public participation strategies and assure 
US v Oregon EIS 157 2018 

1 meaningful community representation in the process. In addition, “Agencies should seek tribal 

2 representation in the process in a manner that is consistent with the government-to-government 

3 relationship between the United States and tribal governments, the Federal government’s trust 

4 responsibility to federally-recognized tribes, and any treaty rights.” (CEQ, 1997). 

5 Throughout the EIS process, NMFS has attempted to ensure that the requirements of E.O. 12898 

6 regarding environmental justice are implemented, including the conduct of appropriate tribal consultation 

7 activities. As part of the public scoping process for this EIS, NMFS directly notified tribal entities on the 

8 Proposed Action. NMFS sent a letter to Columbia River, Puget Sound/Strait of Juan de Fuca, and 

9 Washington's coastal tribes asking them to participate in an EIS scoping meeting. Additionally, on May 

10 31, 2016 NMFS sent a joint letter, with USFWS, to invite the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to 

11 participate as a cooperating agency on the EIS. As a result the BIA, as a party to US v Oregon as 

12 described in Subsection 1.1, is a cooperating agency for this EIS. NMFS also solicited advice and 

13 information from US v Oregon parties by incorporating the help of current US v Oregon TAC chair, 

14 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission employee Stuart Ellis, in developing the model outputs 

15 used in this EIS. 

16 Notices were published in the Federal Register and picked up by regional electronic newsletters. Emails 

17 were also sent to individuals who NMFS was previously aware that are interested in salmon fishery issues 

18 (e.g., non-tribal commercial, recreational, or tribal fishers, conservation organizations, and federal, state, 

19 and local governments). All groups notified during scoping are included on the EIS distribution list and 

20 received direct information about commenting on the draft EIS. In this way, a diverse population, located 

21 over a broad geographic area, was identified and reached during the scoping process, was also notified 

22 during the review period for the draft EIS, and will be notified when the final EIS is published. 
US v Oregon EIS 158 2018 

1 

2 5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

3 5.1. Introduction

4 Section 4, Environmental Consequences, presents the incremental impacts of harvest policy alternatives 

5 for a proposed new US v Oregon agreement. The direct and indirect effects of each alternative on each 

6 resource’s status quo conditions are presented in Section 3, Affected Environment, incorporating the past 

7 effects of harvest, hatcheries, hydropower, and habitat in the Project Area. 

8 Section 5, Cumulative Effects, now further considers the cumulative effects of each alternative in the 

9 context of past actions, present action, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions. 

10 The cumulative effects analysis is important for review of this Proposed Action because it informs future 

11 fishery management affected by a new US v Oregon agreement. Provided below are known future actions 

12 reasonably likely to occur within the analysis area. Expected future actions include proposed 

13 developments, and planned habitat restoration activities. Climate change is an effect of past, present and 

14 future actions that may have a cumulative effect on resources in the analysis area.

15 Subsection 5.2, Future Foreseeable Actions, summarizes the anticipated effects from foreseeable future 

16 actions that may influence the Columbia and Snake Rivers, including Climate Change. Subsection 5.3, 

17 Effects From Future Actions, discusses all expected future actions within the action area including effects 

18 from Climate Change, and focuses on the effects of each alternative in the context of future climate 

19 change when combined with future actions. 

20 Figure 5-1 shows the cumulative effects on salmonids through their complex and far-reaching life cycle. 

21 They are subject to multiple, diverse, and far-reaching effects in both freshwater and open ocean 

22 environments. It is important to keep in mind that the Columbia River harvests take place near the end of 

23 each salmonid species’ life cycle. Some of the fish foregone in one fishery will be lost to other fisheries 

24 or dam mortality, while the remainder will contribute to escapement. 
US v Oregon EIS 159 2018 

1 

2 Figure 5-1. Life cycle cumulative effects diagram.

3 The cumulative impacts analysis area is the same as the project and analysis areas described in Subsection 

4 1.3., consisting of the Columbia River and Snake River mainstem areas as show in in Figure 1-1. The 

5 project area does not include the ocean; the analysis of harvest policies rely on river mouth run sizes 

6 (Sections 3 and 4). Therefore, actions in the ocean (e.g., ocean fisheries) are not included in the scope of 

7 the cumulative effects analysis as they occur outside of the geographic analysis area and occur before the 

8 fisheries that are the subject of this EIS.

9 However, recall that we have used a “low”, “average”, and “high” tiered modeling approach for expected

10 run sizes returning to the Columbia River. By doing so, we account for ocean actions that may modify 

11 the juvenile salmon and steelhead marine survival. This allows us to account for ocean actions that while 

12 outside the project area, might change how many adult fish return the Columbia River, as indicated by the 
US v Oregon EIS 160 2018 

1 ‘Ocean Effects and Harvest (3-5 yrs)’ box in Figure 5-1. 

2 The existing conditions, as described in the resource subsections in Section 3, include influences from 

3 historical and current conditions. Human uses and development have had substantial influences on the 

4 area. Human presence in the project area dates back more than 10,000 years when the Columbia River

5 was the dominant contributor of food, water, and transportation for humans. Presently, the primary 

6 influencing factors on the Columbia and Snake Rivers are the dams that provide electrical power, flood 

7 control, and navigational opportunities, as well as supporting agricultural needs, while simultaneously 

8 resulting in long-term environmental impacts on aquatic life.

9 Hydrosystem operations that affect adult salmon and steelhead are accounted in the interdam loss as 

10 described in Section 4.1. (see Text Box 4-1). Our understanding of the operation of the hydrosystem and 

11 its related cumulative effects as they pertain to resources in the basin are informed by documents 

12 evaluating these effects that have been previously completed for the Columbia Basin. These documents 

13 include: 

14 ● NMFS’ Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis (SCA) (NMFS 2008d); 

15 ● NMFS’s 2008 Biological Opinion on the Federal Columbia River Hydropower System (NMFS 

16 2008a); 

17 ● NMFS’ 2010 supplemental Biological Opinion and Adaptive Management Implementation Plan 

18 (AMIP)(NMFS 2009);

19 ● NMFS’ 2014 Biological Opinion on the Federal Columbia River Hydropower System (NMFS 

20 2014a). 

21 Negative effects of hydropower infrastructure and operations are inevitable. The nature and magnitude of 

22 the effects vary, depending on the hydropower system operation, management, and specific location of 

23 the hydropower infrastructure. In the project area, some of these effects from hydropower systems on 

24 salmon and steelhead that have been factored into this cumulative effects analysis include, but are not 

25 limited to:

26 ● Juvenile and adult passage mortality at the eight run-of-river mainstem dams on the mainstem 

27 Snake and Columbia Rivers (safe passage in the migration corridor);

28 ● Water quantity (i.e., flow) and seasonal timing (water quantity and velocity and safe passage in 

29 the migration corridor; cover/shelter, food/prey, riparian vegetation, and space associated with the 

30 connectivity of the estuarine floodplain); 

31 ● Temperature in the reaches below the large mainstem storage projects (water quality and safe 
US v Oregon EIS 161 2018 

1 passage in the migration corridor) and in the mainstem migration corridors;

2 ● Sediment transport and turbidity (water quality and safe passage in the migration corridor); 

3 ● Total dissolved gas (water quality and safe passage in the migration corridor);

4 ● Food webs, including both predators and prey (food/prey and safe passage in the migration 

5 corridor).

6 We account for these effects, both upstream and downstream, in our cumulative analysis as depicted by 

7 the two ‘Hydrosystem Effects’ boxes in Figure 5-1. The interdam loss metric we used is primarily an 

8 adult effect (represented by the box ‘Hydrosystem Effects’ following the ‘Estuary and Wildlife Effects’ 

9 box in Figure 5-1), but downstream effects end up primarily affecting juveniles (represented by the box 

10 ‘Hydrosystem Effects’ following the ‘Freshwater Habitat and Predator Effects’ box). Here our “low”, 

11 “average”, and “high” tiered modeling approach also accounts for hydro operations that may modify the 

12 juvenile salmon and steelhead total outmigration downwards or upwards. This would alter the number of 

13 fish entering the ocean and therefore change the number of adults that might return. 

14 Associated development and human uses have also impacted the Columbia River ecosystem. These 

15 factors include port improvements, dredging, fishing, urban pollution, and channelization. We are 

16 informed by these types of impacts represented by the any box in Figure 5-1 containing the words 

17 ‘Habitat’ or ‘Estuary’ through recovery planning documents such as:

18 ● Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011); 

19 ● Recovery Plan for Lower Columbia Chinook Salmon, Lower Columbia Coho, Columbia River 

20 Chum and Lower Columbia Steelhead (NMFS 2013a); 

21 ● Upper Columbia Spring-run Chinook and Upper Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan (UCSRB

22 2007); 

23 ● Snake River Sockeye Salmon Recovery Plan (NMFS 2015a); 

24 ● Draft Snake River fall Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan (NMFS 2015b); 

25 ● Draft Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan (NMFS 2016). 

26 With the exception of Snake and upper Columbia fall-run Chinook salmon, which generally spawn and 

27 rear in the mainstem, salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing habitat is found in tributaries to the 

28 Columbia and Snake Rivers. The quality and quantity of habitat in many Columbia River Basin 

29 watersheds has declined dramatically in the last 150 years. Forestry, farming, grazing, road construction, 

30 hydro system development, mining, and urbanization have changed the historical habitat conditions. 

31 Currently, spawning and rearing is limited now to thirty-two subbasins in the project area (NMFS 2017a). 
US v Oregon EIS 162 2018 

1 Water quality in many Columbia River Basin streams is degraded to varying degrees by these same 

2 human activities, such as construction and operation of dams and diversion structures, water withdrawals, 

3 farming and grazing, road construction, timber harvest activities, mining activities, and urbanization. 

4 Many tributaries are significantly depleted by water diversions. In 1993, state, Tribal, and conservation 

5 group experts estimated that 80% of 153 Columbia tributaries had low flow problems, of which two6 thirds were caused, at least in part, by irrigation withdrawals (OWRD 1993). The NWCouncil showed 

7 similar problems in many Idaho, Oregon, and Washington tributaries (NWCouncil 1992). Diminished 

8 tributary stream flows have been identified a major limiting factors for most species in the Columbia 

9 River Basin upstream of Bonneville Dam (NMFS 2007). In many watersheds, access to historical habitat 

10 areas is also lost to land development, primarily due to road culverts that are not designed or installed to 

11 permit fish passage. These impacts are captured in any box with the word ‘Habitat’ along with impacts in 

12 the ‘Spawning Effects’ box in Figure 5-1. 

13 The ‘Hatchery Effects’ box in Figure 5-1 is accounted through integrating the analysis from the Mitchell 

14 Act EIS (NMFS 2014b) and is part of the proposed action. In Appendix B we review all impacts 

15 associated with hatchery effects, and those include: impacts to population viability, impacts on abundance 

16 and productivity, impacts on genetic diversity when hatchery fish spawn with wild fish or wild fish are 

17 included in hatchery broodstocks, impacts on spatial structure, ecological impacts, and hatchery facility 

18 impacts. These impacts are integrated into the analysis of effects presented in Section 4 and the 

19 cumulative effects presented in Section 5.3. We are informed about these impacts from not just the 

20 Mitchell Act EIS, and associated Biological Opinion (NMFS 2017a), but also from the following NEPA 

21 work performed in the Columbia River: 

22 ● Environmental Assessment (EA) to Analyze Impacts of a NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 

23 Service Issuance of two Permits for the Hatchery Genetic Management Plans Submitted by the 

24 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the 

25 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Nez Perce Tribe Under Section 10 of the 

26 Endangered Species Act. (NMFS 2012a);

27 ● Final Environmental Assessment: Determination that the Hatchery and Genetic Management 

28 Plans for Sandy River Programs Submitted by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

29 Satisfy the Endangered Species Act Section 4 (d) Rule under Limit 5 (NMFS 2012b); 

30 ● NMFS final environmental impact statement (EIS) on anadromous fish agreements and habitat 

31 conservation plans for Chelan PUD's Rocky Reach and Rock Island Dams (NMFS 2012c); 

32 ● NMFS utilized the Bonneville Power Administration Springfield Sockeye Hatchery Project EA 
US v Oregon EIS 163 2018 

1 and Finding of No Significant Impact Recovery Plan for Lower Columbia Chinook Salmon, 

2 Lower Columbia Coho, Columbia River Chum and Lower Columbia Steelhead (BPA 2012d); 

3 ● Final Environmental Assessment to Analyze Impacts of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries 

4 Service Determination that the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Tribal Resource 

5 Management Plan Meets the Endangered Species Act Tribal§ 4(d) Rule (NMFS 2013b); 

6 ● Final Environmental Assessment for Issuance of Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(A) 

7 Permits for Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery Programs in the Methow Basin (NMFS 2017b); 

8 ● Final Environmental Assessment to Analyze Impacts of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries 

9 Service Determination that the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Tribal Resource 

10 Management Plan Meets the Endangered Species Act Tribal§ 4(d) Rule (NMFS 2017c). 

11 The temporal scope of the cumulative effects analysis is 10 years, coinciding with the duration of the 

12 proposed US v Oregon management agreement. 

13 Despite these extensive uses, however, the basin is considered a diverse, highly productive ecosystem that 

14 will continue to provide both important biological functions and economic services. As depicted in Figure 

15 5-1 human uses and associated development can and will act as stressors to the existing ecosystem at 

16 different locations, and these are expected to continue under future actions as described below. 

17 5.2. Future Foreseeable Actions

18 Future effects of climate change are discussed, as are the effects of development and proposed or ongoing 

19 projects, and habitat restoration and protection of salmon and steelhead efforts. Each of the above topics 

20 is described in terms of effects on the project area and proposed alternatives.

21 5.2.1. Climate Change 

22 One factor affecting all species managed under a new US v Oregon agreement, and aquatic habitat at 

large is climate change. The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)

4 23 , mandated by Congress 

24 in the Global Change Research Act of 1990, reports average warming of about 1.3oF from 1895 to 2011 

25 and projects an increase in average annual temperature of 3.3oF to 9.7oF by 2070 to 2099 (CCSP, 2014). 

26 Climate change has negative implications for habitats in the Pacific Northwest (Climate Impacts Group 

27 2004; Scheuerell and Williams 2005; Zabel et al. 2006; ISAB 2007). According to the Independent 

Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB)5 28 , these effects pose the following impacts into the future:

 

4 http://www.globalchange.gov 5 The Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) serves the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA 
US v Oregon EIS 164 2018 

1 ● Warmer air temperatures will result in diminished snowpack and a shift to more winter/spring 

2 rain and runoff, rather than snow that is stored until the spring/summer melt season. 

3 ● With a smaller snowpack, these watersheds will see their runoff diminished earlier in the season, 

4 resulting in lower stream-flows in the June through September period. River flows in general and 

5 peak river flows are likely to increase during the winter due to more precipitation falling as rain 

6 rather than snow.

7 ● Water temperatures are expected to rise, especially during the summer months when lower 

8 stream-flows co-occur with warmer air temperatures.

9 These changes will not be spatially homogeneous across the entire Pacific Northwest. Low-lying areas are 

10 likely to be more affected. Climate change may have long-term effects that include, but are not limited to, 

11 depletion of important cold water habitat, variation in quality and quantity of tributary rearing habitat, 

12 alterations to migration patterns, accelerated embryo development, premature emergence of fry, and 

13 increased competition among species (ISAB 2007). This is likely to occur to some degree over the next 

14 ten years, but at a similar rate as the last ten years.

15 Climate Change and Pacific Northwest Salmon

16 Climate change is predicted to cause a variety of impacts to Pacific salmon and their ecosystems (Mote et 

17 al. (2003); Crozier et al. (2008a); Martins et al. (2012); Wainwright and Weitkamp (2013)). The complex 

18 life cycles of anadromous fishes including salmon rely on productive freshwater, estuarine, and marine 

19 habitats for growth and survival, making them particularly vulnerable to environmental variation 

20 (Morrison et al. 2016). Ultimately, the effect of climate change on salmon and steelhead across the Pacific 

21 Northwest will be determined by the specific nature, level, and rate of change and the synergy between 

22 interconnected terrestrial/freshwater, estuarine, nearshore and ocean environments.

23 The primary effects of climate change on Pacific Northwest salmon and steelhead are:

24 ● direct effects of increased water temperatures of fish physiology

25 ● temperature-induced changes to stream flow patterns 

26 ● alterations to freshwater, estuarine, and marine food webs 

27 ● changes in estuarine and ocean productivity 

28 While all habitats used by Pacific salmon will be affected, the impacts and certainty of the change vary by 

 

Fisheries), Columbia River Indian Tribes, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council by providing 

independent scientific advice and recommendations regarding scientific issues that relate to the respective agencies' 

fish and wildlife programs. https://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/isab/ 
US v Oregon EIS 165 2018 

1 habitat type. Some effects (e.g., increasing temperature) affect salmon at all life stages in all habitats, 

2 while others are habitat specific, such as stream flow variation in freshwater, sea level rise in estuaries, 

3 and upwelling in the ocean. How climate change will affect each stock or population of salmon also 

4 varies widely depending on the level or extent of change and the rate of change and the unique life history 

5 characteristics of different natural populations (Crozier et al. 2008b). For example, a few weeks 

6 difference in migration timing can have large differences in the thermal regime experienced by migrating 

7 fish (Martins et al. 2011). This is illustrated by events in 2015 when over 475,000 Upriver Sockeye 

8 entered the Columbia River, but only two percent of sockeye counted at Bonneville Dam survived to their 

9 spawning grounds. Most died in river beginning in June when the water warmed to above 68 degrees, the 

10 temperature at which salmon begin to die. In July, temperatures reached 73 degrees due to elevated 

11 temperatures associated with lower snow pack from the previous winter and drought conditions 

12 exacerbate due to increased occurrences of warm weather patterns.

13 These impacts are likely to occur to some degree over the next ten years, but at a similar rate as the last 

14 ten years.

15 Temperature Effects

16 Like most fishes, salmon are poikilotherms (cold-blooded animals), therefore increasing temperatures in 

17 all habitats can have pronounced effects on their physiology, growth, and development rates (see review 

18 by Whitney et al. (2016)). Increases in water temperatures beyond their thermal optima will likely be 

19 detrimental through a variety of processes including: increased metabolic rates (and therefore food 

20 demand), decreased disease resistance, increased physiological stress, and reduced reproductive success. 

21 All of these processes are likely to reduce survival (Beechie et al. 2013; Wainwright and Weitkamp 2013; 

22 Whitney et al. 2016). As examples of this, high mortality rates for adult sockeye salmon in the Columbia 

23 River have recently been attributed to higher water temperatures and likewise in the Fraser River, as 

24 increasing temperatures during adult upstream migration are expected to result in increased mortality of 

25 sockeye salmon adults by 9 to 16 percent by century’s end (Martins et al. 2011). Juvenile parr-to-smolt 

26 survival of Snake River Chinook salmon are predicted to decrease by 31 to 47 percent due to increased 

27 summer temperatures (Crozier et al. 2008b).

28 By contrast, increased temperatures at ranges well below thermal optima (i.e., when the water is cold) can 

29 increase growth and development rates. Examples of this include accelerated emergence timing during 

30 egg incubation stages, or increased growth rates during fry stages (Crozier et al. 2008a; Martins et al. 

31 2012). Temperature is also an important behavioral cue for migration (Sykes et al. 2009), and elevated 

32 temperatures may result in earlier-than-normal migration timing. While there are situations or stocks 
US v Oregon EIS 166 2018 

1 where this acceleration in processes or behaviors is beneficial, there are also others where it is detrimental 

2 (Martins et al. 2012; Whitney et al. 2016). 

3 These impacts are likely to occur to some degree over the next ten years, but at a similar rate as the last 

4 ten years.

5 Freshwater Effects

6 As described previously, climate change is predicted to increase the intensity of storms, reduce winter 

7 snow pack at low and middle elevations, and increase snowpack at high elevations in northern areas. 

8 Middle and lower elevation streams will have larger fall/winter flood events and lower late summer flows, 

9 while higher elevations may have higher minimum flows. How these changes will affect freshwater 

10 ecosystems largely depends on their specific characteristics and location, which vary at fine spatial scales 

11 (Crozier et al. 2008b; Martins et al. 2012). For example, within a relatively small geographic area 

12 (Salmon River Basin, Idaho), survival of some Chinook salmon populations was shown to be determined 

13 largely by temperature, while others were determined by flow (Crozier and Zabel 2006). Certain salmon 

14 populations inhabiting regions that are already near or exceeding thermal maxima will be most affected 

15 by further increases in temperature and perhaps the rate of the increases while the effects of altered flow 

16 are less clear and likely to be basin-specific (Crozier et al. 2008b; Beechie et al. 2013). However, river 

17 flow is already becoming more variable in many rivers, and is believed to negatively affect anadromous 

18 fish survival more than other environmental parameters (Ward et al. 2015). It is likely this increasingly 

19 variable flow is detrimental to multiple salmon and steelhead populations, and likely multiple other 

20 freshwater fish species in the Columbia River Basin as well.

21 Stream ecosystems will likely change in response to climate change in ways that are difficult to predict 

22 (Lynch et al. 2016). Changes in stream temperature and flow regimes will likely lead to shifts in the 

23 distributions of native species and provide “invasion opportunities” for exotic species. This will result in 

24 novel species interactions including predator-prey dynamics, where juvenile native species may be either 

25 predators or prey (Lynch et al. 2016; Rehage and Blanchard 2016). How juvenile native species will fare 

26 as part of “hybrid food webs,” which are constructed from natives, native invaders, and exotic species, is 

27 difficult to predict (Naiman et al. 2012). 

28 Estuarine Effects

29 In estuarine environments, the two big concerns associated with climate change are rates of sea level rise 

30 and temperature warming (Wainwright and Weitkamp 2013; Limburg et al. 2016). Estuaries will be 

31 affected directly by sea-level rise: as sea level rises, terrestrial habitats will be flooded and tidal wetlands 
US v Oregon EIS 167 2018 

1 will be submerged (Kirwan et al. 2010; Wainwright and Weitkamp 2013; Limburg et al. 2016). The net 

2 effect on wetland habitats depends on whether rates of sea-level rise are sufficiently slow that the rates of 

3 marsh plant growth and sedimentation can compensate (Kirwan et al. 2010). 

4 Due to subsidence, sea level rise will affect some areas more than others, with the largest effects expected 

5 for the lowlands, like southern Vancouver Island and central Washington coastal areas (Verdonck 2006; 

6 Lemmen et al. 2016). The widespread presence of dikes in Pacific Northwest estuaries will restrict 

7 upward estuary expansion as sea levels rise, likely resulting in a near-term loss of wetland habitats for 

8 salmon (Wainwright and Weitkamp 2013). Sea level rise will also result in greater intrusion of marine 

9 water into estuaries, resulting in an overall increase in salinity, which will also contribute to changes in 

10 estuarine floral and faunal communities (Kennedy 1990). While not all anadromous fish species are 

11 generally highly reliant on estuaries for rearing, extended estuarine use may be important in some 

12 populations (Jones et al. 2014), especially if stream habitats are degraded and become less productive. 

13 These impacts are likely to occur to some degree over the next ten years, but at a similar rate as the last 

14 ten years.

15 Marine Impacts

16 In marine waters, increasing temperatures are associated with observed and predicted poleward range 

17 expansions of fish and invertebrates in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans (Lucey and Nye 2010; Asch 

18 2015; Cheung et al. 2015). Rapid poleward species shifts in distribution in response to anomalously warm 

19 ocean temperatures have been well documented in recent years, confirming this expectation at short time 

20 scales. Range extensions were documented in many species from southern California to Alaska during 

21 unusually warm water associated with “The Blob” in 2014 and 2015 (Bond et al. 2015; Di Lorenzo and 

22 Mantua 2016), and past strong El Niño events (Pearcy 2002; Fisher et al. 2015). 

23 Exotic species benefit from these extreme conditions to increase their distributions. Green crab (Carcinus 

24 maenas) recruitment increased in Washington and Oregon waters during winters with warm surface 

25 waters, including 2014 (Yamada et al. 2015). Similarly, Humboldt squid (Dosidicus gigas) dramatically 

26 expanded their range during warm years of 2004-2009 (Litz et al. 2011). The frequency of extreme 

27 conditions, such as those associated with El Niño events or “blobs” are predicted to increase in the future 

28 (Di Lorenzo and Mantua 2016). This is likely to occur to some degree over the next ten years, but at a 

29 similar rate as the last ten years.

30 As with changes to stream ecosystems, expected changes to marine ecosystems due to increased 

31 temperature, altered productivity, or acidification, will have large ecological implications through 
US v Oregon EIS 168 2018 

1 mismatches of co-evolved species and unpredictable trophic effects (Cheung et al. 2015; Rehage and 

2 Blanchard 2016). These effects will certainly occur, but predicting the composition or outcomes of future 

3 trophic interactions is not possible with the tools available at this time.

4 Pacific Northwest anadromous fish inhabit as many as three marine ecosystems during their ocean 

5 residence period: the Salish Sea, the California Current, and the Gulf of Alaska (Brodeur et al. 1992; 

6 Weitkamp and Neely 2002; Morris et al. 2007). The response of these ecosystems to climate change is 

7 expected to differ, although there is considerable uncertainty in all predictions. It is also unclear whether 

8 overall marine survival of anadromous fish in a given year depends on conditions experienced in one 

9 versus multiple marine ecosystems. Several are important to Columbia River Basin species, including the 

10 California Current and Gulf of Alaska.

11 Wind-driven upwelling is responsible for the extremely high productivity in the California Current 

12 ecosystem (Bograd et al. 2009; Peterson et al. 2014). Minor changes to the timing, intensity, or duration 

13 of upwelling, or the depth of water column stratification, can have dramatic effects on the productivity of 

14 the ecosystem (Black et al. 2014; Peterson et al. 2014). Current projections for changes to upwelling are 

15 mixed: some climate models show upwelling unchanged, but others predict that upwelling will be delayed 

16 in spring, and more intense during summer (Rykaczewski et al. 2015). Should the timing and intensity of 

17 upwelling change in the future, it may result in a mismatch between the onset of spring ecosystem 

18 productivity and the timing of salmon entering the ocean, and a shift towards food webs with a strong 

19 sub-tropical component (Bakun et al. 2015). 

20 Columbia River anadromous fish also use coastal areas of British Columbia and Alaska, and mid-ocean 

21 marine habitats in the Gulf of Alaska, although their fine-scale distribution and marine ecology during 

22 this period are poorly understood (Morris et al. 2007; Pearcy and McKinnell 2007). Increases in 

23 temperature in Alaskan marine waters have generally been associated with increases in productivity and 

24 salmon survival (Mantua et al. 1997; Martins et al. 2012), thought to result from temperatures that have 

25 been below thermal optima (Gargett 1997). Warm ocean temperatures in the Gulf of Alaska are also 

26 associated with intensified downwelling and increased coastal stratification, which may result in 

27 increased food availability to juvenile salmon along the coast (Hollowed et al. 2009; Martins et al. 2012). 

28 Predicted increases in freshwater discharge in British Columbia and Alaska may influence coastal current 

29 patterns (Foreman et al. 2014), but the effects on coastal ecosystems are poorly understood. 

30 In addition to becoming warmer, the world’s oceans are becoming more acidic as increased atmospheric 

31 CO2 is absorbed by water. The North Pacific is already acidic compared to other oceans, making it 

32 particularly susceptible to further increases in acidification (Lemmen et al. 2016). Laboratory and field 
US v Oregon EIS 169 2018 

1 studies of ocean acidification show it has the greatest effects on invertebrates with calcium-carbonate 

2 shells and relatively little direct influence on finfish (see reviews by Haigh et al. (2015); Mathis et al. 

3 (2015). Consequently, the largest impact of ocean acidification on salmon will likely be its influence on 

4 marine food webs, especially its effects on lower trophic levels, which are largely composed of 

5 invertebrates (Haigh et al. 2015; Mathis et al. 2015). 

6 Uncertainty in Climate Predictions

7 There is considerable uncertainty in the predicted effects of climate change on the globe as a whole, and 

8 on Pacific Northwest in particular and there is also the question of indirect effects of climate change and 

9 whether human “climate refugees” will move into the range of salmon and steelhead, increasing stresses 

10 on their respective habitats (Dalton et al. 2013; Poesch et al. 2016). 

11 Many of the effects of climate change (e.g., increased temperature, altered flow, coastal productivity, etc.) 

12 will have direct impacts on the food webs that species examined in this analysis rely on in freshwater, 

13 estuarine, and marine habitats to grow and survive. Such ecological effects are extremely difficult to 

14 predict even in fairly simple systems, and minor differences in life history characteristics among stocks of 

15 salmon may lead to large differences in their response (e.g., Crozier et al. (2008b); Martins et al. (2011); 

16 Martins et al. (2012). This means it is likely that there will be “winners and losers” meaning some salmon 

17 populations may enjoy different degrees or levels of benefit from climate change while others will suffer 

18 varying levels of harm.

19 Pacific anadromous fish are adapted to natural cycles of variation in freshwater and marine environments, 

20 and their resilience to future environmental conditions depends both on characteristics of each individual 

21 population and on the level and rate of change. They should be able to adapt to some changes, but others 

22 are beyond their adaptive capacity (Crozier et al. 2008a; Waples et al. 2009). With their complex life 

23 cycles, it is also unclear how conditions experienced in one life stage are carried over to subsequent life 

24 stages, including changes to the timing of migration between habitats. Systems already stressed due to 

25 human disturbance are less resilient to predicted changes than those that are less stressed, leading to 

26 additional uncertainty in predictions (Bottom et al. 2011; Naiman et al. 2012; Whitney et al. 2016). 

27 Climate change is expected to impact Pacific Northwest anadromous fish during all stages of their 

28 complex life cycle. In addition to the direct effects of rising temperatures, indirect effects include 

29 alterations in stream flow patterns in freshwater and changes to food webs in freshwater, estuarine and 

30 marine habitats. There is high certainty that predicted physical and chemical changes will occur; 

31 however, the ability to predict bio-ecological changes to fish or food webs in response to these 
US v Oregon EIS 170 2018 

1 physical/chemical changes is extremely limited, leading to considerable uncertainty.

2 Climate Change and Marine Mammals

3 The effects of climate change on marine species including the SRKW is not definitively known, however, 

4 it is likely that any changes in weather and ocean conditions affecting salmon populations would have 

5 consequences for fish-eating SRKW (NMFS 2008). Warming water and air temperature trends are 

6 ongoing and are expected to disrupt annual precipitation cycles, alter prevailing patterns of wind and 

7 ocean currents, and raise sea levels (Glick 2005; Snover et al. 2005). Together with increased 

8 acidification of ocean waters, these changes are expected to have substantial effects on marine 

9 productivity and food webs, including populations of salmon and other killer whale prey (NMFS 2008). 

10 Climate change could result in changes to migration patterns, alteration of ecological community 

11 composition and structure as species relocate from areas they currently use in response to changes in 

12 oceanic conditions, changes in species abundance, increased susceptibility to disease and contaminants, 

13 alterations to prey composition and availability, and altered reproductive timing (MacLeod et al. 2005; 

14 Robinson et al. 2005; McMahon and Hays 2006). Such changes could affect reproductive success and 

15 survival, and therefore would have consequences for the survival and recovery of SRKW (Robinson et al. 

16 2005; Learmonth et al. 2006; Cotte ́ and Guinet 2007). Naturally occurring climatic patterns, such as the 

17 Pacific Decadal Oscillation and El Niño and La Niña events, cause major changes to marine productivity 

18 and may also influence SRKW prey abundance (Mantua et al. 1997; Francis and Hengeveld 1998; 

19 Beamish et al. 1999; Hare et al. 1999; Benson and Trites 2002; Dalton et al. 2013). Prey species such as 

20 salmon are most likely to be affected through changes in food availability and oceanic survival (Benson 

21 and Trites 2002), with biological productivity increasing during cooler periods and decreasing during 

22 warmer periods (Hare et al. 1999; NMFS 2008). This is likely to occur to some degree over the next ten 

23 years, but at a similar rate as the last ten years.

24 In conclusion, the current literature supports previous concerns that natural climatic variability can 

25 amplify and exacerbate long-term climate change impacts. Recent estimates of rates of climate change 

26 are similar to those previously published. Anthropogenic climate change will likely to varying degrees 

27 affect all west coast fish species, especially when interacting factors are incorporated (e.g., existing 

28 threats to populations, water diversion, accelerated mobilization of contaminants, hypoxia, and invasive 

29 species). However, through historic selective processes native fish species have adapted their behavior 

30 and physiology to inhabit available habitat ranging from southern California up to the Alaskan western 

31 coastline. This process by which animals native to the Pacific Northwest are adapted to natural cycles of 

32 variation in freshwater and marine environments required a certain degree of plasticity, and may show 
US v Oregon EIS 171 2018 

1 resilience to future environmental conditions that mimic this natural variation. While climate change 

2 effects will certainly result in changes, it is unlikely that specifics are possible to predict. Alternate life 

3 history types, such as those associated with extended lake or estuarine rearing, provide an important 

4 component of the species diversity with which to guard against an uncertain future. However, the life 

5 history types that will be successful in the future is neither static nor predictable, therefore maintaining or 

6 promoting existing diversity that is specifically found in the natural populations of Pacific anadromous 

7 fish is essential for continued existence of populations into the future (Schindler et al. 2010; Bottom et al. 

2011). 8 

9 5.2.2. Development Projects

10 Development that has occurred within the Columbia River Basin over the past decade has affected the 

11 abundance, distribution, and health of hatchery-origin and natural-origin salmon and steelhead, other fish, 

12 economics, wildlife populations, and water quantity and quality. Provided below is a bulleted list of these 

13 development trends taken from ISAB (2007a, b) and the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership 

14 (2005), followed by some of the larger planned projects within the Columbia River Basin. These trends 

15 cannot be quantified in full detail because some of the development projects are in the early stages of 

16 permitting and planning, while others are closer to implementation decisions demonstrated by completion 

17 of records of decision (RODs) or draft EISs. However, this analysis assumes that all of the projects 

18 described in this chapter would be implemented during the 10-year period of the Proposed Action to 

19 provide a review of the highest-impact potential scenario. 

20 Human populations are increasing primarily in urban metropolitan areas, with smaller increases in rural 

21 areas. Increases in demand for water, land, power, agriculture, roads, and housing are associated with this 

22 growth. Human Population Growth and Development along the Columbia River Basin Approximately 6 

23 million people live in the Columbia River Basin, concentrated largely in urban parts of the lower 

24 Columbia River and the Willamette Valley. The population is presently expanding and is likely to 

25 continue to grow in the foreseeable future. 

26 ● Human population growth and development can be expressed as potential increases in discharges 

27 of pollutants in stormwater runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, 

28 recreational, and transportation land uses. These are all sources of contaminants that currently 

29 degrade water quality and are likely to continue along similar historical trends while recognizing 

30 that any improvements through regional planning processes, which promote more open spaces 

31 and require stormwater treatment for new construction will likely be offset by the net level of 

32 growth. 
US v Oregon EIS 172 2018 

1 ● Freshwater withdrawals for domestic, industrial, commercial, and public uses are increasing, 

2 whereas withdrawals for irrigation purposes are decreasing due to the conversion of agricultural 

3 lands to residential areas.

4 ● Forests are being converted for development, which is resulting in forest fragmentation.

5 Mining, trade and transportation projects influence the hydrology, water quality, and use of the Columbia 

6 River system. As a major river navigation route, the Columbia-Snake Inland Waterway provides shipping 

7 access from the Pacific Ocean to Lewiston, Idaho, 465 miles inland: 

8 ● Mining in the Columbia River Basin is focused on sand and gravel with the removal occurring 

9 along or within rivers. 

10 ● Globalization of trade has contributed to the loss of trade in some areas (e.g., the Mexico 

11 strawberry market) and to the increase in trade in other areas (e.g., increased Columbia River 

12 Basin wine production due to Australian droughts). 

13 ● An increase in ship traffic is likely to occur because of Columbia River channel-deepening 

14 projects.

15 ● New port infrastructure projects continue to result in loss of aquatic habitat. 

16 ● Hazardous materials transport and airborne pollution have been increasing in the Columbia River 

17 Basin.

18 Hatcheries

19 ● New, Non-US v Oregon management agreement hatchery production in the Columbia River 

20 Basin, including hatcheries developed as part of other mitigation efforts.

21 ● Implementation of the preferred alternative described in the Mitchell Act EIS and continued 

22 funding for hatcheries under the Mitchell Act.

23 Hydropower Operations 

24 The Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) is a unique collaboration among three U.S. 

25 government agencies - the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

26 (the Corps) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The Corps of Engineers, Bureau of 

27 Reclamation, and Bonneville Power Administration, collectively, are authorized to construct, operate, and 

28 maintain projects for flood risk management, navigation, power generation, fish and wildlife 

29 conservation, recreation, municipal and industrial water supply purposes and to market and transmit the 

30 power generated by these projects. (http://www.crso.info/Library/CRSOEISScopingLetter.pdf ) 

31 ● Dam operations will continue at various levels to impound water, inundate habitat, alter sediment 

32 transport, hamper passage conditions both upstream and downstream, affect seasonal, daily, and 
US v Oregon EIS 173 2018 

1 hourly flows, and water quality (e.g., temperature, total dissolved gas, turbidity, etc.). 

2 ● Electrical demand continues to increase by up to 1 percent per year with the regional peak load 

3 for power, which typically occurs in winter, forecasted by the Northwest Council to grow at an 

4 average annual growth rate of between 0.3 – 0.8 percent (NWCouncil, 2016). 

5 Some of these efforts are described below as they pertain to the understanding of harvest effects under US 

6 v Oregon. 

7 5.2.3. Habitat Restoration and Protection of Salmonids 

8 Throughout the Columbia River Basin, habitat restoration efforts are supported by Federal, state, and 

9 local agencies; tribes; environmental organizations; and communities. Projects supported by these entities 

10 focus on improving general habitat and ecosystem function or species-specific conservation objectives 

11 that, in some cases, are identified through ESA recovery plans. The larger, more region-wide, restoration 

12 and conservation efforts, either underway or planned throughout the Columbia River Basin, are presented 

13 below. These actions have helped restore habitat, improve fish passage, and reduce pollution. While these 

14 efforts are reasonably likely to occur, funding levels may vary on an annual basis. These include:

15 ● Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and USACE 

16 ● National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Community-based Restoration

17 Program (CRP). 

18 ● NMFS – Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF), Columbia and Snake Rivers.

19 ● Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Council – Fish and Wildlife Program, Columbia 

20 and Snake Rivers. 

21 ● State of Idaho – ESA Section 6 Cooperative Agreement. 

22 ● State of Oregon – Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. 

23 ● State of Washington – Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office.

24 ● Miscellaneous Funding Sources – Regional and Local Habitat Restoration and Conservation 

25 Support. 

26 ● USACE – Double-crested Cormorant Management Plan to Reduce Predation of Juvenile 

27 Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary, Oregon. 

28 5.3. Effects from Future Actions

29 Here we discuss effects of all expected future actions within the action area focusing on the additional 

30 effects of each alternative in the context of future climate change when combined with future actions.

31 5.3.1. Fish

32 Subsection 3.2, Fish, describes how past and present conditions have influenced fish populations in the 
US v Oregon EIS 174 2018 

1 analysis area. These conditions represent effects from many years of development, as well as habitat 

2 restoration, hydropower operations, existing hatchery production. The expected impacts of the 

3 alternatives on fish populations are described in Subsection 4.2, Fish. Section 4 also presents the likely 

4 impacts from the hatchery production associated with this agreement, ongoing fisheries in the basin and, 

5 most likely, climate changes. The Proposed Action itself occurs across the Columbia River Basin, and 

6 includes both harvest and hatchery impacts as part of the Proposed Action. Moreover, the affected 

7 environment already includes the full impact of hydropower effects across the basin. Therefore a great 

8 deal of the discussion that would ordinarily be found in cumulative impacts has taken place in Section 4. 

9 However, Section 4 does not take into account future foreseeable actions, especially in the context of 

10 future climate change. Future Foreseeable Actions are described in Subsection 5.2. This section considers 

11 impacts that may occur as a result of any one of the alternatives being implemented at the same time as 

12 other anticipated future actions and presents information in the context of future climate change.

13 5.3.1.1. Salmonids

14 According to ISAB (2007a), the effects of future climate change on salmonids would vary among species 

15 and with life history stages, but they potentially may affect virtually every species and life history stage of 

16 salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. Rising temperatures will increase disease and/or mortality in 

17 several iconic salmon species, especially for spring/summer Chinook salmon and sockeye salmon in the 

18 interior Columbia and Snake River Basins (Mote et al. 2014). This is because increases in water 

19 temperature are known to increase stress on these salmonid species thereby reducing their immune 

20 response and dually also provide positive conditions for pathogen incubation that is known to be harmful 

21 to these salmonid species. All alternatives, except Alternative 5, remove fish abundance from the 

22 spawning population, which reduces genetic diversity, by simply killing possibly sexually mature adult 

23 contributors to the general spawning populations. Harvest impacts might cumulatively add to the climate 

24 change impacts associated with increased disease/decrease immune responses as the diversity that may 

25 have been present is simply reduced by lowering the size of the spawning populations via harvest 

26 removals. This added impact would be greatest in Alternative 4 and Alternative 6, the same as status quo 

27 conditions and as Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, slightly less in Alternative 3, and almost none at all in 

28 Alternative 5.

29 As described in Subsection 4.2.1, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would not result in changes from the 

30 status quo conditions of the natural-origin Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon, natural-origin 

31 Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon, and 

32 natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead. The effects of Alternative 3 on these same resources is 

33 slightly positive relative to status quo conditions, as it increases the average level of spawning 
US v Oregon EIS 175 2018 

1 escapements. Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 have the greatest negative effects (largest harvest) on all 

2 affected salmonid species, especially for natural-origin Snake River Fall Chinook salmon, natural-origin 

3 Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, natural-origin Upper Columbia River spring Chinook 

4 salmon, Snake River sockeye salmon and natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead. Only for Upper 

5 Columbia summer Chinook salmon the effects of Alternative 4 or Alternative 6 are lower than for 

6 Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. These negative impacts to spawning escapements would subject lower numbers 

7 of spawning adults to conditions where greater abundances for a spawning population might mitigate high 

8 rates of elevated mortality due to climate change impacts described above. Thereby Alternative 4 and 

9 Alternative 6 may cumulatively add to the future climate change impacts by subjecting lower spawning 

10 populations to higher levels of elevated mortality and diminishing future returns 

11 Alternative 5 has a positive harvest effects on all salmonid species because it involves only curtailed 

12 fishing. Alternative 5, while having a positive harvest effects on all salmonid species, because it involves 

13 only curtailed fishing, would however, likely result in escapement of larger numbers of hatchery-origin 

14 adults, leading to potential negative effects from elevated levels of hatchery-origin fish spawning. These 

15 effects, discussed in Section 4, relate to the effects of high levels of unharvested hatchery fish ending up 

16 on natural spawning grounds and competing with and reproductively interacting with natural-origin fish 

17 of the same species/run.

18 Cumulatively, when combined with all past, present and future actions in the Columbia River Basin, 

19 hatcheries will have a greater effect on genetic impacts from hatchery-origin interbreeding with natural20 origin fish, and mortality of natural-origin fish associated with competition, predation, and disease 

21 impacts from hatchery-origin fish as those summarized above and in Section 4. As described in 

22 Subsection 3.2.1, Salmonids, unique patterns of genetic diversity can be lost in natural-origin populations 

23 when they interbreed with hatchery-origin fish. Competition, predations, and disease transmission occurs 

24 during interaction among members of the same species or different species utilizing a limited resource 

25 (e.g., food or space). These interactions typically result in winners and losers. Impacts between hatchery26 origin and natural-origin fish result from direct interactions, in which hatchery-origin fish interfere with 

27 access to limited resources, predate (eat), or transmit disease to natural-origin fish. These interactions 

28 occur between juveniles during outmigration, including the mainstem and estuary areas of the Columbia 

29 River Basin, and between adults during spawning when the adults are competing for space and 

30 resources. 

31 All alternatives that include some level of fishing (Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6) would generally reduce 

32 genetic, competition, and disease impacts from the interaction of hatchery-origin fish with natural-origin 
US v Oregon EIS 176 2018 

1 salmon and steelhead populations because the fishing removes adult hatchery-origin fish from the river 

2 basin. There are no additional cumulative impacts on juvenile salmonids (primarily predation and disease) 

3 as a result of any of the alternatives, because the harvest alternatives will not alter or affect the level of 

4 hatchery production, and therefore the hatchery-related impacts to salmonids under each alternative are 

5 the same impacts discussed already in Section 4. All risks, however, may exacerbate the effects of climate 

6 change on natural-origin salmon and steelhead populations. For example, if hatchery production disrupts 

7 unique patterns of genetic diversity in a natural-origin salmon or steelhead population, that population 

8 may be less able to adapt to the changing environmental conditions anticipated because of future climate 

9 change (Subsection 5.3.1, Climate Change). 

10 Specifically, Alternative 5 would accumulate negative hatchery related impacts at the highest rate as there 

11 would be almost no fishing to remove adult hatchery-origin fish. These fish would be able to return to the 

12 spawning grounds and hatcheries and given the ratio of hatchery to non-hatchery spawners under 

13 Alternative 5, the genetic diversity will be diminished. Under this alternative, competition effects would 

14 be at the highest level, as would transmission potential of disease, while impacts from juvenile predation 

15 would likely remain similar to the other alternatives since there is no effect to the release sizes under any 

16 alternative.

17 Changing environmental conditions are also likely to occur as a result of future development, changes in 

18 hydropower operations, hatchery production and habitat restoration in the Columbia River Basin. When 

19 aggregated with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area, 

20 a new US v Oregon agreement, as a result of harvest and hatchery actions, all alternatives contribute 

21 meaningfully to cumulative effects and the result will continue to cumulatively negatively impact 

22 salmonids. 

23 5.3.1.2. ESA-Listed Fish Species (non-salmonids)

24 The cumulative effects on ESA-Listed Fish Species (non-salmonids) from their bycatch during salmon 

25 and steelhead directed fisheries may be greater than those described in Subsection 4.2.2, ESA-Listed Fish 

26 Species (non-salmonids), but no discernable changes across any of the alternatives are expected. 

27 Changing environmental conditions are also likely to occur as a result of future development, changes in 

28 hydropower operations, hatchery production and habitat restoration in the Columbia River Basin. When 

29 aggregated with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area, 

30 a new US v Oregon management agreement resulting in fisheries and hatcheries would make a minor 

31 additive contribution to cumulative negative effects on ESA-Listed Fish Species (non-salmonids). 
US v Oregon EIS 177 2018 

1 5.3.1.3. Other Non-Salmonids (non ESA-listed Fish Species)

2 The cumulative effects on non-salmonids from their bycatch during salmon and steelhead directed 

3 fisheries may be greater than those described in Subsection 4.2.3, Non-salmonids. Changing 

4 environmental conditions are also likely to occur as a result of future development, changes in 

5 hydropower operations, hatchery production and habitat restoration in the Columbia River Basin. When 

6 aggregated with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area, 

7 a new US v Oregon management agreement resulting in fisheries and continued hatcheries would make a 

8 minor additive contribution to cumulative adverse effects on Non-salmonids. No discernable changes 

9 across any of the alternatives are expected, especially when considering the increased potential negative 

10 effects from elevated levels of hatchery-origin fish spawning are taken into account. 

11 5.3.2. Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients 

12 The effects of the alternatives on water quality from hatchery operations are described in Subsection 4.3, 

13 Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients. Future actions are described 

14 in Subsection 5.2, Future Foreseeable Actions. This section considers effects that may occur as a result of 

15 the alternatives being implemented at the same time as other anticipated future actions. This section only 

16 discusses future impacts that have not already been described and evaluated in Subsection 4.3, Water 

17 Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients. Climate change is expected to 

18 affect water quality in general by altering water temperatures and changing seasonal river flows, the 

19 cumulative effects on water quality may be greater than those summarized above and described in 

20 Subsection 4.3, Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients, for all 

21 alternatives. Since none of the alternatives moving forward into the future would alter hatchery 

22 production, the negative impacts associated with hatchery effluent as it relates to water quality would add 

23 to the cumulative negative impacts.

24 Subsection 3.3, Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients, describes 

25 how past and present conditions have influenced the level of marine derived nutrients in the Columbia 

26 River Basin, including conditions resulting from past development and ongoing restoration actions. 

27 Climate change effects on present marine derived nutrients are likely represented in these current 

28 conditions as well. The effects of the alternatives on levels of marine derived nutrients from harvest and 

29 hatchery operations are described in Subsection 4.3, Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & 

30 Marine-Derived Nutrients. Future actions are described in Subsection 5.2, Future Foreseeable Actions. 

31 This section considers effects that may occur as a result of the alternatives being implemented at the same 

32 time as other anticipated future actions. This section only discusses future impacts that have not already 
US v Oregon EIS 178 2018 

1 been described and evaluated in Subsection 4.3, Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & 

2 Marine-Derived Nutrients. Climate change is expected to affect marine derived nutrients by altering water 

3 temperatures and changing seasonal river flows, affecting the ability and distribution of returning adult 

4 anadromous fish to deposit as carcasses and deliver marine derived nutrients in similar patterns.

5 As a result, cumulative effects may lead to less marine derived nutrients than is considered in Subsection 

6 4.3, Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients. The potential benefits 

7 of restoration actions within the basin are difficult to quantify. It is unlikely that substantial benefits 

8 would be realized in the action area in the future, although minor improvements would likely occur over 

9 time from local restoration efforts. When aggregated with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably 

10 foreseeable future actions in the project area, a new US v Oregon agreement resulting in fisheries and 

11 continued hatcheries would make a minor additive negative contribution to the cumulative negative 

12 effects on Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients under each of the 

13 alternatives except under Alternative 5, which eliminates most of the negative harvest impact.

14 While the effects of the voluntary fishing curtailment in Alternative 5 will be positive on marine derived 

15 nutrients, and the effects from the hatchery production will be positive in all alternatives, these are 

16 unlikely to mitigate for the net negative cumulative effects from the impacts of past, present, and 

17 reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area.

18 5.3.3. Wildlife

19 Subsection 3.4, Wildlife, describes how past and present conditions have influenced wildlife populations 

20 in the Columbia River Basin. These conditions represent effects from many years of basin-wide 

21 development, as well as habitat restoration, and, most likely, climate changes. The effects of the 

22 alternatives on wildlife populations are described in Subsection 4.4, Wildlife. Future actions are described 

23 in Subsection 5.2, Future Foreseeable Actions. This section considers potential effects that may occur as a 

24 result of implementing any one of the alternatives at the same time as other anticipated actions. This 

25 section only discusses future effects that have not already been described and evaluated in Subsection 4.4, 

26 Wildlife.

27 As described in Subsection 5.3.1, Fish, salmonids, climate change and development in the Columbia 

28 River Basin is likely to reduce the abundance and productivity of natural-origin salmon and steelhead 

29 populations. Reduction in adult fish abundance would likely have an additional low negative impact on 

30 wildlife by reducing available prey. Overall, the total number of salmon and steelhead available as prey to 

31 wildlife may be lower than that considered in Subsection 4.4, Wildlife, for all alternatives if climate 

32 change effects are more pronounced than anticipated. Reduced abundance of salmon and steelhead would 
US v Oregon EIS 179 2018 

1 also decrease the number of salmon and steelhead carcasses available to wildlife for scavenging and for 

2 nutrient contribution to the freshwater system. The potential benefits of restoration actions within the 

3 basin are difficult to quantify. It is unknown whether these actions would fully, or even partially, mitigate 

4 for the impacts of climate change and development on salmon and steelhead abundances. Therefore, it is 

5 difficult to estimate future trends in available prey bases for wildlife and available nutrient contributions 

6 to the freshwater system. Again, however, localized microclimate fish habitat improvements may be 

7 realized from these restoration actions. This potential benefit would be experienced in the future by 

8 wildlife that reside in the same localized ecosystems. 

9 However, when aggregated with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in 

10 the project area, a new US v Oregon agreement resulting in fisheries would make a minor additive 

11 contribution to cumulative negative impacts of reducing prey availability, via harvest removal, on wildlife 

12 under each of the alternatives except under Alternative 5. Given Alternative 5 results in only limited prey 

13 being removed, by itself when also aggregating Alternative 5 with the impacts of past, present, and 

14 reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area it wouldn’t likely mitigate for changing 

15 development and climate change effects therefore results in a likely non discernible cumulative effect.

16 5.3.3.1. Seabirds, Raptors, and other Piscivorous Birds

17 Subsection 3.4.1, Seabirds, Raptors, and other Piscivorous Birds, describes how past and present 

18 conditions have influenced these resources in the Columbia River Basin. These conditions represent 

19 effects from many years of basin-wide development, as well as habitat restoration, and, most likely, 

20 climate change impacts. The effects of the alternatives on birds are described in Subsection 4.4.1, 

21 Seabirds, Raptors, and other Piscivorous Birds. Overall Seabirds will continue to be affected by other 

22 development in the Columbia River Basin, but no additional impacts will be added by a new US v Oregon

23 management agreement.

24 For Raptors and other piscivorous birds Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 impacts from adult prey 

25 reductions were unchanged relative to status quo conditions, slightly positive in Alternative 3, negative in 

26 Alternative 4 and Alternative 6, and positive in Alternative 5. The cumulative effects to these birds would 

27 be similar to those described to other wildlife in Subsection 5.3.3, Wildlife. 

28 5.3.3.2. Marine Mammals 

29 Subsection 3.4.2, Marine Mammals, describes how past and present conditions have influenced marine 

30 mammals in the Columbia River Basin. These conditions represent effects from many years of basin-wide 

31 development, as well as habitat restoration, and, most likely, climate change impacts. The effects of the 
US v Oregon EIS 180 2018 

1 alternatives on marine mammals are described in Subsection 4.4.2, Marine Mammals. For Alternative 1 

2 and Alternative 2 impacts from prey reductions were unchanged relative to status quo conditions, slightly 

3 positive in Alternative 3, negative in Alternative 4 and Alternative 6, and positive in Alternative 5, while 

4 for SRKW there were no discernable impacts across the alternatives. Future actions are described in 

5 Subsection 5.2, Future Foreseeable Actions. This section considers potential effects that may occur as a 

6 result of implementing any one of the alternatives at the same time as other anticipated actions. This 

7 section only discusses future effects that have not already been described and evaluated in Subsection 

8 4.4.2, Marine Mammals.

9 As described in Subsection 5.4, Wildlife, fish, salmonids, climate change and development in the 

10 Columbia River Basin is likely to reduce the abundance and productivity of natural-origin salmon and 

11 steelhead populations. Future actions in the project area will have a negative but unquantifiable effect on 

12 marine mammals, likely low because of Marine Mammal Protection Act restoration activities and ESA

13 protections. When aggregated with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

14 in the project area, a new US v Oregon agreement resulting in fisheries would make a minor additive 

15 contribution to cumulative negative effects on marine mammals and SRKW under each of the alternatives 

16 except under Alternative 5, which results in a positive harvest impact to marine mammals since this 

17 alternative results in curtailed fishing and therefore almost zero prey removal via harvest. 

18 After aggregating Alternative 5 with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

19 actions in the project area the beneficial effects of reduced harvest would not likely mitigate for changing 

20 development and climate change effects. The net cumulative effect on marine mammal would not be 

21 discernible. 

22 Under Alternative 5, the cumulative effect would still be non-discernible for SRKW, as adult fish would 

23 have passed through areas already where they might be preyed upon. In addition, higher numbers of 

24 adults escaping to the terminal spawning grounds would not always increase juvenile production unless 

25 habitat improvements offset changing development and climate change effects enough to equate to 

26 increase future adult abundance.

27 5.3.4. Economics 

28 Subsection 3.5, Economics, characterizes how past and present conditions have affected economic 

29 conditions related to commercial and recreational fishing activity targeting salmon and steelhead in the 

30 analysis area. These conditions reflect the effects of many years of land development, as well as effects 

31 from habitat restoration, hydropower operations, hatchery production and, most likely, climate changes on 

32 fisheries in the Columbia River Basin. The expected direct and indirect effects of the US v Oregon
US v Oregon EIS 181 2018 

1 agreement alternatives on fishery-related economic conditions are described in Subsection 4.5, 

2 Economics. Future Foreseeable Actions that likely will affect these conditions are described in Subsection 

3 5.2, Future Foreseeable Actions.

4 This section considers impacts that may occur as a result of any one of the alternatives being implemented 

5 at the same time as other anticipated future actions, and presents findings in the context of future climate 

6 change. This section only discusses future impacts that have not already been described and evaluated in 

7 Subsection 4.5, Economics. 

8 5.3.4.1. Commercial Fisheries

9 As described in Subsection 5.2, future climate change and other changes in environmental conditions can 

10 be expected to affect salmonids and other species important to commercial (and recreational) fisheries in 

11 the Columbia River Basin. While the effects would be expected to vary among species, virtually every 

12 species of salmonids in the Columbia River Basin likely will be affected, as identified in Subsection 

13 5.3.1, Fish. Rising water and air temperatures are a major concern for salmon species, especially 

14 spring/summer Chinook salmon and sockeye salmon in the interior Columbia and Snake River Basins. 

15 The effects of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 on the harvest of natural-origin Upper Columbia River 

16 spring Chinook salmon, natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, natural-origin Snake 

17 River fall Chinook salmon, and natural-origin Snake River B-Index steelhead would be similar to status 

18 quoconditions, but Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 have the greatest effects (negative for Alternative 3 and 

19 positive for Alternative 4 and Alternative 6) on the harvest of harvest indicator stocks.

20 While the current and future habitat restoration activities offer mitigation, their benefits are difficult to 

21 predict in light of negative effects from concurrent development and climate changes. The number of 

22 salmon and steelhead available for harvest may be reduced over time. This, in turn, would reduce the total 

23 ex-vessel value obtained by commercial fishers relative to conditions considered in Subsection 4.5.1.1, 

24 Commercial Fisheries, for all alternatives. As a result, the cumulative effects on economic values to 

25 commercial fishers may differ from those described in Subsection 4.5.1.1, Commercial Fisheries, for all 

26 alternatives except Alternative 5. If the abundance of salmon and steelhead decreases as a result of future 

27 climate change, combined with development in the Columbia River Basin, economic values derived from 

28 commercial fisheries may be lower than those identified in Subsection 4.5.1.1, Commercial Fisheries, for 

29 all alternatives except for Alternative 5, unless ex-vessel prices increase as a result of reduced supply. 

30 This would result in greater economic impacts than described in Subsection 4.5.1.1, Commercial 

31 Fisheries, on commercial fisheries under Alternative 3 and reduced benefits under Alternative 4 and 

32 Alternative 6.
US v Oregon EIS 182 2018 

1 5.3.4.2. Recreational Fisheries

2 As described in Subsection 5.2, future climate change and other changes in environmental conditions as a 

3 result of future development, changes in hydropower operations, hatchery production and habitat 

4 restoration, can be expected to affect salmonids and other species that contribute to recreational fisheries 

5 in the Columbia River Basin. Rising air and water temperatures are a particular concern for salmonid 

6 species, which are important to the recreational fisheries in the Columbia River Basin. Overall, 

7 environmental changes are likely to reduce the future abundance, catch, and level of effort directed on 

8 most, if not all, salmonid fish species in the Columbia River Basin, as compared to the direct and indirect 

9 effects on recreational fishing effort and associated economic effects described in Subsection 4.5.1.2, 

10 Recreational Fisheries, for all alternatives except Alternative 5.

11 Future climate change, combined with development in the basin, may affect the net benefit (benefits 

12 minus costs) that recreational anglers receive from participating in salmon and steelhead fishing. If fewer 

13 fish are available for harvest, and more restrictions are in place (e.g., reduced bag limits and fishing 

14 seasons), fewer recreational fishers may be willing to pay for the opportunity to fish. As a result, 

15 cumulative effects on economic values to recreational fishers could lead to lower future values (trip16 related expenditures) than those identified in Subsection 4.5.1.2, Recreational Fisheries, for all 

17 alternatives except for Alternative 5. To some unpredictable extent, restoration actions within the basin 

18 would be expected to benefit salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. Overall, it is unknown whether 

19 restoration actions would fully, or even partially, mitigate for the impacts of climate change or 

20 development on the abundance of fish species that provide recreational fishing opportunities 

21 5.3.4.3. Regional and Local Economic Impacts 

22 The assessment of regional and local economic effects of the alternatives described in Subsection 4.5.1.3, 

23 Contribution to Regional Economic Activity, relies on changes in personal income and jobs as key 

24 indicators of the direction and magnitude of potential effects on regional economic activity. Commercial 

25 and recreational fisheries generate personal income and jobs in regional economies through the export of 

26 products and services to outside economies. Commercial catch of salmon and steelhead harvested in the 

27 Columbia River Basin is frequently sold directly, or after processing, to individuals or businesses located 

28 outside the regional economy. Similarly, non-local recreational anglers (i.e., anglers who do not live in a 

29 local area) spend money on guide services, lodging, and other goods and services that generate household 

30 income and employment in many sectors of the regional economy. This regional transfer of money 

31 supports payments to labor, and those payments are then re-spent regionally, resulting in a multiplier 

32 effect.
US v Oregon EIS 183 2018 

1 Future climate change and development-related impacts may reduce the abundance of salmon and 

2 steelhead available for catch, which would reduce the total number of salmon and steelhead exported to 

3 outside economies relative to conditions considered in Subsection 4.5.1.3, Contribution to Regional 

4 Economic Activity, for all alternatives except for Alternative 5. As a result, the cumulative effects on 

5 generating regional and local economic impacts may be lower than those identified in Subsection 4.5.1.3, 

6 Contribution to Regional Economic Activity, for all alternatives except for Alternative 5. Although it is 

7 unpredictable what effects restoration actions within the basin will have on salmonid resources, these 

8 actions would be expected to at least partially mitigate for the impacts of climate change or development 

9 on fish available for harvest in commercial or recreational fisheries, and therefore, also on regional and 

10 local economies. 

11 5.3.5. Cultural Resources

12 A portion of tribal fish harvests is used to meet Ceremonial & Subsistence (C&S) needs as discussed in 

13 Subsection 3.6. The anticipated effects of each alternative on C&S harvest are described in Subsection 

14 4.6. This section considers the effects that may occur as a result of implementing any one of the 

15 alternatives together with other foreseeable actions and the effects of climate change.

16 While the current and future habitat restoration activities offer mitigation, their benefits are difficult to 

17 predict in light of negative effects from concurrent development and climate changes. At the same time, 

18 the protection of ESA-listed salmonid stocks will continue. Coupled with the negative effect from 

19 development projects and habitat changes, there will likely be continuing cumulative adverse effects on 

20 cultural resources. These adverse effects are a continued reduction in the number of salmon and steelhead 

21 available for the tribe’s C&S harvest that may result in a deterioration in cultural practices and the erosion 

22 of salmon and steelhead as a core symbol of tribal identity, health, individual identity, culture, spirituality, 

23 religion, emotional well-being, and economy. 

24 However, as C&S harvests are given priority over commercial harvests, the adverse effect on C&S 

25 harvests is anticipated to be low when commercial harvests exist. Under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, 

26 commercial harvests would continue. The size of the C&S harvest would therefore be driven primarily by 

27 the harvest framework in each alternative and not by other concurrent development changes or climate 

28 change. Each of these five alternatives will contribute a meaningful effect to the overall cumulative 

29 adverse effect on cultural resources.

30 Under Alternative 5, there would be no commercial harvest and minimal C&S harvest. Therefore, 

31 Alternative 5 contributes a higher effect on the overall cumulative adverse effect on C&S cultural 

32 resources than the other alternatives. 
US v Oregon EIS 184 2018 

1 5.3.6. Environmental Justice 

2 The expected effects of the alternatives on environmental justice communities, described in Subsection 

3 4.7, found that Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 would result in a disproportionate adverse effect on Cultural 

4 Resources for Indian tribes as it pertains to C&S fisheries. Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 would also 

5 result in a disproportionate adverse economic effect on Indian tribes as it pertains to Upriver fall Chinook 

6 salmon. Future actions are described in Subsection 5.2. This section considers the cumulative effects that 

7 may occur as a result of implementing any one of the alternatives together with other foreseeable actions.

8 5.3.6.1. Cultural Resources—C&S

9 Given the significance of C&S harvests on the cultural practices and traditions among Indian tribes, the 

10 effect on Indian tribes as an Environmental Justice community would be adverse and disproportionate 

11 whenever C&S harvests are negatively affected. The C&S harvest would be negatively affected under 

12 Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 as a result in a decrease in the number of fish available to the tribes. The C&S 

13 harvest is driven primarily by the harvest framework in each alternative and not by other concurrent 

14 development changes or climate change. Therefore, Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 result in a cumulative 

15 disproportionate adverse cultural resources effect in that the Indian tribes are the only population group 

16 that is affected by the loss of cultural resources pertaining to salmon and steelhead.

17 5.3.6.2. Economics 

18 As described in Subsection 4.7.2, Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 results in a disproportionate adverse 

19 economic effect on Indian tribes resulting from a decrease in tribal commercial harvest of and revenue 

20 from Upriver fall Chinook salmon by 21 percent under both alternatives compared to an increase in non21 tribal commercial harvest by 59 percent. The economic impact on the tribes is driven primarily by the 

22 selected harvest. It may be affected by, but it is not driven by, other development or restoration activities. 

23 Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 would result in a cumulative disproportionate adverse economic effect on 

24 the tribes. 

25 
US v Oregon EIS 185 2018 

1 

2 6. LISTS

3 6.1. List of Preparers 

4 The following individuals in NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service were responsible for the 

5 preparation of this EIS: 

6 ● Dr. Peter Dygert, Chief, Anadromous Harvest Branch, Sustainable Fisheries Division, West Coast 

7 Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington

8 ● Mr. Jeromy Jording, Anadromous Harvest Branch, Sustainable Fisheries Division, West Coast 

9 Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, Lacey, Washington

10 ● Ms. Peggy Mundy, Anadromous Harvest Branch, Sustainable Fisheries Division, West Coast 

11 Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington

12 ● Mr. James Dixon, Anadromous Production and Inland Fisheries Branch, Sustainable Fisheries 

13 Division, West Coast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, Lacey, Washington 

14 ● Ms. Allyson Purcell, Anadromous Production and Inland Fisheries Branch, Sustainable Fisheries 

15 Division, West Coast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Washington 

16 The following individuals worked as consultants for NMFS in the preparation of the EIS: 

17 ● Mr. Enrique Patiño, Ocean Associates, Inc.

18 ● Mr. Galeeb Kachra, Ocean Associates, Inc.

19 ● Mr. Alvaro Campomanes, Ocean Associates, Inc.

20 ● Mr. Thomas Wegge, TCW Economics. 

21 ● Ms. Tina Loucks-Jaret, Petals to Protons Technical Writing & Editing. 

 22 

23 6.2. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Contacted 

24 The following agencies and persons were contacted in the course of preparing this EIS 
US v Oregon EIS 186 2018 

1 ● Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission, 

2 ○ Mr. Stuart Ellis, current US v Oregon Technical Advisory Committee Chair, Portland, 

3 Oregon

4 ● U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (Cooperating Agency)

5 ○ Dr. Howard Schaller, Portland, Oregon 

6 ○ Mr. Mark Bagdovitz, Portland, Oregon 

7 ● U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, (Cooperating Agency)

8 ○ Rudy Peone, Portland, Oregon 

9 6.3. Distribution List for FEIS

10 ● Federal and State Agencies

11 o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 

12 o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

13 o U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 

14 o U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

15 o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

16 o U.S. Geological Survey 

17 o U.S. Department of Justice 

18 o U.S. Department of the Interior 

19 o Bonneville Power Administration 

20 o Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

21 o Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

22 o Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

23 ● Elected Officials

24 o Governor’s Offices in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington

25 ● Tribes

26 o Burns Paiute Tribe

27 o Coeur d’Alene Tribe

28 o Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

29 o Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon

30 o Hoh Tribe 

31 o Kalispel Tribe

32 o Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 

33 o Makah Indian Tribe 
US v Oregon EIS 187 2018 

1 o Nez Perce Tribe

2 o Quileute Tribe

3 o Quinault Indian Nation

4 o Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

5 o Cowlitz Indian Tribe

6 o Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

7 o Spokane Tribe of Indians 

8 o Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation

9 o Yakama Nation

10 o Wanapum Indian Tribe 

11 ● Councils and Commissions

12 o Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

13 ● Organizations and Associations

14 o Stoel Rives, LLP

15 o Northwest RiverPartners

16 o The Conservation Angler

17 o Hatchery Scientific Review Group

18 o DJW Associates

19 o Wild Fish Conservancy 

20 o Defenders of Wildlife, 

21 o Native Fish Society

22 o Salmon for All 

23 ● Individuals

24 o C. Hyland ○ K. Malone 

25 o J. Publiee ○ R. Sudar 

 26 

27 --------------------- Beginning of New FEIS Section ---------------

28 6.4. Distribution List for FEIS

29 All entities that submitted comment letters on the DEIS also received a notice of availability and link to 

30 the FEIS. These entities are listed in Appendix C.

31 --------------------- End of New FEIS Section ----------------------

32 
US v Oregon EIS 188 2018 

1 

2 7. REFERENCES

3 Asch, R. G. 2015. Climate change and decadal shifts in the phenology of larval fishes in the 

4 California Current ecosystem. PNAS. 112(30): E4065–E4074. 

5 Bajkov, A.D. 1951. Migration of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) in the 

6 Columbia River. Oregon Fish Commission Research Brief 3:8-21. 

7 Bakun, A., B. A. Black, S. J. Bograd, M. García-Reyes, A. J. Miller, R. R. Rykaczewski, and W. 

8 J. Sydeman. 2015. Anticipated effects of climate change on coastal upwelling ecosystems. 

9 Current Climate Change Reports. 1(2): 85-93. 

10 Beamesderfer, R. C. P., T. A. Rien, and A. A. Nigro. 1995. Differences in the dynamics 

11 and potential production of impounded and unimpounded white sturgeon 

12 populations in the lower Columbia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries

13 Society. 124:857-872. 

14 Beamish, R. J. and T. G. Northcote. 1989. Extinction of a population of anadromous parasitic 

15 lamprey, Lampetra tridentata, upstream of an impassable dam. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

16 and Aquatic Sciences 46:420-425. 

17 Beamish, R. J., D. J. Noakes, G. A. McFarlane, L. Klyashtorin, V. V. Ivanov, and V. Kurashov. 

18 1999. The regime concept and natural trends in the production of Pacific salmon. Canadian 

19 Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 56: 516-526. 

20 Beechie, T., H. Imaki, J. Greene, A. Wade, H. Wu, J. Kimball, J. Stanford, G. Pess, P. Roni, P. 

21 Kiffney, and N. Mantua. 2013. Restoring Salmon Habitat for a Changing Climate. River 

22 Research and Applications. 29(8): 939-960. 

23 Benson, A. J., and A. W. Trites. 2002. Ecological effects of regime shifts in the Bering Sea and 

24 eastern North Pacific Ocean. Fish and Fisheries. 3(2): 95-113. 

25 Black, B. A., W. J. Sydeman, D. C. Frank, D. Griffin, D. W. Stahle, M. García-Reyes, R. R. 

26 Rykaczewski, S. J. Bograd, and W. T. Peterson. 2014. Six centuries of variability and 

27 extremes in a coupled marine-terrestrial ecosystem. Science. 345(6203): 1498-1502. 

28 Blunden, J., and E. D.S. Arndt. 2016. State of the Climate 2015. Bulletin of the American 

29 Meteorological Society. 97(8): S1–S275. 

30 Bograd, S. J., I. Schroeder, N. Sarkar, X. Qiu, W. J. Sydeman, and F. B. Schwing. 2009. 

31 Phenology of coastal upwelling in the California Current. Geophysical Research Letters. 

32 36(1). 
US v Oregon EIS 189 2018 

1 Bond, N. A., M. F. Cronin, H. Freeland, and N. Mantua. 2015. Causes and impacts of the 2014 

2 warm anomaly in the NE Pacific. Geophysical Research Letters. 42(9): 3414–3420. 

3 Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). 2012. NMFS utilized the Bonneville Power 

4 Administration Springfield Sockeye Hatchery Project EA and Finding of No Significant 

5 Impact Recovery Plan for Lower Columbia Chinook Salmon, Lower Columbia Coho, 

6 Columbia River Chum and Lower Columbia Steelhead. May 2012. 

7 Bottom, D. L., K. K. Jones, C. A. Simenstad, C. L. Smith, and R. Cooper. 2011. Pathways to 

8 resilience. Oregon Sea Grant. 367p. Pathways to resilience: sustaining salmon ecosystems in 

9 a changing world (Vol. 11, No. 1). Oregon Sea Grant. 

10 Brodeur, R. D., R. C. Francis, and W. G. Pearcy. 1992. Food consumption of juvenile coho 

11 (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) on the continental shelf off 

12 Washington and Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 49: 1670-

13 1685. 

14 Busby, P. J., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, L. J. Lierheimer, R. S. Waples, F. W. Waknitz, and 

15 I. V. Lagomarsino. Status Review of West Coast Steelhead from Washington, Idaho, 

16 Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-27. 275 p. 

17 Cheung, W. W. L., R. D. Brodeur, T. A. Okey, and D. Pauly. 2015. Projecting future changes in 

18 distributions of pelagic fish species of Northeast Pacific shelf seas. Progress in 

19 Oceanography. 130: 19-31. 

20 Close, D. A., M. Fitzpatrick, H. Li, B. Parker, D. Hatch, and G. James. 1995. Status report of the 

21 Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) in the Columbia River Basin. Technical Report to 

22 Bonneville Power Administration DOE/BP-39067-1. 

23 Close, D. A, M. S. Fitzpatrick, and H. W. Li. 2002. The ecological and cultural importance of a 

24 species at risk of extinction, Pacific Lamprey. Fisheries 27:19-25. 

25 Climate Change Science Program. 2014. U.S. Global Change Research Program. Northwest 

26 Report. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/northwest. 

27 Climate Impacts Group. 2004. Overview of Climate Change Impacts in the U.S. Pacific 

28 Northwest. July 29, 2004. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle, 

29 Washington. 13p. 

30 Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. 2008. Recommendations for amendments to the 

31 Northwest Power and Conservation Council 2000 Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife 

32 Program.

33 Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997, Environmental Justice Guidance under the 

34 National Environmental Policy Act.

35 Cotte ́, C. d., and C. Guinet. 2007. Historical whaling records reveal major regional retreat of 

36 Antarctic sea ice. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers. 54(2): 243–

37 252. 

38 Crozier, L., E. Dorfmeier, T. Marsh, B. Sanford and D. Widener. 2016. Refining our 

39 understanding of early and late migration of adult Upper Columbia spring and Snake River 

40 spring/summer Chinook salmon: passage timing, travel time, fallback and survival. Fish 

41 Ecology Division, NWFSC, NMFS, Seattle, WA.
US v Oregon EIS 190 2018 

1 Crozier, L., and R. W. Zabel. 2006. Climate impacts at multiple scales: evidence for differential 

2 population responses in juvenile Chinook salmon. Journal of Animal Ecology. 75(5): 1100-

3 1109. 

4 Crozier, L. G., A. P. Hendry, P. W. Lawson, T. P. Quinn, N. J. Mantua, J. Battin, R. G. Shaw, 

5 and R. B. Huey. 2008a. Potential responses to climate change in organisms with complex life 

6 histories: Evolution and plasticity in Pacific salmon.

7 Crozier, L. G., R. W. Zabel, and A. F. Hamlet. 2008b. Predicting differential effects of climate 

8 change at the population level with life-cycle models of spring Chinook salmon. Global 

9 Change Biology. 14(2): 236–249. 

10 Dalton, M., P. W. Mote, and A. K. S. [Eds.]. 2013. Climate Change in the Northwest, 

11 Implications for Our Landscapes, Waters, and Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

12 271p. 

13 Dawkins, R. 2004. The ancestor’s tale: a pilgrimage to the dawn of evolution. Houghton Mifflin 

14 Company, New York, New York. 

15 Di Lorenzo, E., and N. Mantua. 2016. Multi-year persistence of the 2014/15 North Pacific 

16 marine heatwave. Nature Climate Change. 

17 Fisher, J. L., W. T. Peterson, and R. R. Rykaczewski. 2015. The impact of El Niño events on the 

18 pelagic food chain in the northern California Current. Global Change Biology. 21(12): 4401–

19 4414. 

20 Foreman, M. G. G., W. Callendar, D. Masson, J. Morrison, and I. Fine. 2014. A model 

21 simulation of future oceanic conditions along the British Columbia continental shelf. Part II: 

22 results and analyses. Atmosphere-Ocean. 52(1): 20-38. 

23 Francis, D., and H. Hengeveld. 1998. Extreme Weather and Climate Change. 34p. 

24 Gargett, A. E. 1997. The optimal stability `window': a mechanism underlying decadal 

25 fluctuations in North Pacific salmon stocks? Fisheries Oceanography. 6(2): 109-117. 

26 Glick, P. 2005. Fish Out of Water: A Guide to Global Warming and Pacific Northwest Rivers. 

27 March 2005. National Wildlife Federation. 

28 Gustafson, R.G., M.J. Ford, D. Teel, and J.S. Drake. 2010. Status review of eulachon 

29 (Thaleichthys pacificus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., 

30 NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-105, 360 p. 

31 Gustafson, R. G., T. C. Wainwright, G. A. Winans, F. W. Waknitz, L. T. Parker, and R. S. 

32 Waples. 1997. Status Review of Sockeye Salmon from Washington and Oregon. NOAA 

33 Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-33. 300 p. 

34 Haigh, R., D. Ianson, C. A. Holt, H. E. Neate, and A. M. Edwards. 2015. Effects of ocean 

35 acidification on temperate coastal marine ecosystems and fisheries in the Northeast Pacific. 

36 PLOS One. 10(2): e0117533. 

37 Hare, S. R., N. J. Mantua, and R. C. Francis. 1999. Inverse production regimes: Alaska and west 

38 coast Pacific salmon. Fisheries. 24(1): 6-14. 

39 Hollowed, A. B., N. A. Bond, T. K. Wilderbuer, W. T. Stockhausen, Z. T. A’mar, R. J. Beamish, 

40 J. E. Overland, and M. J. Schirripa. 2009. A framework for modelling fish and shellfish 
US v Oregon EIS 191 2018 

1 responses to future climate change. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 66: 1584–1594. 

2 IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and 

3 III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core 

4 Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 169p. 

5 ISAB. 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife. May 11, 2007. 

6 Report ISAB 2007-2. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon. 146p 

7 Johnson, O. W., W. S. Grant, R. G. Kope, K. Neely, F. W. Waknitz, and R. S. Waples. 1997. 

8 Status Review of Chum Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. NOAA 

9 Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-32. 298 p. 

10 Jones, K. K., T. J. Cornwell, D. L. Bottom, L. A. Campbell, and S. Stein. 2014. The contribution 

11 of estuary-resident life histories to the return of adult Oncorhynchus kisutch. Journal of Fish 

12 Biology. 85: 52-80. 

13 Kennedy, V. S. 1990. Anticipated effects of climate change on estuarine and coastal fisheries. 

14 Fisheries. 15(6): 16-24. 

15 Kirwan, M. L., G. R. Guntenspergen, A. D’Alpaos, J. T. Morris, S. M. Mudd, and S. 

16 Temmerman. 2010. Limits on the adaptability of coastal marshes to rising sea level. 

17 Geophysical Research Letters. 37(23). 

18 Kostow, K. 2002. Oregon lampreys: Natural history status and problem analysis. Oregon

19 Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, OR

20 Learmonth, J. A., C. D. MacLeod, M. B. Santos, G. J. Pierce, H. Q. P. Crick, and R. A. 

21 Robinson. 2006. Potential effects of climate change on marine mammals. Oceanography and 

22 Marine Biology. 44: 431-464. 

23 Lemmen, D. S., F. J. Warren, T. S. James, and C. S. L. M. Clarke. 2016. Canada’s Marine Coasts 

24 in a Changing Climate; Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 280p. 

25 Limburg, K., R. Brown, R. Johnson, B. Pine, R. Rulifson, D. Secor, K. Timchak, B. Walther, and 

26 K. Wilson. 2016. Round-the-Coast: snapshots of estuarine climate change effects. Fisheries. 

27 41(7): 392-394. 

28 Litz, M. N. C., A. J. Phillips, R. D. Brodeur, and R. L. Emmett. 2011. Seasonal occurrences of 

29 Humboldt Squid (Dosidicus Gigas) in the northern California current system. CalCOFI Rep. 

30 52: 97-108. 

31 Lucey, S. M., and J. A. Nye. 2010. Shifting species assemblages in the Northeast US continental 

32 shelf large marine ecosystem. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 415: 23-33. 

33 Lynch, A. J., B. J. E. Myers, C. Chu, L. A. Eby, J. A. Falke, R. P. Kovach, T. J. Krabbenhoft, T. 

34 J. Kwak, J. Lyons, C. P. Paukert, and J. E. Whitney. 2016. Climate Change Effects on North 

35 American Inland Fish Populations and Assemblages. Fisheries. 41(7): 346-361. 

36 MacLeod, C. D., S. M. Bannon, G. J. Pierce, C. Schweder, J. A. Learmonth, J. S. Herman, and 

37 R. J. Reid. 2005. Climate change and the cetacean community of north-west Scotland. 

38 Biological Conservation. 124(4): 477–483. 

39 Mantua, N. J., S. R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J. M. Wallace, and R. C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific 

40 interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the american 
US v Oregon EIS 192 2018 

1 Meteorological Society. 78(6): 1069-1079. 

2 Martins, E. G., S. G. Hinch, S. J. Cooke, and D. A. Patterson. 2012. Climate effects on growth, 

3 phenology, and survival of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka): a synthesis of the current 

4 state of knowledge and future research directions. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 

5 22(4): 887-914. 

6 Martins, E. G., S. G. Hinch, D. A. Patterson, M. J. Hague, S. J. Cooke, K. M. Miller, M. F. 

7 LaPointe, K. K. English, and A. P. Farrell. 2011. Effects of river temperature and climate 

8 warming on stock-specific survival of adult migrating Fraser River sockeye salmon 

9 (Oncorhynchus nerka). Global Change Biology. 17(1): 99-114. 

10 Mathis, J. T., S. R. Cooley, N. Lucey, S. Colt, J. Ekstrom, T. Hurst, C. Hauri, W. Evans, J. N. 

11 Cross, and R. A. Feely. 2015. Ocean acidification risk assessment for Alaska’s fishery sector. 

12 Progress in Oceanography. 136: 71-91. 

13 McElhany, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, and E. P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. 

14 Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Dept. 

15 Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42, 156 p. 

16 McDowall, R. M. 2001. Anadromy and homing: two life-history traits with adaptive synergies in 

17 salmonid fishes? Fish and Fisheries 2:78-85. 

18 McMahon, C. R., and G. C. Hays. 2006. Thermal niche, large-scale movements and implications 

19 of climate change for a critically endangered marine vertebrate. Global Change Biology. 

20 12(7): 1330–1338. 

21 Moser, M. L. and D. A. Close. 2003. Assessing Pacific lamprey status in the Columbia River 

22 Basin. Northwest Science 77:116-125. 

23 Morris, J. F. T., M. Trudel, J. Fisher, S. A. Hinton, E. A. Fergusson, J. A. Orsi, and J. Edward V. 

24 Farley. 2007. Stock-specific migrations of juvenile coho salmon derived from coded-wire tag 

25 recoveries on the continental shelf of western North America. In C. B. Grimes (Ed.). 

26 American Fisheries Society Symposium. 57: 81. 

27 Morrison, W. E., M. W. Nelson, R. B. Griffis, and J. A. Hare. 2016. Methodology for assessing 

28 the vulnerability of marine and anadromous fish stocks in a changing climate. Fisheries. 

29 41(7): 407-409. 

30 Mote, P. W., and Eric P. Salathé Jr. 2010. Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Climatic 

31 Change. 102(1-2): 29-50. 

32 Mote, P. W., E. A. Parson, A. F. Hamlet, W. S. Keeton, D. Lettenmaier, N. Mantua, E. L. Miles, 

33 D. W. Peterson, D. L. Peterson, R. Slaughter, and A. K. Snover. 2003. Preparing for climatic 

34 change: the water, salmon, and forests of the Pacific Northwest. Climatic change. 61(1-2): 

35 45-88. 

36 Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

37 Myers, J., C. Busack, D. Rawding, A. Marshall, D. Teel, D.M. Van Doornik, and M.T. 

38 Maher. 2006. Historical population structure of Pacific salmonids in the Willamette River 

39 and lower Columbia River basins. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS40 NWFSC-73, 311 p. 

41 Murauskas, J. G., A. M. Orlov, and K. A. Siwicke. 2013. Relationships between the Abundance 
US v Oregon EIS 193 2018 

1 of Pacific Lamprey in the Columbia River and Their Common Hosts in the Marine 

2 Environment, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 142(1): 143-155. 

3 Naiman, R. J., J. R. Alldredge, D. A. Beauchamp, P. A. Bisson, J. Congleton, C. J. Henny, N. 

4 Huntly, R. Lamberson, C. Levings, E. N. Merrill, W. G. Pearcy, B. E. Rieman, G. T. 

5 Ruggerone, D. Scarnecchia, P. E. Smouse, and C. C. Wood. 2012. Developing a broader 

6 scientific foundation for river restoration: Columbia River food webs PNAS. 109(52): 

7 21201–21207. 

8 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007. Report to Congress: Pacific Coastal Salmon 

9 Recovery Fund. FY 2000–2006. U.S. Department of Commerce. 56p. 

10 NMFS. 2008a. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Consultation Biological Opinion 

11 and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat

12 Consultation: Consultation on Remand for Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power 

13 System, 11 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin and ESA Section 

14 10(a)(1)(A) Permit for Juvenile Fish Transportation Program (Revised and reissued pursuant 

15 to court order NWF v. NMFS Civ. No. CV 01-640-RE (D. Oregon)). May 5, 2008. NMFS, 

16 Portland, Oregon. NMFS Consultation No.: NWR-2005-05883. 929p. 

17 NMFS. 2008b. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Consultation Biological Opinion and 

18 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat

19 Consultation. May 5, 2008. Consultation on Treaty Indian and Non-Indian Fisheries in the 

20 Columbia River Basin Subject to the 2008-2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement. 

21 NMFS, Portland, Oregon. Consultation No.: NWR-2008-02406. 685p. 

22 NMFS. 2008c. Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). National 

23 Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. 251p. 

24 NMFS. 2008d. Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis of the Federal Columbia River Power 

25 System and Mainstem Effects of the Upper Snake and other Tributary Actions. May 5, 2008. 

26 NMFS, Portland, Oregon. 1230p. 

27 NMFS. 2009. FCRPS Adaptive Management Implementation Plan. 2008-2018 Federal Columbia 

28 River Power System Biological Opinion. September 11, 2009. 42p. 

29 NMFS. 2011. Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead. 

30 January 2011. NMFS, Northwest Region. 260p. 

31 NMFS. 2012a. Environmental Assessment (EA) to Analyze Impacts of a NOAA’s National 

32 Marine Fisheries Service Issuance of two Permits for the Hatchery Genetic Management 

33 Plans Submitted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Idaho Department 

34 of Fish and Game, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Nez Perce Tribe 

35 Under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. October 2012. 

36 NMFS. 2012b. Final Environmental Assessment: Determination that the Hatchery and Genetic 

37 Management Plans for Sandy River Programs Submitted by the Oregon Department of Fish 

38 and Wildlife Satisfy the Endangered Species Act Section 4 (d) Rule under Limit 5. 

39 September 2012. 

40 NMFS. 2012c. NMFS final environmental impact statement (EIS) on anadromous fish 

41 agreements and habitat conservation plans for Chelan PUD's Rocky Reach and Rock Island 

42 Dams. April 2012. 
US v Oregon EIS 194 2018 

1 NMFS. 2013a. ESA Recovery Plan for Lower Columbia River coho salmon, Lower Columbia 

2 River Chinook salmon, Columbia River chum salmon, and Lower Columbia River steelhead. 

3 503p. 

4 NMFS. 2013b. Final Environmental Assessment to Analyze Impacts of NOAA's National 

5 Marine Fisheries Service Determination that the Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

6 Reservation Tribal Resource Management Plan Meets the Endangered Species Act Tribal§ 

7 4(d) Rule. December 2013. 

8 NMFS. 2014a. Endangered Species Act - Section 7(a)(2) Supplemental Biological Opinion. 

9 Consultation in Remand for Operaiton of the Federal Columbia River Power System. January 

10 17, 2014. Northwest Region. 610p. 

11 NMFS. 2014b. Final Environmental Impact Statement to Inform Columbia River Basin Hatchery

12 Operations and the Funding of Mitchell Act Hatchery Programs. 2120 p. 

13 NMFS. 2015a. ESA Recovery Plan for Snake River Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). 

14 National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region. June 8, 2015. 431 p. 

15 NMFS. 2015b. Proposed ESA Recovery Plan for Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon 

16 (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region. 

17 October 2015. 326 p. 

18 NMFS. 2016. Proposed ESA Recovery Plan for Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon 

19 (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) & Snake River Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). National 

20 Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region. October 2016. 260 p. 

21 NMFS. 2017a. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and 

22 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 

23 Consultation on the Effects of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service’s implementation 

24 of the Mitchell Act Final Environmental Impact Statement preferred alternative and 

25 administration of Mitchell Act hatchery funding. January, 2017. Consultation No.: NWR26 2014-697. 535p. 

27 NMFS. 2017b. Final Environmental Assessment for Issuance of Endangered Species Act Section 

28 10(a)(1)(A) Permits for Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery Programs in the Methow Basin. 

29 February 2017. 

30 NMFS. 2017c. Final Environmental Assessment to Analyze Impacts of NOAA's National 

31 Marine Fisheries Service Determination that the Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

32 Reservation Tribal Resource Management Plan Meets the Endangered Species Act Tribal§ 

33 4(d) Rule. February 2017. 

34 Nez Perce, Umatilla, Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes. 2008. Tribal Pacific lamprey

35 restoration plan for the Columbia River Basin. Formal Draft July 17, 2008. 

36 North, J.A., R.C. Beamesderfer, and T.A. Rien. 1993. Distribution and movements of 

37 white sturgeon in three lower Columbia River reservoirs. Northwest Science 

38 67:105-111. 

39 Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC). 2016. Status Review Update for Pacific Salmon 

40 and Steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest. December 21, 

41 2015. Northwest Fisheries Science Center. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, 
US v Oregon EIS 195 2018 

1 Washington. 356p. 

2 Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWCouncil). 2016. Seventh Northwest 

3 Conservation and Electric Power Plan, February 25, 2016. Available at 

4 https://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/7/plan/

5 NWCouncil. 1992. Information on Water Quality and Quantity Contained in the Salmon and 

6 Steelhead Subbasin Plans (above Bonneville Dam). September 17, 1992. Northwest Power 

7 Planning Council, Portland, Oregon. 25p. 

8 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2005. 2005 Oregon Native Fish Status 

9 Report, Volume I: Species Management Unit Summaries. ODFW, Salem, OR. 164 p. 

10 (Accessed online on December 6, 2016 at: 

11 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/ONFSR/docs/volume-1-final.pdf).

12 OWRD. 1993. Memorandum to David Moskowitz, Oregon Trout from Tom Kline and Bill Fuji, 

13 Water Resources Department. September 17, 1993. Weak stocks and water supply 

14 conditions. 20p. 

15 PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2016. Pacific Coast salmon fishery management 

16 plan for commercial and recreational salmon fisheries off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, 

17 and California as revised through Amendment 19 (Effective March 2016). Pacific Fishery 

18 Management Council, Portland, Oregon, 90 pages plus appendix. 

19 Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2014. Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery 

20 Management Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts of 

21 Washington, Oregon, and California as Revised through Amendment 18. Pacific Fishery 

22 Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR. 90 p. 

23 Parsley, M.J., and L.G. Beckman. 1994. White Sturgeon spawning and rearing habitat in 

24 the Lower Columbia River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

25 14:812-827. 

26 Parsley, M.J., L.G. Beckman, and G.T. McCabe, Jr. 1993. Spawning and rearing habitat 

27 use by white sturgeons in the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam.

28 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:217-227. 

29 PCIC. 2016. Plan 2 Adapt website, available at https://www.pacificclimate.org/analysis30 tools/plan2adapt. 

31 Pearcy, W. G. 2002. Marine nekton off Oregon and the 1997–98 El Niño. Progress in 

32 Oceanography. 54(1): 399-403. 

33 Pearcy, W. G., and S. M. McKinnell. 2007. The ocean ecology of salmon in the Northeast 

34 Pacific Ocean - An abridged history. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 57: 7-30. 

35 Peone, T.L., AT. Scholz, J.R. Griffith, S. Graves, and M.G. Thatcher, Jr. 1990. Lake Roosevelt 

36 fisheries monitoring program. Annual report. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, 

37 Oregon. 

38 Peterson, W. T., J. L. Fisher, J. O. Peterson, C. A. Morgan, B. J. Burke, and K. L. Fresh. 2014. 

39 Applied fisheries oceanography: Ecosystem indicators of ocean conditions inform fisheries 

40 management in the California current. Oceanography. 27(4): 80-89. 
US v Oregon EIS 196 2018 

1 Poesch, M. S., L. Chavarie, C. Chu, S. N. Pandit, and W. Tonn. 2016. Climate change impacts 

2 on freshwater fishes: a Canadian perspective. Fisheries. 41(1): 385-391. 

3 Quinn, T. P., and K. W. Myers. 2004. Anadromy and the marine migrations of Pacific salmon 

4 and trout: Rounsefell revisited. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 14: 421–442. 

5 Rehage, J. S., and J. R. Blanchard. 2016. What can we expect from climate change for species 

6 invasions? Fisheries. 41(7): 405-407. 

7 Renaud, C. B. 1997. Conservation status of northern hemisphere lampreys (Petromyzontidae). 

8 Journal of Applied Ichthyology 13:143-148. 

9 Robinson, R. A., J. A. Learmonth, A. M. Hutson, C. D. Macleod, T. H. Sparks, D. I. Leech, G. J. 

10 Pierce, M. M. Rehfisch, and H. Q. P. Crick. 2005. Climate Change and Migratory Species. 

11 August 2005. BTO Research Report 414. 306p. 

12 Rykaczewski, R. R., J. P. Dunne, W. J. Sydeman, M. García-Reyes, B. A. Black, and S. J. 

13 Bograd. 2015. Poleward displacement of coastal upwelling-favorable winds in the ocean’s 

14 eastern boundary currents through the 21st century. Geophysical Research Letters. 42(15): 

15 6424–6431. 

16 Scott, W. B. and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Canadian Government 

17 Publishing Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

18 Scheuerell, M. D., and J. G. Williams. 2005. Forecasting climate-induced changes in the survival 

19 of Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries 

20 Oceanography. 14(6): 448-457. 

21 Schindler, D. E., R. Hilborn, B. Chasco, C. P. Boatright, T. P. Quinn, L. A. Rogers, and M. S. 

22 Webster. 2010. Population diversity and the portfolio effect in an exploited species. Nature. 

23 465(7298): 609-612. 

24 Schnorbus, M., A. Werner, and K. Bennett. 2014. Impacts of climate change in three hydrologic 

25 regimes in British Columbia, Canada. Hydrological Processes. 28(3): 1170–1189. 

26 Simpson, J. and R. Wallace. 1978. Fishes of Idaho. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID.

27 Snover, A. K., P. W. Mote, L. W. Binder, A. F. Hamlet, and N. J. Mantua. 2005. Uncertain 

28 Future: Climate Change and its Effects on Puget Sound. October 2005. A report for the Puget 

29 Sound Action Team by the Climate Impacts Group (Center for Science in the Earth System, 

30 Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, 

31 Seattle). 37p. 

32 Sykes, G. E., C. J. Johnson, and J. M. Shrimpton. 2009. Temperature and flow effects on 

33 migration timing of Chinook salmon smolts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 

34 138(6): 1252–1265. 

35 Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board (UCSRB). 2007. Upper Columbia Spring Chinook 

36 Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan. August 2007. 307p. 

37 Verdonck, D. 2006. Contemporary vertical crustal deformation in Cascadia. Tectonophysics. 

38 417(3): 221-230. 

39 Wainwright, T. C., and L. A. Weitkamp. 2013. Effects of climate change on Oregon Coast coho 

40 salmon: habitat and life-cycle interactions. Northwest Science. 87(3): 219-242. 
US v Oregon EIS 197 2018 

1 Waples, R. S., O. W. Johnson, and R. P. Jones, Jr. 1991. Status review for Snake River sockeye 

2 salmon. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-195, 23 p. 

3 Waples, R. S., T. Beechie, and G. R. Pess. 2009. Evolutionary history, habitat disturbance 

4 regimes, and anthropogenic changes: What do these mean for resilience of Pacific Salmon 

5 populations? Ecology and Society. 14(1). 

6 Ward, E. J., J. H. Anderson, T. J. Beechie, G. R. Pess, and M. J. Ford. 2015. Increasing 

7 hydrologic variability threatens depleted anadromous fish populations. Global Change 

8 Biology. 

9 Weitkamp, L. A., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, G. B. Milner, D. J. Teel, R. G. Kope, and R. S. 

10 Waples. 1995. Status Review of Coho Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. 

11 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-Nwfsc-24. 266 P. 

12 Weitkamp, L., and K. Neely. 2002. Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) ocean migration 

13 patterns: insight from marine coded-wire tag recoveries. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and 

14 Aquatic Sciences. 59(7): 1100–1115. 

15 Whitney, J. E., R. Al-Chokhachy, D. B. Bunnell, C. A. Caldwell, S. J. Cooke, E. J. Eliason, M. 

16 Rogers, A. J. Lynch, and C. P. Paukert. 2016. Physiological basis of climate change impacts 

17 on North American inland fishes. Fisheries. 41(7): 332-345. 

18 Wydoski, R., and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of 

19 Washington Press. 220 pages. 

20 Yamada, S. B., W. T. Peterson, and P. M. Kosro. 2015. Biological and physical ocean indicators 

21 predict the success of an invasive crab, Carcinus maenas, in the northern California Current. 

22 Marine Ecology Progress Series. 537: 175-189. 

23 Zabel, R. W., M. D. Scheuerell, M. M. McClure, and J. G. Williams. 2006. The interplay 

24 between climate variability and density dependence in the population viability of Chinook 

25 salmon. Conservation Biology. 20(1): 190-200.
US v Oregon EIS 198 2018 

1 INDEXES

2 

3 Abundance . iii, v, xiii, xxvi, xxviii, 5, 14, 28, 29, 

4 30, 38, 39, 70, 71, 72, 79, 80, 89, 95, 96, 101, 

5 106, 115, 134, 138, 141, 151, 152, 153, 192, 

6 211, 214, 217, 220, 223, 225, 227, 234, 235, 

7 244, 278, 279, 280 

8 Abundance Indicator Stock v, xxvi, xxviii, 5, 28, 

9 38, 39, 70, 71, 72, 79, 115, 279, 280 

10 Abundance-based Management... iii, 30, 80, 89, 

11 95, 101, 106, 141 

12 Agreement ...1, i, xi, xvi, 1, 3, 14, 17, 18, 21, 26, 

13 39, 48, 54, 79, 87, 94, 100, 106, 127, 132, 

14 133, 136, 137, 138, 153, 173, 193, 203, 230, 

15 231, 232, 233, 239, 240, 244, 245, 246, 251, 

16 252, 254, 255, 256, 258, 259, 262, 265, 266, 

17 267, 268, 269, 271, 273, 276, 277, 278, 279, 

18 283, 284, 287, 289, 292, 293 

19 Alternatives .... vii, viii, ix, x, xiii, xiv, 27, 28, 34, 

20 119, 120, 125, 133, 135, 137, 148, 153, 156, 

21 175, 181, 183, 184, 211, 214, 217, 220, 223, 

22 253, 269, 277, 278, 283 

23 Extension .................... xiii, 214, 217, 220, 225 

24 Bureau of Indian Affairs ......... 1, ii, xxv, 157, 186 

25 Ceremonial & Subsistence .... ii, vi, vii, ix, x, xiii, 

26 xxiv, xxv, 5, 6, 7, 8, 27, 57, 58, 59, 60, 66, 67, 

27 71, 72, 76, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 88, 91, 93, 95, 

28 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 111, 113, 

29 115, 119, 121, 138, 151, 152, 153, 183, 184, 

30 257, 271 

31 Ceremonial & Subsistence (C&S) ... 151, 153, 183 

32 Climate Change ..... 158, 163, 164, 170, 176, 188, 

33 189, 190, 191, 196 

34 Columbia . i, v, vi, viii, xi, xiii, xxv, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 

35 13, 193, 214, 217, 220, 225 

36 Columbia River ... 1, i, iii, v, vi, viii, xi, xxiv, xxv, 

37 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 

38 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 

39 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 

40 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 

41 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 81, 

42 83, 84, 110, 111, 115, 117, 123, 125, 126, 

43 128, 129, 132, 133, 135, 137, 138, 140, 141, 

44 143, 145, 148, 149, 150, 153, 157, 158, 159, 

45 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 171, 

46 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 

47 181, 182, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 

48 194, 195, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 

49 210, 211, 213, 214, 216, 217, 219, 220, 222, 

50 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 237, 240, 241, 

51 242, 251, 254, 256, 257, 258, 260, 261, 262, 

52 264, 266, 269, 270, 272, 274, 275, 276, 281, 

53 282, 284, 286, 288, 289, 290, 291, 293, 294, 

295 54 

55 Commercial Fishery .... xxiv, xxv, xxvi, 4, 6, 7, 8, 

56 11, 12, 16, 26, 27, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 

57 66, 99, 109, 139, 141, 143, 144, 146, 148, 

58 149, 150, 155, 181, 182, 195, 203, 205, 211, 

59 214, 217, 220, 223, 227, 228 

60 Conservation .. xxv, xxvi, 26, 164, 173, 187, 189, 

61 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 232, 233, 239, 

62 242, 244, 245, 246, 247, 250, 262, 269, 271, 

63 276, 291 

64 Cultural Resources .. ix, xiii, xv, 55, 66, 138, 151, 

65 153, 183, 184 

66 Cumulative ....... xiii, xiv, xvi, 158, 251, 252, 255, 

67 257, 258, 265, 266, 267, 281, 287, 292 

68 Development Projects ................................... 171 

69 Distinct Population Segment .... xxv, xxvi, xxviii, 

70 22, 28, 36, 37, 38, 39, 47, 48, 54, 73, 74, 123, 

71 126, 131, 244, 261, 269, 275, 280 

72 Economics ... ix, xiii, 54, 61, 63, 64, 66, 137, 138, 

73 139, 150, 153, 154, 180, 181, 184, 185, 202, 

74 203, 213, 216, 219, 222, 224, 226, 228 

75 Endangered Species Act .... 1, ii, iv, v, vii, xi, xii, 

76 xiii, xiv, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxviii, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 

77 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 

78 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 

79 41, 43, 44, 47, 48, 53, 54, 70, 74, 94, 99, 102, 

80 111, 113, 115, 118, 125, 131, 132, 136, 137, 

81 161, 162, 163, 173, 176, 177, 180, 183, 193, 

82 194, 238, 244, 254, 255, 258, 259, 262, 265, 

83 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 275, 276, 

84 277, 280, 282, 283, 287, 288, 289, 290, 292, 

85 293, 294 

86 Environmental Justice ..... ix, xiii, xv, xxv, 23, 36, 

87 68, 153, 154, 156, 184, 189 

88 Escapement .. iv, xiii, xxvi, 31, 32, 38, 39, 45, 48, 

89 73, 75, 82, 86, 92, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 

90 102, 106, 108, 109, 110, 114, 119, 122, 125, 

91 134, 138, 146, 151, 152, 153, 211, 214, 217, 

92 220, 223, 225, 227, 263, 269, 275, 278, 288 

93 Escapement-based Management ....... iv, 31, 146 

94 Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) .. xiii, xxv, 
US v Oregon EIS 199 2018 

1 xxvi, xxviii, 22, 28, 29, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 

2 45, 48, 73, 77, 82, 95, 99, 115, 117, 120, 126, 

3 129, 130, 244, 262, 263, 269, 275, 280 

4 Executive Order .............. xxv, 23, 24, 25, 68, 153 

5 Ex-vessel value .... xxvi, 139, 140, 141, 142, 144, 

6 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 213, 216, 219, 222, 

224 7 

8 Federal Trust Responsibility ............................. 25 

9 Fixed Harvest Rate ... iii, xiii, 30, 80, 92, 97, 102, 

10 106, 143 

11 Future Foreseeable Actions ... xiv, 158, 163, 173, 

12 174, 177, 178, 180, 181 

13 Habitat .. xxv, xxvii, 26, 161, 162, 173, 188, 193, 

14 194, 252, 257, 262, 264, 284, 291, 292 

15 Habitat Restoration ........................................ 173 

16 Harvest Indicator Stockv, xxvii, xxviii, 5, 28, 38, 

17 39, 70, 71, 79, 155, 257, 269, 270, 279, 280 

18 Harvest Rate ... iii, xiii, xxv, xxvii, 30, 39, 42, 45, 

19 48, 75, 78, 80, 86, 89, 92, 94, 96, 97, 100, 

20 102, 106, 143 

21 Hatcheries ..vii, xi, xxv, 3, 17, 26, 40, 48, 51, 52, 

22 53, 64, 99, 125, 126, 127, 132, 162, 163, 172, 

23 177, 178, 187, 189, 193, 194, 230, 231, 232, 

24 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 241, 244, 

25 247, 252, 254, 257, 258, 265, 266, 267, 269, 

26 273, 281, 282, 283, 292, 295 

27 Idaho ...... i, ii, 2, 3, 11, 18, 19, 44, 49, 54, 68, 69, 

28 162, 166, 172, 173, 186, 189, 193, 196, 239, 

29 250, 275, 282, 283, 295 

30 Incidental .... 1, ii, xi, xxv, xxvii, 3, 22, 258, 265, 

31 271, 277 

32 Limiting .......................................................xxvii 

33 Marine Mammals ....................... xxv, 23, 53, 180 

34 Marine-Derived Nutrients .. vii, xiii, xiv, 52, 132, 

35 177, 178, 282 

36 National Marine Fisheries Service 1, ii, iv, xi, xii, 

37 xvi, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxviii, 2, 3, 16, 17, 18, 

38 19, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 39, 40, 41, 

39 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 52, 53, 54, 57, 61, 64, 65, 

40 66, 70, 74, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 

41 132, 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 170, 173, 185, 

42 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 197, 213, 216, 

43 219, 222, 224, 226, 228, 231, 232, 233, 239, 

44 240, 241, 242, 249, 250, 251, 252, 254, 256, 

45 262, 263, 265, 266, 267, 269, 271, 272, 275, 

46 277, 280, 291, 292 

47 Natural-origin ......................... xxvii, 39, 100, 106 

48 No Action ... iv, 32, 33, 85, 94, 99, 105, 110, 278, 

279 49 

50 Notice of Intent ............................ v, xxv, 18, 277 

51 Oregon ..1, i, ii, v, vi, vii, viii, xi, xiii, xxv, xxvii, 

52 xxviii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 

53 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 

54 36, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 54, 

55 55, 56, 61, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 76, 78, 79, 87, 

56 102, 120, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 

57 138, 157, 158, 162, 163, 167, 172, 173, 176, 

58 177, 178, 179, 180, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 

59 193, 195, 196, 197, 203, 205, 208, 209, 210, 

60 230, 231, 232, 233, 238, 240, 244, 250, 251, 

61 254, 255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 262, 263, 265, 

62 266, 268, 269, 271, 274, 276, 277, 278, 279, 

63 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 286, 289, 293, 295 

64 Pacific Fishery Management Council ............. xxv 

65 Public Participation ................................ 156, 276 

66 Purpose and Need ............................ii, xiii, 1, 18 

67 Recovery Plan . 25, 161, 163, 189, 193, 194, 196, 

68 263, 275 

69 Recreational Fishery .. ix, xxvii, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 

70 26, 27, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 131, 140, 141, 

71 143, 145, 146, 148, 150, 182, 195, 207, 210, 

72 227, 228 

73 Run . xxvii, 42, 45, 48, 78, 86, 89, 94, 95, 96, 97, 

74 98, 99, 100, 106, 108, 109, 110, 113, 244, 

75 274, 295 

76 Scoping............................................................. 18 

77 Seabirds .................................... viii, 53, 135, 179 

78 Secretarial Order ....................... 23, 24, 271, 272 

79 Select Area Fisheries Enhancement (SAFE) . xxiv, 

80 xxv, 11, 12, 13, 56, 101, 102, 104, 105, 205, 

81 259, 281 

82 Snake River ... v, vi, vii, xxiv, xxv, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 

83 13, 25, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 

84 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 

85 63, 64, 65, 66, 71, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 

86 82, 84, 85, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 

87 102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 113, 114, 

88 115, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 

89 129, 130, 131, 137, 140, 142, 145, 146, 147, 

90 148, 150, 155, 158, 159, 160, 161, 165, 173, 

91 174, 181, 189, 194, 196, 197, 203, 204, 205, 

92 206, 207, 208, 210, 223, 225, 227, 231, 234, 

93 235, 244, 245, 246, 256, 257, 258, 260, 261, 

94 266, 267, 269, 270, 273, 275, 288, 289, 290, 

95 291, 293, 294, 295 

96 Southern Resident Killer Whales ... viii, xiii, xxv, 

97 54, 137, 170, 180, 193, 264 

98 Take ..... 1, ii, xi, xxv, xxviii, 3, 22, 265, 271, 277 

99 Technical Advisory Committeexxv, xxvii, 28, 72, 

100 76, 87, 102, 157, 258, 262 
US v Oregon EIS 200 2018 

1 Tributary ................................ xxviii, 14, 15, 193 

2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...... 1, ii, xxv, xxvi, 

3 xxviii, 53, 131, 157, 186, 236, 242, 265, 266, 

4 269, 271, 277, 280 

5 Uncoordinated Harvest .... iv, xiii, 32, 85, 94, 99, 

6 105, 110, 134, 151, 152 

7 Voluntary Fishery curtailment .................... iv, 32 

8 Washington ....1, i, ii, xxv, 2, 3, 4, 10, 13, 14, 18, 

9 19, 20, 26, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 

10 61, 65, 68, 72, 78, 123, 131, 157, 162, 167, 

11 173, 185, 186, 189, 190, 191, 193, 195, 196, 

12 197, 202, 203, 205, 209, 210, 229, 238, 241, 

13 250, 256, 258, 273, 281, 282, 283, 295 

14 Wildlife 1, ii, viii, xxv, xxvi, 4, 14, 36, 51, 52, 53, 

15 131, 135, 161, 162, 173, 178, 179, 180, 186, 

16 187, 189, 190, 191, 193, 195, 205, 236, 242, 

17 250, 258 

18 Willamette xxv, 5, 16, 25, 36, 37, 41, 47, 50, 61, 

19 123, 171, 192, 259, 261, 283 

20 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 201 2018 

1 

2 

3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 202 2018 

1 APPENDICES

 2 

3 APPENDIX A 

4 

5 US v. OREGON AGREEMENT EIS

6 

7 Economics Methods Appendix

8 

9 Prepared by:

10 TCW Economics 

11 Santa Rosa, CA

12 Contact: Thomas Wegge

13 Prepared for:

14 NOAA Fisheries

15 West Coast Region

16 Sustainable Fisheries Division

17 Seattle, Washington

18 

19 April 2017
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 203 2018 

1 Appendix – Economics Impact Methods

2 1.0 Introduction 

3 This appendix describes the methods and data used to conduct the analysis of economic effects described 

4 in Subsection 4.5. The analysis of economic impacts considers predicted harvest-related effects in 

5 affected commercial and recreational fisheries in the mainstem Columbia River, as affected by the US v 

6 Oregon Agreement. 

7 An excel workbook with linked worksheets, referred to as the Columbia River Economic Impact Model, 

8 was developed by TCW Economics to assess harvest-related economic effects of the US v Oregon EIS 

9 alternatives. Data and values in the worksheets are organized by economic subregions. The analytical

10 purpose of these regions is to present the economic impacts (i.e., generation of jobs and personal income) 

11 of fishing activity that occurs in the mainstem fisheries. For purposes of the analysis, four subregions of 

12 the Columbia River Basin are used to characterize effects on commercial harvest and recreational fishing 

13 effort: 

14 ● Lower Columbia River subregion, where catch assumed to contribute to economic activity in 

15 eight counties (Columbia, Clatsop, and Multnomah Counties in Oregon, and Pacific, Wahkiakum, 

16 Clark, Cowlitz, and Skamania in Washington) that border ODFW mainstem fishing zones 1 

17 through 5 downstream of Bonneville Dam; 

18 ● Mid-Columbia River subregion, where catch assumed to contribute to economic activity in eight 

19 counties (Hood River, Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, and Crook Counties in Oregon, and 

20 Benton and Klickitat Counties in Washington) that border ODFW fishing zone 6 between 

21 Bonneville Dam and McNary Dam; 

22 ● Upper Columbia River subregion, where catch assumed to contribute to economic activity in four 

23 counties (Benton, Kittatas, Franklin and Grant Counties in Washington) that are upstream of 

24 McNary Dam; and 

25 ● Lower Snake River subregion, where catch assumed to contribute to economic activity in five 

26 counties (Walla Walla, Columbus, Garfield, Whitman, and Franklin Counties in Washington) that 

27 are upstream of the confluence with the mainstem Columbia River. 

28 The counties that comprise these four subregions are identified in Figure A-1. Although the analysis area 

29 for the economics assessment is defined by the four subregions and the corresponding counties identified 

30 above, it should be noted that implementation of the harvest policy alternatives would be expected to 

31 affect, to a more limited extent, economic activity in other counties in the general region of the analysis 

32 area. This would include, but not be limited to, Umatilla, Jefferson, Deschutes, Wheeler, and Grant 

33 Counties.

34 Commercial (tribal and non-tribal) and recreational fishing activity in affected fisheries in the mainstem 

35 Columbia River were assigned to the economic subregion where the fishing activity was presumed to 

36 occur. The correspondence between fishing areas and economic subregions in the Columbia River Basin 

37 are described above. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 204 2018 

1 

2 Figure A-1. Economic Analysis Area.

3 The economic analysis focuses on commercial and recreational fishing targeting five harvest indicator 

4 stocks that collectively are believed to account for more than 80 percent of the total catch of salmon and 

5 steelhead in the mainstem Columbia River: Upriver spring Chinook salmon, Upper Columbia summer

6 Chinook salmon, Upriver fall Chinook salmon, Upriver sockeye salmon, and Snake River steelhead. In 

7 addition to supporting tribal commercial and non-tribal recreational fisheries in the mainstem, these 

8 stocks also support ceremonial and subsistence tribal fishing.

9 As explained in Section 2 of the EIS, the estimates of the number of fish harvested in commercial and 

10 recreational fisheries were estimated by the Fishery Analysis Team based on historical catch records 

11 between 2005 and 2016, and modified to meet the objectives of the different harvest policy alternatives. 

12 This 12-year period (2005-2016) represents the term of the current management framework. The 

13 historical harvest and effort information was used to estimate numerical outputs for each of the harvest 

14 indicator stocks in the analysis of the alternatives. In Subsection 4.1.1 we describe the incorporation of 

15 expected climate change effects into the analysis. The minimum, maximum and average harvest of the 

16 different harvest indicator stocks are based on implementation of the different alternatives. 

17 2.0 Catch and Effort Estimates 

18 The Fishery Analysis Team estimated harvest for the five harvest indicator stocks (Upriver spring

19 Chinook, Upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon, Upriver fall Chinook salmon, Upriver sockeye

20 salmon, and Snake River steelhead) and were presented to the economic analysis team for evaluation. The 

21 estimated number of fish (both natural-origin and hatchery fish) caught in tribal, non-tribal commercial, 

22 and recreational fisheries was estimated for different areas of the mainstem Columbia River, including 

23 ODFW fishing zones 1 through 5, ODFW fishing zone 6, upstream of McNary Dam on the mainstem 

24 Columbia River, and in the Lower Snake River upstream of the confluence with the mainstem Columbia 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 205 2018 

1 River. The catch estimates in each of these catch areas were then assigned to one of the four different 

2 economic subregions previously identified based on the county (and region) corresponding to the location 

3 of the fisheries. (Note that none of the catch was assigned to the Upper Columbia River subregion 

4 because there was no commercial harvest of the harvest indicator stock.)

5 2.1 Commercial Fisheries

6 Estimates of total tribal and non-tribal commercial catch provided by the Fishery Analysis Team were 

7 converted to economic values using different price factors. For estimating the ex-vessel value of 

8 commercial fisheries, the number of fish caught was first converted to pounds. The pounds-per-fish 

9 factors by species and region used in the conversion are presented in Table A-1. The data sources for 

10 these conversion factors include the following:

11 ● Commercial weights (round weight per fish) for Columbia River regions: Calculated based on 

12 landings and weight data from fish receiving tickets reported by the Oregon Department of Fish 

13 and Wildlife, Columbia River Fishing Landing Reports, 2003-2009, available at 

14 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/OSCRP/CRM/Comm_fishery_updates.asp (accessed on 

15 December 7, 2011). Calculated weights for each species, including spring, summer, and fall 

16 Chinook salmon, were averaged over the 2003-2009 period, weighted by the number of fish 

17 landed each year in Oregon. (Note that data were not available for 2002.) 

18 Once commercial catch was converted to pounds, per pound ex-vessel prices for each species were 

19 applied to the estimates of tribal and non-tribal commercial landings to estimate the total regional ex20 vessel value of commercial salmon landings in each subregion. The value-per-fish factors used to convert 

21 estimated landings to total ex-vessel values are shown in Table A-2. The data sources for these value 

22 factors include the following: 

23 ● Ex-vessel price per pound for Columbia River regions for Chinook salmon were calculated based 

24 on price and harvest data for Oregon and Washington from PFMC 2016 Salmon SAFE Report, 

25 Tables IV-8 and IV-9. Prices represent average ex-vessel prices of Columbia River coho salmon

26 and spring and fall Chinook salmon, weighted by pounds of fish landed, over the 2014-2016 

27 period. 

28 ● Ex-vessel price per pound for Columbia River regions for sockeye salmon and steelhead were 

29 calculated based on aggregated landings and ex-vessel revenue data from PacFIN. Prices 

30 represent average of ex-vessel prices for Columbia River sockeye salmon and steelhead over the 

31 2014-2016 period. 

32 Table A-1. Average pounds per commercially-landed fish. 

Tribal Non-Tribal

REGION Chinook Steelhead Sockeye Chinook Steelhead Sockeye

Columbia 

River Basin

Lower Snake 

River na na na na 

Spring na na 

Summer na na 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 206 2018 

Fall na na 

Upper 

Columbia 

River

na na na na 

Spring na na

Summer na na

Fall na na

MidColumbia 

River

10.6 3.5 na na 

Spring 14.2 na 

Summer 17.1 na 

Fall 18.3 na 

Lower 

Columbia 

River

na na 10.6 3.5 

Spring na 14.1 

Summer na 18.8 

Fall na 19.1 

1 Notes:

2 na = not applicable

3 Sources:

4 Chinook salmon prices are weighted averages of 2014-2016 ex-vessel revenue per landed lb from PFMC's Review of 2016 Ocean Salmon 

5 Fisheries, Table 9.

6 Sockeye salmon and Steelhead prices are weighted averages of 2014-2016 ex-vessel revenue per landed lb from PacFIN annual vessel summaries 

7 for 2014-2016.

8 

9 

10 Table A-2. Ex-vessel price per pound (2016 dollars). 

Tribal Non-tribal

REGION Chinook Steelhead Sockeye Chinook Steelhead Sockeye

Columbia 

River Basin

Lower Snake 

River na na na na 

Spring na na 

Summer na na 

Fall na na 

Upper 

Columbia 

River

na na na na 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 207 2018 

Spring na na 

Summer na na 

Fall na na 

MidColumbia 

River

$1.30 $1.86 na na 

Spring $4.61 na

Summer $1.88 na

Fall $1.88 na

Lower 

Columbia 

River

na na $1.43 $2.09 

Spring na $6.18 

Summer na $2.24 

Fall na $2.24 

1 Notes:

2 na = not applicable

3 Sources:

4 Chinook salmon prices are weighted averages of 2014-2016 ex-vessel revenue per landed lb from PFMC's Review of 2016 Ocean Salmon 

5 Fisheries, Table 9.

6 Sockeye salmon and Steelhead prices are weighted averages of 2014-2016 ex-vessel revenue per landed lb from PacFIN annual vessel summaries 

7 for 2014-2016.

8 2.2 Recreational Fisheries

9 Table A-3 shows the angler-trip conversion factors used to convert catch to angler trips for each 

10 species and subregion. The data sources for these conversion factors include the following: 

11 ● Sport catch per trip for Columbia River region: compiled from 2002-2009 angler trips and catch 

12 data from Catch Record Card data provided by WDFW. (Note that sport-catch-per-trip factors 

13 were developed for individual species but that the same factors were used for species across all 

14 four Columbia River Basin economic impact regions. As a result, while trip estimates for the 

15 entire basin may be reasonably reliable, sport trips may be overestimated in some regions and 

16 underestimated in others.)

17 Table A-3. Average catch per recreational fishing trip, by species and region.

Region Coho Salmon Chinook Salmon Steelhead

Columbia River Basin

Lower Snake River 0.24 0.19

Spring Chinook 0.19

Summer Chinook 0.19

Fall Chinook 0.23

Upper Columbia River 0.24 0.19

Spring Chinook 0.19

Summer Chinook 0.19

Fall Chinook 0.23

Mid-Columbia River

Spring Chinook 0.24 0.19 0.19

Summer Chinook 0.19

Fall Chinook 0.23
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 208 2018 

Mid-Columbia River

Spring Chinook 0.24 0.19 0.19

Summer Chinook 0.19

Fall Chinook 0.23

1 Notes:

2 na = not applicable

3 Sources:

4 Sport catch per trip for Columbia River. Compiled from 2002-2009 angler trips and catch data from Sport Catch Record data 

5 (Table 2) provided by WDFW (Dixon pers. comm.).

6 Once catch was converted to sport angler trips, per trip expenditure factors for each species and region 

7 were applied to the estimated number of sport trips to estimate the total trip-related expenditures in each 

8 region. The per trip expenditure factors, which are shown in Table A-4 in 2016 dollars, were developed 

9 based on the following data sources. 

10 ● Columbia River: Oregon Angler Survey and Economic Study, The Research Group 1991. 

11 Estimates were price-updated to 2016 using USDC BEA GDP implicit price deflator.

12 Table A-4. Average expenditures per sport trip (2016 dollars). 

REGION Coho Chinook Steelhead

Columbia River Basin Regions 

Lower Snake River $92.84 $92.84 $92.84 

Upper Columbia 

River $92.84 $92.84 $92.84 

Mid-Columbia River $92.84 $92.84 $92.84 

Lower Columbia 

River $92.84 $92.84 $92.84 

13 Sources:

14 Columbia River: Oregon Angler Survey and Economic Study, The Research Group 1991. Price updated to 2016 using USDC 

15 BEA GDP implicit price deflator
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 209 2018 

1 3.0 Contribution to Regional and Local Economic Impacts 

2 Harvest-related regional economic impacts are generated by three fishery components: 1) economic 

3 activity from tribal commercial harvests, 2) economic activity from non-tribal commercial harvests, and 

4 3) economic activity generated by sport fishing. Estimates of regional economic impacts from these 

5 activities are expressed in terms of personal income and jobs generated in each of the four subregions in 

6 the Columbia River Basin.

7 3.1 Personal Income

8 To estimate total (direct, indirect, and induced) personal income generated by estimated commercial and 

9 recreational catch under each alternative, personal income impact factors for each species and region were 

10 applied to the converted catch (i.e., ex-vessel revenue from commercial landings and numbers of sport 

11 trips). Table A-5 shows the regional personal income impact factors (in 2016 dollars) used to convert 

12 landings revenue and angler trips for each user group, species, and region to personal income impacts. 

13 The sources for the regional income impact factors include the following:

14 ● Source for tribal and nontribal commercial real economic impact (REI) factors: Average of State15 level income impact coefficients for Oregon and Washington Columbia River commercial salmon 

16 harvests estimated by IO-Pac (See: PFMC 2016 Salmon Review computational file <Tables CH 

17 IV Econ Sup.xlsx> tab 'CR_COM_IOPAC'). 

18 ● Source for sport REI factors: 2016 WA state-level income impact factors for Buoy 10 recreational 

19 salmon fishery from PFMC 2016 Salmon Review computational file "Tables CH IV Econ 

20 Sup.slsx, tab 'B10_II_IOPAC'". Assumed that private boat income impact factors from Buoy 10 

21 fishery were representative of average contribution from inriver sport trips.

22 It should be noted that regional income is measured as personal income accruing to households. It 

23 measures the contribution to personal income under current (or changed) conditions. Because dynamic 

24 changes in the economy over time are not considered in this analysis, results of the assessment are not 

25 considered valid for measuring effects on the economy over the long term from changes in fish abundance 

26 or policy.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 210 2018 

1 Table A-5. Personal income factors, per ex-vessel dollar of commercially landed salmon and per sport 

2 trip (2016 dollars).

Tribal Non-tribal

Recreational

REGION Coho Chinook Steelhead Sockeye Coho Chinook

Columbia River Basin

Lower 

Snake 

River

na $1.57 $1.57 $1.57 na $1.57 $81.62 

Upper 

Columbia 

River

na $1.57 $1.57 $1.57 na $1.57 $81.62 

MidColumbia 

River

na $1.57 $1.57 $1.57 na $1.57 $81.62 

Lower 

Columbia 

River

na $1.57 $1.57 $1.57 na $1.57 $81.62 

3 Notes:

4 na = not applicable

5 Sources:

6 Source for tribal and nontribal commercial REI factors: Average of State-level income impact coefficients for Oregon and 

7 Washington Columbia River commercial salmon harvests estimated by IO-Pac (See: PFMC 2016 Salmon Review 

8 computational file <Tables CH IV Econ Sup.xlsx> tab 'CR_COM_IOPAC')

9 Source for sport REI factors: 2016 WA state-level income impact factors for Buoy 10 recreational salmon fishery in PFMC 2016 

10 Salmon Review computational file "Tables CH IV Econ Sup.slsx, tab 'B10_II_IOPAC'". Assumed Private boat factors were 

11 representative of average income impact factors from inriver sport trips.

12 3.2 Jobs 

13 Jobs (full- and part-time; direct, indirect, and induced) generated by the commercial and recreational 

14 catch in each region under each alternative were estimated by applying an earnings-per-job factor (Table 

15 A-6) to the estimated total personal income generated by catch in each subregion described above. The 

16 earnings-per-job factors for each region were calculated by using personal income totals for each region 

17 that were then divided by the earnings-per-jobs factors to estimate total jobs in each region under each 

18 alternative.

19 Table A-6. Average earnings per Job (2016 dollars). 

Columbia River Basin Regions

Lower Snake River $29,222

Upper Columbia River $33,613

Mid-Columbia River $37,304

Lower Columbia River $43,979

20 Notes:

21 Factors adjusted to $2016 using USDC BEA GDP implicit price deflator

22 Sources:

23 Bureau of Economic Analysis. April 2009. Table CA05N Personal Income by Major Source and Earnings by NAICS Industry; 

24 and Table CA25N Total Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by NAICS Industry.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 211 2018 

1 

2 Table A-7. Commercial Harvest and Ex-Vessel Value of Landings by Columbia River Basin Subregion under the Project 

3 Alternatives: Upriver spring Chinook Salmon 

Subregion

/ Type of 

Fishery

Status 

Quo Alt. 1- Extension

Alt. 2 –

AbundancebasedAlt. 3 – Fixed Rate

Alt. 4 / Alt 6 –

Escapement-based / 

Uncoordinated fishing

Alt. 5 – Fishing 

curtailment

Number Number

Change 

from Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change from 

Status Quo 

Condition

Number

Change from 

Status Quo 

Condition

Number

Change from 

Status Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from Status 

Quo 

Condition

Lower Columbia River Subregion

Tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Non-tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

4,067 4,067 0 4,067 0 3,894 -173 6,024 1,957 0 -4,067

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$354,199 $354,199 $0 $354,199 $0 $339,107 -15,093 $524,641 $170,441 $0 -$354,199

Total

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

4,067 4,067 0 4,067 0 3,894 -173 6,024 1,957 0 -4,067

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$354,199 $354,199 $0 $354,199 $0 $339,107 -$15,093 $524,641 $170,441 $0 -$354,199

Mid-Columbia River Subregion

Tribal

Harvest 

(number of 7,528 7,528 0 7,528 0 6,773 -755 14,928 7,400 0 -7,528
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 212 2018 

fish)

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$493,029 $493,029 $0 $493,029 $0 $443,551 -$49,478 $977,652 $484,622 $0 -$493,029

Non-tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

11 11 0 11 0 10 -1 16 5 0 -11

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$965 $965 $0 $965 $0 $912 -$53 $1,411 $446 $0 -$965

Total

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

7,539 7,539 0 7,539 0 6,783 -756 14,944 7,405 0 -7,539

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$493,994 $493,994 0 $493,994 0 $444,463 -$49,531 $979,062 $485,068 $0 -$493,994

TOTAL – ALL SUBREGIONS

Tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

7,528 7,528 0 7,528 0 6,773 -755 14,928 7,400 0 -7,528

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$493,029 $493,029 $0 $493,029 $0 $443,551 -$49,478 $977,652 $484,622 $0 -$493,029

Non-tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

4078 4078 0 4078 0 3,904 (174) 6,040 1,962 0 -4078

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$355,164 $355,164 $0 $355,164 $0 $340,018 -$15,146 $526,052 $170,887 $0 -$355,164

Total

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

11,606 11,606 0 11,606 0 10,677 -929 20,968 9,362 0 -11,606
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 213 2018 

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$848,193 $848,193 $0 $848,193 $0 $783,569 -$64,624 $1,503,70

4 $655,509 $0 -$848,193

1 Notes: All dollar values are reported in 2015 dollars.

2 Source: Ex-vessel values derived based on estimates of harvest provided by NMFS and by simulating the Columbia River economic impact spreadsheet model developed by TCW

3 Economics.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 214 2018 

1 Table A-8. Commercial Harvest and Ex-Vessel Value of Landings by Columbia River Basin Subregion under the Project 

2 Alternatives: Upper Columbia Summer Chinook Salmon 

Subregion

/ Type of 

Fishery

Status 

Quo

Alt. 1- 

Extension

Alt. 2 – Abundancebased Alt. 3 – Fixed Rate

Alt. 4 / Alt 6 –

Escapement-based / 

Uncoordinated fishing

Alt. 5 – Fishing 

curtailment

Number Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Lower Columbia River Subregion

Tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Non-tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

3356 3356 0 3309 0 2687 -669 3904 548 0 -3356

Ex-vessel

harvest 

value

$141,045 $141,045 $0 $139,076 $0 $112,914 -$28,131 $164,075 $23,031 $0 -$141,045

Total

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

3,356 3,356 0 3,309 0 2,687 -669 3,904 548 0 -3,356

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$141,045 $141,045 $0 $139,076 $0 $112,914 -$28,131 $164,075 $23,031 $0 -$141,045

Mid-Columbia River Subregion

Tribal

Harvest 

(number of 17,569 17,569 0 17,324 -245 14,065 -3,504 20,438 2,869 0 -17,569
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 215 2018 

fish)

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$565,958 $565,958 $0 $558,058 -$7,900 $453,080 -$112,878 $658,372 $92,414 $0 -$565,958

Non-tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish) 3,866 3,866 0 3,811 0 3,094 -771 4,496 630 0 -3,866

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$147,784 $147,784 $0 $145,705 $0 $118,297 -$29,488 $171,897 $24,113 $0 -$147,784

Total

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

21,435 21,435 0 21,135 17,324 17,159 13,293 24,934 21,068 0 -21,435

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$713,742 $713,742 $0 $703,763 -$7,900 $571,377 -$142,365 $830,268 $116,526 $0 -$713,742

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL – ALL SUBREGIONS

Tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

17569 17569 0 17324 -245 14065 -3504 20438 2869 0 -17569

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$565,958 $565,958 $0 $558,058 -$7,900 $453,080 -$112,878 $658,372 $92,414 $0 -$565,958

Non-tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

7222 7222 0 7121 0 5781 -1441 8401 1179 0 -7222
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 216 2018 

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$288,829 $288,829 $0 $284,781 $0 $231,210 -$57,618 $335,972 $47,143 $0 -$288,829

Total

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

24,791 24,791 0 24,444 -245 19,846 -4,945 28,838 4,048 0 -24,791

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$854,787 $854,787 $0 $842,839 -$7,900 $684,291 -$170,496 $994,344 $139,557 $0 -$854,787

1 

2 Notes: All dollar values are reported in 2015 dollars.

3 Source: Ex-vessel values derived based on estimates of harvest provided by NMFS and by simulating the Columbia River economic impact spreadsheet model developed by TCW 

4 Economics.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 217 2018 

1 Table A-9. Commercial Harvest and Ex-Vessel Value of Landings by Columbia River Basin Subregion under the Project 

2 Alternatives: Upriver fall Chinook Salmon 

Subregion/ 

Type of 

Fishery

Status 

Quo

Alt. 1- 

Extension

Alt. 2 – Abundancebased Alt. 3 – Fixed Rate

Alt. 4 / Alt 6 –

Escapement-based / 

Uncoordinated fishing

Alt. 5 – Fishing 

curtailment

Number Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Lower Columbia River Subregion 

Tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Non-tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

44,870 44,870 0 44,870 0 40,527 -4342 71,514 26,644 0 -44870

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$1,915,825 $1,915,825 $0 $1,915,825 $0 $1,730,413 -$185,412 $3,053,476 $1,137,651 $0 -$1,915,825

Total

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

44,870 44,870 0 44,870 0 40,527 -4342 71,514 26,644 0 -44870

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$1,915,825 $1,915,825 $0 $1,915,825 $0 $1,730,413 -$185,412 $3,053,476 $1,137,651 $0 -$1,915,825

Mid-Columbia River Subregion

Tribal

Harvest 

(number of 187,303 187,303 0 187,303 0 184,203 -3,100 148,242 -39,061 0 -187,303
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 218 2018 

fish)

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$6,457,182 $6,457,182 $0 $6,457,182 $0 $6,350,328 -$106,855 $5,110,573 -$1,346,609 $0 -$6,457,182

Non-tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

187,303 187,303 0 187,303 0 184,203 -3,100 148,242 -39,061 0 -187,303

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$6,457,182 $6,457,182 $0 $6,457,182 $0 $6,350,328 -$106,855 $5,110,573 -$1,346,609 $0 -$6,457,182

TOTAL – ALL SUBREGIONS

Tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

187303 187303 0 187303 0 184,203 (3,100) 148242 -39061 0 -187303

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$6,457,182 $6,457,182 $0 $6,457,182 $0 $6,350,328 -$106,855 $5,110,573 -$1,346,609 $0 -$6,457,182

Non-Tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish) 44,870 44,870 0 44,870 0 40,527 -4342 71,514 26,644 0 -44870

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value $1,915,825 $1,915,825 $0 $1,915,825 $0 $1,730,413 -$185,412 $3,053,476 $1,137,651 $0 -$1,915,825

Total

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

232,173 232,173 0 232,173 0 224,731 -7,442 219,756 -12,417 0 -232,173
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 219 2018 

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$8,373,007 $8,373,007 $0 $8,373,007 $0 $8,080,741 -$292,266 $8,164,049 -$208,958 $0 -$8,373,007

1 Notes: All dollar values are reported in 2015 dollars.

2 Source: Ex-vessel values derived based on estimates of harvest provided by NMFS and by simulating the Columbia River economic impact spreadsheet model developed by TCW 

3 Economics.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 220 2018 

1 Table A-10. Commercial Harvest and Ex-Vessel Value of Landings by Columbia River Basin Subregion under the Project 

2 Alternatives: Upriver Sockeye Salmon 

Subregion/ 

Type of 

Fishery

Status 

Quo

Alt. 1- 

Extension

Alt. 2 – Abundancebased Alt. 3 – Fixed Rate

Alt. 4 / Alt 6 –

Escapement-based / 

Uncoordinated fishing

Alt. 5 – Fishing 

curtailment

Number Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Lower Columbia River Subregion

Tribal 

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

0 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Non-tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

512 512 0 611 99 512 0 14170 13658 0 -512

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$3,744 $3,744 $0 $4,471 $0 $3,743 -$1 $103,614 $99,871 $0 -$3,744

Total

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

512 512 0 611 99 512 0 14170 13658 0 -512

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$3,744 $3,744 $0 $4,471 $0 $3,743 -$1 $103,614 $99,871 $0 -$3,744

Mid-Columbia River Subregion

Tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

16440 16440 0 23071 6631 16531 91 65772 49332 0 -16440
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 221 2018 

fish)

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$106,825 $106,825 $0 $149,916 $43,091 $107,417 $592 $427,379 $320,553 $0 -$106,825

Non-tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

16440 16440 0 23071 6631 16531 91 65772 49332 0 -16440

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$106,825 $106,825 $0 $149,916 $43,091 $107,417 $592 $427,379 $320,553 $0 -$106,825

TOTAL – ALL SUBREGIONS

Tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

16,440 16,440 0 23,071 6,631 16,531 91 65,772 49,332 0 -16,440

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$106,825 $106,825 $0 $149,916 $43,091 $107,417 $592 $427,379 $320,553 $0 -$106,825

Non-tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

512 512 0 611 99 512 0 14,170 13,658 0 -512

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$3,744 $3,744 $0 $4,471 $727 $3,743 -$1 $103,614 $99,871 $0 -$3,744

Total

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

16,952 16,952 0 23,683 6,730 17,043 91 79,942 62,990 0 -61,310
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 222 2018 

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$110,569 $110,569 $0 $154,386 $43,818 $111,160 $591 $530,993 $420,424 $0 -$110,569

1 Notes: All dollar values are reported in 2015 dollars.

2 Source: Ex-vessel values derived based on estimates of harvest provided by NMFS and by simulating the Columbia River economic impact spreadsheet model developed by TCW 

3 Economics.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 223 2018 

1 Table A-11. Commercial Harvest and Ex-Vessel Value of Landings by Columbia River Basin Subregion under the Project 

2 Alternatives: Snake River B-Index Steelhead

Subregion/ 

Type of

Fishery

Status 

Quo

Alt. 1- 

Extension

Alt. 2 –

Abundance

-based

Alt. 3 – Fixed Rate Alt. 4 / Alt 6 – Escapement-based / 

Uncoordinated fishing

Alt. 5 – Fishing 

curtailment

Number Number

Change 

from Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from 

Status Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from Status 

Quo 

Condition

Lower Columbia River Subregion

Tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ex-vessel 

harvest value $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Non-Tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ex-vessel 

harvest value $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Total

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ex-vessel 

harvest value $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Mid-Columbia River Subregion

Tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

8945 8945 0 8945 0 8306 -639 11018 2073 0 -8945

Ex-vessel 

harvest value $122,799 $122,799 $0 $122,799 $0 $114,031 -$8,769 $151,257 $28,457 $0 -$122,799

Non-tribal
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 224 2018 

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ex-vessel 

harvest value $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

8,945 8,945 0 8,945 0 8,306 -639 11,018 2,073 0 -8,945

Ex-vessel 

harvest value $122,799 $122,799 $0 $122,799 $0 $114,031 -$8,769 $151,257 $28,457 $0 -$122,799

TOTAL – ALL SUBREGIONS

Tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

8,945 8,945 0 8,945 0 8,306 -639 11,018 2,073 0 -8,945

Ex-vessel 

harvest value $122,799 $122,799 $0 $122,799 $0 $114,031 -$8,769 $151,257 $28,457 $0 -$122,799

Non-tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ex-vessel 

harvest value $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,720 $0 $0 

Total

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

8,945 8,945 0 8,945 0 8,945 -639 11,018 2,073 0 -8,945

Ex-vessel 

harvest value $122,799 $122,799 $0 $122,799 $0 $114,031 -$8,769 $151,257 $28,457 $0 -$122,799

1 Notes: All dollar values are reported in 2015 dollars.

2 Source: Ex-vessel values derived based on estimates of harvest provided by NMFS and by simulating the Columbia River economic impact spreadsheet model developed by TCW 

3 Economics.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 225 2018 

1 Table A-12. Impacts of the project alternatives on catch, angler trips and trip-related angler expenditures associated with recreation 

2 fishing for all harvest indicator stocks, by Columbia River subregion. 

Subregion/ 

Type of 

Fishery

Status 

Quo

Alt. 1- 

Extension

Alt. 2 – Abundancebased Alt. 3 – Fixed Rate

Alt. 4 / Alt. 6 –

Escapement-based / 

Uncoordinated fishing

Alt. 5 – Fishing 

curtailment

Number Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from 

Status 

Quo 

Condition

Number

Change 

from Status 

Quo 

Condition

Lower Columbia River Subregion

Catch 51,554 51,554 0 59,209 0 47,064 -4,490 155,704 104,150 0 -51554

Estimated 

angler trips 240,167 240,167 0 280,456 40,289 219,551 (20,616) 753,994 513,827 0 (240,167)

Trip-related 

angler 

expenditures

$35,708,509 $35,708,509 $0 $39,448,870 $3,740,361 $32,464,451 -$3,244,058 $98,390,721 $62,682,211 $0 -$35,708,509

Mid-Columbia-River Subregion

Catch 19,812 19,812 0 19,748 0 18,068 -1,744 27,507 7,695 0 -19812

Estimated 

angler trips 97,414 97,414 0 97,076 (338) 88,899 (8,514) 134,950 37,537 0 (97,414)

Trip-related 

angler 

expenditures

$9,317,305 $9,317,305 $0 $9,285,932 -$31,372 $8,234,110 -$1,083,195 $12,779,061 $3,461,756 $0 -$9,317,305

Lower Snake River Subregion

Catch 900 900 0 900 0 862 -38 1333 433 0 -900

Estimated 

angler trips 4,737 4,737 0 4,737 0 4,535 (202) 7,016 2,280 0 (4,737)

Trip-related 

angler 

expenditures 

$439,758 $439,758 $0 $439,758 $0 $421,033 -$18,725 $651,391 $211,633 $0 -$439,758

TOTAL (all subregions)

Catch 71,366 71,366 0 78,957 0 65,132 -6,234 183,211 111,845 0 -71,366
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 226 2018 

Estimated 

angler trips 342,318 342,318 - 382,269 39,951 312,986 (29,332) 895,961 553,643 - (342,318)

Trip-related 

angler 

expenditures

$45,465,572 $45,465,572 $0 $49,174,560 $3,708,988 $41,119,593 -$4,345,979 $111,821,173 $66,355,600 $0 -$45,465,572

1 Notes: All dollar values are reported in 2016 dollars.

2 Source: Derived based on harvest estimates provided by NMFS and by simulating the Columbia River basin economic impact spreadsheet model developed by TCW Economics.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 227 2018 

1 Table A-13. Contribution of commercial and recreational salmon and steelhead fishing for harvest indicator stocks to personal income 

2 and jobs in the Columbia River basin, by subregion. 

Subregion/ 

Type of 

Fishery

Status 

Quo Alt. 1- Extension Alt. 2 – Abundancebased Alt. 3 – Fixed Rate

Alt. 4 / Alt. 6–

Escapement-based / 

Uncoordinated fishing

Alt. 5 – Fishing 

curtailment

Number Number

Change 

from 

Existing 

Conditions

Number

Change 

from 

Existing 

Conditions

Number

Change 

from 

Existing 

Conditions

Number

Change 

from 

Existing 

Conditions

Number

Change 

from 

Existing 

Conditions

Lower Columbia River Subregion

Commercial Fisheries 

Personal 

Income 

($,000)

$3,783 $3,783 - $3,781 -$2 $3,425 -$358 $6,024 +$2,241 $0 -$3,783

Jobs 86 86 - 86 0 78 -8 137 +51 0 -86

Recreational Fisheries

Personal 

Income 

($,000)

$19,602 $19,602 - $22,891 +$3,288 $17,920 -$1,683 $61,541 +$41,939 $0 -$19,602

Jobs 446 446 - 520 +75 407 -38 1,399 +954 0 -446

Mid-Columbia River Subregion

Commercial Fisheries

Personal 

Income 

($,000)

$12,400 $12,400 - $12,452 +$52 $11,918 -$482 $11,778 -$622 $0 -$12,400

Jobs 332 332 - 334 +1 319 -13 316 -17 0 -332

Recreational Fisheries

Personal 

Income 

($,000)

$7,951 $7,951 - $7,923 -$28 $7,256 -$695 $11,015 +$3,064 $0 -$7,951

Jobs 213 213 - 212 -1 195 -19 295 +82 0 -213

Lower Snake River Subregion

Commercial Fisheries

Personal $0 $0 - $0 - $0 - $0 - $0 -
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 228 2018 

Income 

($,000)

Jobs 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -

Recreational Fisheries

Personal 

Income 

($,000)

$387 $387 - $387 - $370 -$16 $573 +$186 $0 -$387

Jobs 13 13 - 13 - 13 -1 20 +6 0 -13

Total (all Columbia River subregions)

Commercial Fisheries

Personal 

Income 

($,000)

$16,183 $16,183 - $16,213 +$50 $15,343 -$841 $17,802 +$1,619 $0 -$16,183

Jobs 419 419 - 420 +1 398 -21 453 +34 0 -419

Recreational Fisheries

Personal 

Income 

($,000)

$27,940 $27,940 - $31,201 +$3,261 $25,546 -$2,394 $73,128 +$45,188 $0 -$27,940

Jobs 672 672 - 746 +74 615 -57 1,714 +1,042 0 -672

1 Notes: All dollar values are reported in 2015 dollars.

2 Source: Derived based on estimates of sport fishing effort provided by NMFS and by simulating the Puget Sound economic impact spreadsheet model developed by TCW 

3 Economics. 

4 Source: Derived by TCW Economics using estimates of commercial salmon harvest (Table 4.5-2) provided by NMFS and sport fishing trips (Table 4.5-3) estimated by TCW 

5 Economics based on catch estimates provided by NMFS, and simulation of the economic impact model.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix A 

US v Oregon EIS 229 2018 

1 4.0 References

2 Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2008. IMPLAN Professional model software (version 

3 2.0.1025) and 2007 IMPLAN data file for Washington. Stillwater, MN.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix B 

US v Oregon EIS 230 2018 

1 

2 APPENDIX B 

3 

4 US v. OREGON AGREEMENT EIS

5 

6 US v Oregon Management Agreement Hatchery Production Review

7 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix B 

US v Oregon EIS 231 2018 

1 US v Oregon Management Agreement Hatchery Production Review

2 Comparison of the programs, as analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS.

3 This review has determined that the Mitchell Act EIS contains an analysis of 113 of the 1156 programs 

4 referenced in the agreement and that, for the majority of these programs, the production levels that are 

5 referenced in the agreement tables (B1-B7), are contained at or within the individual hatchery program 

6 production levels analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS, and therefore will result in substantially similar 

7 impacts to the environment, particularly to threatened or endangered salmon and steelhead. Additionally, 

8 the overall production level in the agreement, by species and run-timing, is also well represented in the 

9 Mitchell Act EIS analysis. Table 1 shows the overall hatchery production level and program number, 

10 referenced in the agreement compared to the levels analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS.

11 Table B-1. Comparison of Hatchery Program Production Referenced in the US v Oregon Management 

12 Agreement Compared to the Hatchery Production Analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS (NMFS 2014b).

Hatchery

Species

Total Proposed 

US v Oregon

Releases

Mitchell Act EIS Releases 

(range across alternatives)

Percent of US v 

Oregon Production 

Analyzed in 

Mitchell Act EIS

Spring Chinook

salmon 19,236,461 14,741,000 to 20,936,000 77% - 109% 

Summer 

Chinook salmon 5,996,569 5,465,000 to 7,517,000 91% - 125% 

Fall Chinook

salmon 42,176,000 4,359,000 to 42,680,000 10% - 101% 

Sockeye salmon 1,000,000 500,000 50% 

Steelhead 6,783,300 6,085,000 to 8,167,000 90% - 120%

coho salmon 8,550,000 2,508,000 to 8,400,000 29%-98%

Total 83,742,330 33,658,000 to 88,200,000 40% - 105% 

 

6 This total (115) considers programs that release juvenile salmon or steelhead, as referenced in Tables B1-B7 of the 

agreement; the Snake River fall Chinook salmon program (agreement Table B4) is counted as one program, as 

analyzed in the MA EIS.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix B 

US v Oregon EIS 232 2018 

Proposed # US v 

Oregon

programs 

MA EIS Analyzed # Programs 

% of US v Oregon

programs analyzed 

in Mitchell Act

Spring Chinook

salmon

39 39 100% 

Summer 

Chinook salmon

14 13 92% 

Fall Chinook

salmon

16 15 93% 

Sockeye salmon 1 1 100%

Steelhead 32 32 100%

coho salmon 13 12 92%

Total 115 112 97% 

1 Even though for most species, production levels, and program numbers identified in Table 1, the Mitchell 

2 Act EIS analysis provides a thorough analysis the effects of the production levels referenced in the 

3 agreement, there are several individual programs where the program production size in the agreement is 

4 different than either, the specific level or range of production analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS. Of the 

5 115 hatchery programs that are referenced in the US v Oregon Management Agreement tables, 2 

6 programs are newly added, and therefore were not considered in the Mitchell Act EIS analysis, and 42 of 

7 the programs have production levels, individually, that are either less than or greater than levels analyzed 

8 in the Mitchell Act EIS, and by species the overall changes in the US v Oregon proposal for hatchery 

9 releases is small. 

10 Types of Hatchery Program Referenced in the US v Oregon Agreement

11 The Production tables (B1-B7) of the agreement contain hatchery programs organized by species and run12 timing. Each of the tables identified the individual hatchery program release, location, hatchery facilities 

13 related to the program, and identify a primary program purpose. These purposes are: Supplementation, 

14 Fishery, or Supplementation/Fishery. 

15 As described in the Mitchell Act EIS, Section 2.3.2, Purpose of Hatchery Programs, the NMFS 

16 categorized hatchery programs, by purpose, in three categories: Conservation, Harvest, or Both. These 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix B 

US v Oregon EIS 233 2018 

1 describe, generally, the purpose of the individual programs, relative to the intent for the returning adult 

2 salmon or steelhead. An artificial production program that produces fish primarily or exclusively for 

3 conservation rather than for harvest is a conservation program, while harvest programs produce fish 

4 exclusively for harvest augmentation. The third category are programs which are managed to generate 

5 both a harvest benefit and a benefit to the local natural-origin population of salmon or steelhead; these are 

6 categorized as “both” in the Mitchell Act EIS. 

7 The US v Oregon management agreement uses different terminology to describe these same program 

8 goals. Therefore, for the purposes of this review, NMFS has classified programs identified as 

9 “Supplementation” in the agreement as “Conservation”. For programs classified as “Fishery” in the 

10 agreement, NMFS has identified them as “Harvest”. For programs classified as 

11 “Supplementation/Fishery” in the agreement, NMFS has identified them as “Both”. This aligns the 

12 program’s purpose, as described in the agreement tables, with the categories used in the Mitchell Act EIS 

13 analysis.

14 Comparison of Agreement-Referenced Programs and the Same Programs in the Mitchell Act EIS

15 Of the programs within the US v Oregon Agreement which have production levels that vary from the 

16 level (larger or smaller) analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS (44), 48% (21) of them are conservation 

17 programs. Additionally, 11 of the programs (25%) are in the “both” category and have a conservation 

18 objective as part of their intended benefit, as well as harvest. Lastly, there are 12 programs (27%) that 

19 have harvest as the objective for the program.

20 Of the 21 conservation programs identified above: 1 program is new, and 1 program has changed release 

21 location; 10 programs propose to release fewer hatchery fish and 11 programs (including the new and 

22 changed release location programs) propose to release more hatchery fish than the same programs, as 

23 analyzed, in the Mitchell Act EIS. Of the 11 programs identified in the both category, above, 3 programs 

24 propose to release fewer hatchery fish and 8 propose to release more hatchery fish than the same 

25 programs, as analyzed, in the Mitchell Act EIS. The 12 harvest programs, identified above, all were 

26 analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS. Of these, 5 propose to release fewer hatchery fish and 7 hatchery 

27 programs propose to release more hatchery fish than the same programs, as analyzed, in the Mitchell Act 

EIS. 28 

29 Review of the Effects of Hatchery programs on Populations of Salmon and Steelhead

30 As described in detail in Section 3.2.3.1, General Risks and Benefits of Hatchery programs to Salmon and 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix B 

US v Oregon EIS 234 2018 

1 Steelhead Species, in the Mitchell Act EIS, hatchery salmon and steelhead programs can have beneficial 

2 effects to these species but also pose risks.

3 Effects to population Viability

4 McElhany et al. (2000) developed the viable salmonid population (VSP) concept as a means to evaluate 

5 the conservation status of Pacific salmon and steelhead. A key part of this approach was the identification 

6 of four measurable indicators of population health that should be considered in performing conservation 

7 status assessments. These indicators of population status are abundance (the number of natural-origin 

8 spawners), productivity (the ratio of natural-origin offspring produced per parent), diversity (the genetic 

9 variety among population members), and spatial structure (the distribution of population members across 

10 a subbasin or subbasins). 

11 Hatchery programs can provide benefits to some of these VSP indicators under certain circumstances, but 

12 can pose risks to VSP as well.

13 Effects on Abundance and Productivity

14 As described in detail in Section 3.2.3.1.1.1, of the Mitchell Act EIS, a primary benefit conferred by 

15 hatchery programs is an increase in the total abundance of a salmon population that returns to spawn 

16 naturally. Freshwater, habitat-related factors limiting the survival and productivity of a natural-origin 

17 population can be circumvented by spawning, incubating, rearing, and releasing fish from the population 

18 in a hatchery facility. In the situation where the hatchery stock is the same genetic population as the 

19 natural-origin population, the hatchery may also act as a protection for the population against catastrophic 

20 environmental conditions (e.g., Grande Ronde spring Chinook captive broodstock and Snake River 

21 sockeye hatchery programs). Productivity may also be increased if hatchery-origin fish improve 

22 conditions of spawning gravel or add nutrients to the system.

23 Hatchery programs may also pose risks to abundance and productivity because they can lead to additional 

24 mortality of natural-origin fish through competition, predation, disease, and fisheries. They may also 

25 unfavorably alter the genetic character of the natural-origin population (discussed below), or restrict the 

26 distribution of a population across its habitat. Abundance and productivity would be the most directly 

27 affected by any increased mortality on natural-origin fish. Substantial increases in mortality would be 

28 readily observable as a reduction in the abundance of natural-origin fish. Increased mortality would also 

29 result in a less efficient reproductive conversion of spawning adults to surviving offspring, which would 

30 be detectable as a reduction in productivity. A reduction in productivity would be measured as the ratio of 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix B 

US v Oregon EIS 235 2018 

1 surviving offspring (adults) per parents. 

2 Effects on Genetic Diversity

3 Salmon and steelhead often differ genetically from population to population because of their strong 

4 tendency to return to spawn in their home stream. This behavior allows the forces of natural selection, 

5 mutation, and random genetic drift to operate in relative isolation in different streams or subbasins, 

6 resulting in genetic differences. In many instances, these differences are adaptive, allowing a local 

7 population to have a greater ability to survive and persist in that environment than would another 

8 population (Taylor 1991; McElhany et al. 2000). 

9 While hatchery programs can help to conserve salmon and steelhead populations, particularly those at 

10 very low abundance and in danger of extirpation (e.g., Snake River sockeye salmon captive brood 

11 program, Tucannon River spring Chinook salmon captive brood program, and the White River 

12 [Wenatchee] spring Chinook salmon captive brood program), hatchery programs can also pose genetic 

13 risks to salmon and steelhead populations. Populations of fish, adapted to the hatchery environment, that 

14 interbreed with natural-origin populations can result in substantial genetic changes (a diversity indicator) 

15 that are maladaptive for natural-origin fish in the natural environment. In addition to affecting population 

16 diversity, such changes would likely adversely impact the reproductive efficiency of natural-origin 

17 populations, lowering productivity. These effects would be most pronounced when highly domesticated 

18 and/or non-native hatchery-origin fish from isolated hatchery programs interbreed with natural-origin fish 

19 at excessive levels. However, even optimally managed, integrated hatchery programs using native fish 

20 can be expected to result in some risks to genetic diversity.

21 Effects on Spatial Structure 

22 Hatchery programs can benefit the spatial structure of salmon and steelhead populations. The potential for 

23 a hatchery program to increase total adult returns to a particular river basin (see Effects on Abundance

24 and Productivity, above) can expand the spatial distribution of spawning by forcing fish to inhabit less 

25 competitive reaches of the basin. Programs that spatially distribute juvenile releases throughout a 

26 particular river basin can increase the distribution of the returning hatchery-origin adults. Additionally, 

27 hatchery programs can be used to expand the area of a basin that is used for natural spawning, i.e., by 

28 transporting or passing hatchery-origin adults above a dam or other impassable barrier. 

29 Hatchery programs can also pose risks to spatial structure through a number of actions. These include the 

30 operation of weirs that can impede upstream migration of returning adults or the construction of migration 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix B 

US v Oregon EIS 236 2018 

1 barriers to prevent the entry of spawners into portions of the watershed to ensure that the hatchery 

2 facility’s water supply is less prone to carrying disease. 

3 Other Effects from Hatchery Programs

4 Ecological Effects

5 Although competition and predation are identified as individual risks, they are related to each other and, 

6 as a consequence, are frequently lumped together and described in the scientific literature as “ecological” 

7 effects. Competition is an interaction among members of the same species or different species utilizing a 

8 limited resource (e.g., food or space). Competition typically results in winners and losers. Competition 

9 between hatchery-origin and natural-origin fish may result from direct interactions, in which hatchery10 origin fish interfere with access to limited resources by natural-origin fish, or indirect interactions, as 

11 when utilization of a limited resource by hatchery-origin fish reduces the amount available for natural12 origin fish (Species Interaction Work Group [SIWG] 1984). Specific types of competition include 

13 competition for food, for territory among stream-rearing juveniles, for mates, and for spawning sites.

 14 

15 For adult salmon and steelhead, effects from competition between hatchery-origin and natural-origin fish 

16 are assumed greatest in the spawning areas where competition for mates and spawning habitat occurs 

17 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1994). Hatchery-origin females compete with natural-origin 

18 females for spawning sites, and hatchery-origin males compete with natural-origin males for female 

19 mates. Although there is evidence that natural-origin fish have a competitive advantage over hatchery20 origin fish in these situations (Fleming and Gross 1993; Berejikian et al. 1997) where spawning area is 

21 limited and abundances are high relative to available space, competition would likely be high. This 

22 circumstance could also result in superimposition (overlaying) of redds. 

23 Juvenile hatchery-origin fish released into the natural environment may compete with natural-origin fish 

24 for resources as they migrate downstream. Steelhead, coho salmon, and spring Chinook salmon typically 

25 will migrate downstream rapidly once they make a complete physiological transition to the smolt life 

26 history stage. Therefore, the hatchery programs posing the least risk from competition are those that 

27 consistently produce full-term, rapidly migrating smolts that use river corridors as a “highway” to the 

28 ocean with minimal foraging and competition with natural-origin fish along the way. This ideal is difficult 

29 to achieve. Not all individuals in a population undergo the smolt transformation at the same time. 

30 Evidence suggests that smoltification timing can vary by 45 or more days within a single population 

31 (Quinn 2005). Most hatchery programs, however, release fish over a shorter period (e.g., 2 weeks). Such 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix B 

US v Oregon EIS 237 2018 

1 releases will include fish that have not yet smolted, as well as fish for which the peak smolt condition has 

2 passed. Juveniles released too early or too late with respect to smoltification are likely to migrate slowly, 

3 if at all. Because of their prolonged period in freshwater, such fish have a much greater opportunity to 

4 compete with natural-origin fish for food and space. Competition heightens if hatchery-origin fish are 

5 more numerous and are of equal or greater size. Although non-migratory, hatchery-origin juveniles 

6 (residuals) may eventually die, there will be a period when there may be significant competition with 

7 natural-origin fish.

8 Migrant juvenile chum salmon and fall Chinook salmon spend an extended period in the estuarine 

9 environment feeding and growing before they move into marine waters (Quinn 2005). Hatchery programs 

10 that release sub-yearling juveniles thus are more likely to create a competitive environment for natural11 origin fall Chinook salmon and chum salmon. This situation may be particularly acute in the Columbia 

12 River, where the estuary has suffered a major loss of shallow water rearing habitat in the past century 

13 (Bottom et al. 2005). These habitat losses are likely to have reduced the capacity of these areas to support 

14 juvenile salmon, therefore exacerbating competition between hatchery-origin and natural-origin fish for 

15 the remaining habitat.

16 Competition may also occur within stream habitats when young, pre-migratory fish are released, 

17 regardless of the species involved. Release of large numbers of fry or pre-smolts in a small area has great 

18 potential for competitive effects because interactions can occur for long periods, up to 3 years in the case 

19 of steelhead. The potential effect of competition on the behavior, and hence survival, of natural-origin fish 

20 depends on the degree of spatial and temporal overlap, relative sizes, and relative abundance of the two 

21 groups (Steward and Bjornn 1990). Effects would also depend on the degree of dietary overlap, food 

22 availability, size-related differences in prey selection, foraging tactics, and differences in microhabitat use 

23 (Steward and Bjornn 1990). 

24 In addition to the freshwater and estuarine environments, competition between hatchery-origin and 

25 natural-origin fish may extend into the marine environment. Evidence exists for density-dependent ocean 

26 survival affecting pink and chum salmon hatchery programs in Alaska, Russia, and Japan (Pearcy 1992). 

27 However, it is unclear whether density-dependent survival is a factor for coho salmon, steelhead, and 

28 Chinook salmon. 

29 Hatchery Facility Effects 

30 Potential risks to natural populations of salmon and steelhead from the operation of hatchery facilities 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix B 

US v Oregon EIS 238 2018 

1 include: hatchery facility failure (power or water loss leading to catastrophic fish losses); hatchery facility 

2 water intake effects (stream dewatering and fish entrainment); hatchery passage effects (blocking 

3 upstream or downstream fish passage); and hatchery facility effluent discharge effects (deterioration of 

4 downstream water quality). 

5 Risk of hatchery facility failure is of particular concern when facilities rear species listed under ESA. 

6 Factors such as water supply flow reductions or failure, flooding, and poor facility conditions may cause 

7 hatchery facility failure or the catastrophic loss of fish under propagation. 

8 Hatchery Facility Water Intake Effects. Water withdrawals for hatcheries within spawning and rearing 

9 areas can diminish streamflow, impeding migration and affecting the spawning behavior of salmon and 

10 steelhead. In addition, that portion of a hatchery facility’s water supply that comes from a water source 

11 containing natural-origin fish must have an intake structure with adequate screening such that injury and 

12 mortality, whether from impingement or permanent removal, is very low or avoided altogether. 

13 Hatchery facilities can have many types of in-stream structures, depending on the location and type of 

14 facility. Most commonly, hatchery in-stream structures are for water supply intakes. These structures, 

15 typically are used to increase the available water volume for the facility by either utilizing a small dam to 

16 back water up and increase depth and pressure for non-pump facility intakes, or increase the depth for 

17 pump facility intakes. These facilities typically require a structure across the entire width of the stream or 

18 a portion of the stream depending on the site-specific requirements. These structures can affect access to 

19 usable habitat above the hatchery facility. These structures can also affect the downstream migration of 

20 fish in the stream, water volumes and flow are significantly affected by the structure or if the structure did 

21 not consider downstream migration in the original design. 

22 Effluent discharges can change water temperature, pH, suspended solids, ammonia, organic nitrogen, total 

23 phosphorus, and chemical oxygen demand in the receiving stream’s mixing zone (Kendra 1991). Little 

24 information and data exist to show how a hatchery facility’s effluent affects salmon and steelhead and 

25 other stream dwelling organisms. Generally, the level of impact depends on the amount of discharge and 

26 the flow volume of the receiving stream. Any effects probably occur at the immediate point of discharge, 

27 because the effluent would dilute rapidly as it moves downstream. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires 

28 hatcheries (i.e., aquatic animal production facilities) with annual production greater than 20,000 pounds to 

29 obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to discharge effluent to 

30 surface waters. Currently the states of Washington and Oregon implement NPDES permit systems. The 

31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently administers hatchery effluent permitting for the 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix B 

US v Oregon EIS 239 2018 

1 state of Idaho (Section 1.7.8, Clean Water Act). These permits are intended to protect aquatic life and 

2 public health and to ensure that every facility treats its wastewater. The effects from the releases are 

3 analyzed prior to the issuance of the permit, and site-specific discharge limits are set. Additionally, 

4 monitoring and reporting requirements for the permits are subject to enforcement actions (EPA 2006). 

5 Potential Differences in Effect-level of the U.S. v OR Agreement-Referenced Hatchery Production

6 After a thorough review, NMFS has identified the following additional effects to salmon and steelhead to 

7 disclose, beyond those discussed in the Mitchell Act EIS, which would be likely to result from the 

8 hatchery production programs referenced in the agreement tables B1-B7. A brief overview of those 

9 impacts is below, but for detailed program-specific disclosures of impacts please refer to the details in

10 Table 2. 

11 Conservation Programs 

12 For conservation programs where the production level has been decreased, relative to the programs in the 

13 Mitchell Act EIS (10 programs), the potential changes in impact to affected natural populations of salmon 

14 and steelhead would be: reductions to the abundance benefit of the conservation programs; higher benefits 

15 to the population’s productivity; reduced risks to population genetic diversity; and a likely lower benefit 

16 to the population’s special structure. 

17 For conservation programs where the production level has been increased, relative to the programs in the 

18 Mitchell Act EIS (11 programs), the potential changes in impact to affected natural populations of salmon 

19 and steelhead would be: increases to the abundance benefit of the conservation programs; lower benefits 

20 to the population’s productivity; increased risks to population genetic diversity; and a likely greater 

21 benefit to the population’s special structure.

22 Programs Identified as having “Both” purposes 

23 For programs identified as having both conservation and harvest goals, and where the production level 

24 has been decreased, relative to the programs in the Mitchell Act EIS (3 programs), the potential changes 

25 in impact to affected natural populations of salmon and steelhead would be: lower benefits to population 

26 abundance; higher benefits to population productivity; lower risks to population genetic diversity; and 

27 lower benefit to population special structure. 

28 For conservation programs where the production level has been increased, relative to the programs in the 

29 Mitchell Act EIS (8 programs), the potential changes in impact to affected natural populations of salmon 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix B 

US v Oregon EIS 240 2018 

1 and steelhead would be: higher benefits to population abundance; higher risks to population productivity; 

2 higher risks to population genetic diversity; and higher benefit to population special structure. 

3 Harvest Programs

4 For programs identified as having harvest-only goals, and where the production level has been decreased, 

5 relative to the programs in the Mitchell Act EIS (5 programs), the potential changes in impact to affected 

6 natural populations of salmon and steelhead would be: lower risks to population abundance; lower risks to 

7 the population’s productivity; lower risks to population genetic diversity; and lower risks to population 

8 special structure.

9 For programs identified as having harvest-only goals, and where the production level has been increased, 

10 relative to the programs in the Mitchell Act EIS (7 program), the potential changes in impact to affected 

11 natural populations of salmon and steelhead would be: higher risks to population abundance; higher risks 

12 to population productivity; higher risks to population genetic diversity; and higher risks to population 

13 special structure.

14 All programs with different production levels 

15 For these programs, regardless of the goal of the program, the operation of hatchery facilities 

16 presents potential risks to salmon and steelhead populations residing in the streams where the 

17 facilities are located. For these programs, regardless of the goal of the program, the operation of 

18 hatchery facilities presents potential risks to salmon and steelhead populations residing in the streams 

19 where the facilities are located. In reviewing the differences in production levels between the agreement20 referenced programs and those analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS, NMFS considered the increases in 

21 production, for some programs, and the decreases in production, for some programs, represented by the 

22 programs in the US v Oregon agreement, relative to the programs, as analyzed, in the Mitchell Act EIS. 

23 The small scale of these changes, in numbers of fish, and the relationship of that change to the total 

24 production at the facilities used makes it difficult to estimate the likely change in facility effects to water 

25 quality from these production differences. Additionally, considering that the facilities operating in the 

26 Columbia River basin, including the facilities associated with the production in the US v Oregon

27 agreement, operate under existing federal Clean Water Act (CWA), National Pollution Discharge 

28 Elimination System (NPDES) permits (when required), NMFS concludes that the differences in the 

29 hatchery program releases, included in the US v Oregon Agreement, relative to the programs analyzed in 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix B 

US v Oregon EIS 241 2018 

1 the Mitchell Act EIS, are not likely to have substantively different effects to the water quality where they 

2 operate. 

3 For these programs, regardless of the goal of the program, the release of hatchery fish into the waters 

4 where natural salmon and steelhead populations reside presents risks from ecological effects. As 

5 described above, these ecological risks can negatively impact these population through competition for 

6 space and resources and through direct and indirect predation. Here NMFS assessment utilizes a more 

7 direct relationship between the size of the program and the potential for impact through ecological 

8 interaction, with increases in production resulting in higher potential ecological risks and lower 

9 production resulting in lower ecological risks, relative to the analysis in the Mitchell Act EIS, see Table 2.

10 References:

11 Berejikian, B. A., E. P. Tezek, S. L. Schroder, C. M. Knudson, and J. J. Hard. 1997. Reproductive 

12 behavioral interactions between spawning and wild and captivity reared coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

13 kisutch). International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Journal of Marine Science. Volume 54, 

14 pages 1,040 to 1,049. 

15 Bottom, D. L., C. A. Simenstad, J. Burke, A. M. Bapista, D. A. Jay, K. K. Jones, E. Casillas, and M. H. 

16 Schiewe. 2005. Salmon at river’s end: the role of the estuary in the decline and recovery of Columbia 

17 River salmon. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-68, 

18 246 pages. 

19 Fleming, I. A. and M. R. Gross. 1993. Breeding success of hatchery and wild coho salmon 

20 (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in competition. Ecological Applications. Volume 3(2), pages 230 to 245. 

21 Kendra, W. 1991. Quality of salmonid hatchery effluents during a summer low-flow season. Transactions 

22 of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 120, pages 43 to 51. 

23 McElhaney, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, and E. P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable 

24 salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Department of

25 Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-42, 156 pages. 

26 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2014. Final Environmental Impact Statement to Inform 

27 Columbia River Basin Hatchery Operations and the Funding of Mitchell Act Hatchery Programs. 

28 2120 p. 

29 Pearcy, W. G. 1992. Ocean ecology of north Pacific salmonids. Washington Sea Grant Program. 

30 University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 179 pages. 

31 Quinn, T. P. 2005. The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. University of Washington

32 Press, Seattle, WA. 363 pages. 

33 Species Interaction Work Group (SIWG). 1984. Evaluation of potential interaction effects in the planning 

34 and selection of salmonid enhancement projects. J. Rensel, chairman, and K. Fresh editor. Report 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix B 

US v Oregon EIS 242 2018 

1 prepared for the Enhancement Planning Team for Implementation of the Salmon and Steelhead 

2 Conservation and Enhancement Act of 1980. WDFW. Olympia, WA. 80 pages. 

3 Steward, C. R. and T. C. Bjornn. 1990. Supplementation of salmon and steelhead stocks with hatchery 

4 fish: a synthesis of published literature. In Miller, W.H., editor. Analysis of salmon and steelhead 

5 supplementation. Report to Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Portland, OR. Project No. 88-

6 100. 126 pages 

7 Taylor, E. B. 1991. Behavioral interaction and habitat use in juvenile Chinook, Oncorhynchus 

8 tshawytscha, and coho, O. kisutch, salmon. Animal Behavior. Volume 42, pages 729 to 744. 

9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Compliance Guide for the Concentrated Aquatic 

10 Animal Production Point Source Category. Engineering and Analysis Division Office of Science and 

11 Technology. EPA-821-B-05-001. 292 pages. Available at 

12 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/aquaculture/upload/2006_05_03_guide_aquaculture_gui

13 dance_full-final.pdf. 

14 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Biological assessment for operation of USFWS operated 

15 or funded hatcheries in the Columbia River basin in 1995-1998. Submitted to NMFS under cover 

16 letter dated August 2, 1994, from William F. Shake, Acting Regional Director to Brian Brown, 

17 NMFS.

 18 

 19 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix B 

US v Oregon EIS 243 2018 

Page intentionally left blank.

[the following table is on a different scaled paper size of 11” x 17”] 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix B 

US v Oregon EIS 244 2018 

Table B-2. Program-specific Review of Potential Differences in Impact Level, Relative to the same Program Analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS (alternate shading for ESU/DPS affected).

Species/Run

Program 

Location (MA 

EIS subbasin)

Proposed 

Hatchery

Program release 

site ( US 

v Oregon

Production Tables 

B1-B7)

Program Type Affected Salmon/ 

Steelhead ESU/DPS

ESA Listing 

Status of 

Potentially 

affected Pop

Hatchery

Program 

Production 

Referenced in 

US v Oregon

Production 

Tables 

B1-B7 

Program Size or 

Range Analyzed 

in the Mitchell 

Act EIS

Difference in 

US v Oregon

Hatchery

program 

size[1] 

Potential Impacts of US v Oregon Production to Natural Salmon and Steelhead Populations, 

Relative to the program size analyzed in the MA EIS)

Effects to Salmon and Steelhead population (VSP) Ecological 

Effects - Target 

population and 

other salmonids

Facility 

Effects

Abundance Productivity Diversity Spatial 

Structure

Spring Chinook 

(Agreement Table 

B1)

Methow Twisp River Acc. 

Site Conservation UCR Spring Chinook Endangered 29,123 77,000-101,000 -71% lower benefit higher benefit lower risk lower benefit lower risk no difference

Wenatchee Chiwawa R. Acc. 

Site Conservation UCR Spring Chinook Endangered 144,026 249,000-672,000 -96% lower benefit higher benefit lower risk lower benefit lower risk no difference

Wenatchee Nason Creek Conservation UCR Spring Chinook Endangered 223,670 250,000 -11% lower benefit higher benefit lower risk lower benefit lower risk no difference

Clearwater Meadow Creek 

(Selway) Conservation

Snake River

spring/Summer 

Chinook

Not listed in 

Clearwater River 400,000 430,000 -7% lower benefit higher benefit lower risk lower benefit lower risk no difference

Clearwater Clear Cr. Harvest

Snake River

spring/Summer 

Chinook

Not listed in 

Clearwater River 635,000 701,000 -9% lower risk lower risk lower risk lower risk lower risk no difference

Salmon On Station (Rapid 

River) Harvest

Snake River

spring/Summer 

Chinook

Threatened 2,500,000 2,600,000

Salmon 15% higher risk higher risk higher risk higher risk higher risk no difference Little Salmon 

River Harvest

Snake River

spring/Summer 

Chinook

Threatened 150,000 included in above

Spring Chinook 

(Agreement Table 

B1)

Cont.

Snake Hells Canyon –

Snake R. Harvest

Snake River

spring/Summer 

Chinook

Threatened 350,000 included in above

Clearwater Clearwater 

River/NPTH Both

Snake River

spring/Summer 

Chinook

Not listed in 

Clearwater River 200,000 125,000 60% higher benefit higher risk higher risk higher benefit higher risk no difference

Clearwater On Station 

(Dworshak) Harvest

Snake River

spring/Summer 

Chinook

Not listed in 

Clearwater River 1,050,000 1,000,000 5% no difference no difference no difference no difference higher risk no difference

Deschutes On Station (Round 

Butte) Harvest Mid-C Spring Chinook Not listed 380,000 240,000 58% higher risk higher risk higher risk higher risk higher risk higher risk
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix B 

US v Oregon EIS 245 2018 

Hood

Hood River 

(Round 

Butte/Parkdale)

Both LCR Chinook Threatened 250,000 75,000-85,000 194% higher benefit higher risk higher risk higher benefit higher risk no difference

Summer Chinook 

(Agreement Table 

B2)

UCR mainstem Chelan River Harvest UCR Summer/Fall 

Chinook Not listed 400,000 600,000

-4% no difference no difference no difference no difference Lower risk no difference

UCR mainstem Chelan River Harvest UCR Summer/Fall 

Chinook Not listed 176,000 included in above

Wenatchee Dryden Ponds Both UCR Summer/Fall 

Chinook Not listed 500,000 863,000 -42% lower benefit higher benefit lower risk lower benefit lower risk no difference

Summer Chinook 

(Agreement Table 

B2)

Cont.

Methow Carlton Rearing 

Pond Both UCR Summer/Fall Chinook Not listed 200,000 400,000 -50% lower benefit higher benefit lower risk lower benefit lower risk no difference

Okanogan

Okanogan/ 

Similkameen 

Rivers 

Both UCR Summer/Fall 

Chinook Not listed 166,569 576,000-1,450,000 -89% lower benefit higher benefit lower risk lower benefit lower risk no difference

UCR mainstem Wells or other 

locations Research UCR Summer/Fall Chinook Not listed 200,000 399,000 -50% lower benefit higher benefit lower risk lower benefit lower risk no difference

Yakima

Yakima Basin 

(Prosser/Marion 

Drain)

Both UCR Summer/Fall 

Chinook Not listed 1,000,000 500,000 100% higher benefit higher risk higher risk higher benefit higher risk no difference

Salmon Johnson Creek Conservation

Snake River

spring/Summer 

Chinook

Threatened 150,000 100,000 50% higher benefit lower benefit higher risk higher benefit higher risk no difference

Salmon Curtis Cr/Cabin Cr Conservation

Snake River

spring/Summer 

Chinook

Threatened 300,000 (eyed 

eggs) New Program[2] benefit benefit risk benefit risk N/A 

Sockeye 

(Agreement Table 

B3)

Salmon Stanley Basin Conservation Snake River Sockeye Endangered 1,000,000 500,000 100% higher benefit lower benefit higher risk higher higher risk no difference

Umatilla River Umatilla Both Reintroduction Not listed 600,000 included in below

39% higher benefit higher risk higher risk higher benefit higher risk no difference

Fall Chinook 

(Agreement Table 

B5)

Umatilla River 

(Pendleton 

Acclimation Site) 

Umatilla Both Reintroduction Not listed 780,000 999,000-1,080,000

Umatilla River Umatilla Both Reintroduction Not listed 120,000 included in above
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix B 

US v Oregon EIS 246 2018 

Steelhead 

(Agreement Table 

B6)

Twisp River 

Various locations Methow Conservation UCR Steelhead Threatened 48,000 50,000 -4% no difference no difference no difference no difference lower risk no difference

Cottonwood 

Pond, Grande 

Ronde River

Grande Ronde Harvest Snake River

Steelhead Threatened 225,000 160,000-200,000 13% higher risk high risk higher risk higher risk higher risk no difference

Steelhead 

(Agreement Table 

B6)

Cont.

Lower South 

Fork Clearwater – 

Red House Hole

Clearwater Harvest Snake River

Steelhead Threatened 400,000 1,050,000

-41% lower risk lower risk lower risk lower risk lower risk no difference

Lower South 

Fork Clearwater – 

Red House Hole

Clearwater Harvest Snake River

Steelhead Threatened 220,000 Included in above

Lower SF 

Clearwater Clearwater Both Snake RiverSteelhead Threatened 290,000 1,050,000

-41% lower benefit higher benefit lower risk lower benefit lower risk no difference

Meadow Cr., SF 

Clearwater Clearwater Conservation Snake RiverSteelhead Threatened 210,000 included in above

Newsome Ck SF 

Clearwater Clearwater Conservation Snake RiverSteelhead Threatened 123,000 included in above

Lolo Creek, MF 

Clearwater Clearwater Conservation Snake RiverSteelhead Threatened 200,000 60,000 233% higher benefit lower benefit higher risk higher benefit higher risk no difference

East Fork Salmon Salmon Both Snake River

Steelhead Threatened <=200,000 135,000-171,000 17% higher benefit higher risk higher risk higher benefit higher risk no difference

Steelhead 

(Agreement Table 

B6)

Cont.

Upper Salmon 

Tribs. Salmon Conservation Snake RiverSteelhead Threatened 1,000,000 1,200,000 -17% lower benefit higher benefit lower risk lower benefit lower risk no difference

Yankee Fork Salmon Both Snake River

Steelhead Threatened 440,000 118,000-363,000K 21% higher benefit higher risk higher risk higher benefit higher risk higher risk

Touchet River Walla Walla Harvest Mid-C Steelhead Threatened 100,000 84,000 19% higher risk higher risk higher risk higher risk higher risk no difference

Coho 

(Agreement Table 

B7)

Icicle Creek (at 

the NFH) Wenatchee Conservation Reintroduction Not listed 500,000 included in below

80% higher benefit lower benefit higher risk higher benefit higher risk no difference Nason Creek Wenatchee Conservation Reintroduction Not listed 400,000 808,000-1,000,000

Beaver Creek Wenatchee Conservation Reintroduction Not listed 100,000 included in above
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix B 

US v Oregon EIS 247 2018 

[1] The difference in hatchery program size is based on agreement production size relative to the Mitchell Act EIS analyzed specific size or the high end of the production range, represented. 

[2] The Curtis Creek/Cabin Creek program is an eyed-egg, egg box program to supplement natural, juvenile summer Chinook salmon production. 

[3] The coho salmon released into the Lostine River, for reintroduction purposes, were formerly released into the Umatilla River.

Methow 

Tributaries Methow Conservation Reintroduction Not listed 800,000 included in above

Clear Cr., Lapwai 

Cr., Nez Perce 

Tribal Hatchery 

Clearwater Conservation Reintroduction Not listed 550,000 830,000

27% higher benefit lower benefit higher risk higher benefit higher risk no difference

Clear Creek Clearwater Conservation Reintroduction Not listed 500,000 included in above 

total

Grande Ronde/ 

Lostine River Grande Ronde Conservation Reintroduction Not listed 500,000 New Release Location [3] benefit benefit risk benefit risk N/A
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 248 2018 

 1 

2 

3 

4 [ New Appendix. Not in tracked changes] 

5 APPENDIX C 

6 

7 US v OREGON AGREEMENT EIS

8 

9 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 249 2018 

1 Appendix C

2 Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Responses

3 Introduction 

4 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published for public review and comment on June 

5 23, 2017. The comment period was open for an initial 45-days (82 Fed. Reg. 28656, June 23, 2017) 

6 ending on August 7, 2017. Due to several requests from the public the comment period was extended by 

7 an additional 14 days to close on August 21, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 35200, July 28, 2017). 

8 Additionally, NMFS established a public web page at 

9 http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/salmon_steelhead/united_states_v_oregon_DEIS.html

10 with a copy of the Federal Register notice and the EIS. 

11 This public process resulted in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) receiving 15 comment 

12 letters that were used to inform, shape, and improve this final EIS. This Appendix is organized into the 

13 following sections. 

14 ● List of comment letters received

15 ● Global comments and responses 

16 ● All comments received together with NMFS’ written responses. These are organized into a table 

17 with a reference to the letter number and the comment number of the individual 

18 letters/testimonies received and the response to each. 

19 ● Copies of the original individual letters received

20 List of Comment Letters Received

21 NMFS received the following letters during the public comment period on the Draft EIS: 

Letter Number Commenter

Federal Agencies

1 Department of Interior (DOI)

2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Tribes

3 Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee

States and State Agencies
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 250 2018 

Letter Number Commenter

4 State of Montana

5 Idaho Department of Fish and Game

6 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Local Utilities

7 Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington

Organizations

8 The Conservation Angler (6/15/17)1

9 Wild Fish Conservancy (6/21/17) 1

10 Northwest River Partners

11 Wild Fish Conservancy

12 The Conservation Angler

Members of the Public

13 Kevin Malone

14 Jean Publiee

15 Kevin Malone

1 When multiple comment letters were received from the same organization the date in this 

table denotes when the first comment was received.

1 Global Comments and Responses 

2 In reviewing comments received on the Draft EIS, NMFS found that there were common themes in 

3 several of the comment letters. As noted below and in its response to individual comments NMFS has 

4 revised the EIS where appropriate and provided additionally clarifying language throughout the EIS. 

5 Rather than responding to these comments individually and likely repeating very similar if not exact 

6 answers, NMFS has generated a series of global responses to address the nine (9) commonly themed, 

7 global comments. 

8 1. Public Comment Period. Several commenters asked that the 45-day comment period be extended. 

9 In response, NMFS extended the 45 regulatory comment period by 14 days, from August 7, 2017 

10 to August 21, 2017. The references to the Federal Register notices for the comment period and its 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 251 2018 

1 extension can be found at the beginning of this Appendix. 

2 Response: NMFS extended the 45 regulatory comment period by 14 days, from August 7, 2017 to August 

3 21, 2017. 

4 2. Preferred Alternative. Commenters noted that the EIS did not identify a Preferred Alternative. 

5 Response: The EIS did not identify a Preferred Alternative; per the NEPA Implementing Regulations at 

6 40 CFR 1500-1508 and NOAA's NEPA Policy found in the Companion Manual to NAO 216-6A, NMFS

7 is required to identify a preferred alternative in the FEIS. This FEIS identifies Alternative 1 - Extension of 

8 Current Agreement as the Preferred Alternative as discussed in the "Summary of Changes from Draft EIS 

9 to Final EIS" before the Table of Contents in the FEIS. 

10 3. Hydropower Cumulative Effects. Commenters noted that Harvest and Hydropower operations are 

11 connected legally, inseparable biologically, and should be evaluated together to comply with 

12 NEPA.

13 Response: In accordance with NEPA, the USACE, BOR, and BPA, have commenced the process for 

14 preparation of an EIS on the Columbia River System (also known as the FCRPS) operations and 

15 configurations for 14 federal projects in the interior Columbia Basin. In this Columbia River System 

16 Operations EIS, the three agencies intend to present a reasonable range of alternatives for long-term 

17 system operations and evaluate the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts on flood risk 

18 management, irrigation, power generation, navigation, fish and wildlife, cultural resources and recreation. 

19 Details of the EIS can be found at http://www.crso.info/eis.html. 

20 Several commenters identified the need to analyze harvest and hydropower in a single EIS or 

21 simultaneously. NEPA does not require that all actions that may have cumulative effects on the same 

22 resource be analyzed in a single EIS. This is particularly true here, where the action agencies are distinct 

23 and the timing of the two actions are not compatible. Currently the FCRPS action agencies are expected 

24 to complete their EIS in 2021. While NMFS chose to complete its FCRPS and US v Oregon biological 

25 opinions together in 2008, that discretionary decision by the agency does not require a single EIS for all 

26 actions affecting salmon in the Columbia River Basin.

27 Moreover, examining these independent projects in a single EIS is not required because NMFS has 

28 captured the impact of the dams in its analysis. In Section 4.1.1, NMFS recognized that in addition to 

29 harvest, loses due to natural mortality or turnoff to mainstem tributaries, and mortality associated with 

30 hydro operations, illegal fishing, and habitat degradation account for differences in fish stocks between 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 252 2018 

1 the mouth of the river and the last upstream counting station. NMFS has incorporated an 'interdam loss' 

2 metric in the EIS in each of the charts in Section 4.2. As demonstrated in the Text Box 4-1, this interdam 

3 loss metric is calculated from the values in the tables that present Defined Metrics in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.

4 We have updated language in Section 5, Cumulative Impacts, to more clearly explain how our “low”, 

5 “average”, and “high” abundance modeling approach incorporates upstream and downstream mortality 

6 impacts. In addition, Section 5 has been updated to more clearly explain how this EIS considers and 

7 discloses impacts to the affected environment from the hydro system.

8 The approach used by NMFS allows us to compare the harvest alternatives against each other, thereby 

9 fulfilling a key purpose of NEPA – to support informed decision making. This approach provides the 

10 basis for comparing alternatives in support of the proposed action that includes the signing of a new 

11 management agreement and the issuance of an ITS before the current management agreement expires at 

12 the end of 2017. 

13 4. Hatchery Cumulative Effects. Commenters noted that Harvest and Hatcheries operations are 

14 connected legally, inseparable biologically, and should be evaluated together to comply with 

15 NEPA. 

16 Response: We do not agree with suggestion that we are not incorporating hatcheries into our analysis. 

17 Several comments indicated there is dependency of many fisheries on hatchery production, which the EIS 

18 acknowledges abundantly. 

19 Not only do we acknowledge and include in the EIS that many of the fisheries managed under the 

20 Agreement rely on hatchery-origin fish, but additionally, we analyzed the effects of hatchery production 

21 on affected resources within the EIS. 

22 Moreover, hatchery production in the region is carried out by a wide variety of public and private entities. 

23 Those entities are responsible for running their own programs and NMFS has no authority to require that 

24 they all participate in a single EIS process. Nor does NEPA require a single EIS for multiple actions 

25 taken by multiple agencies across a broad period of time. To the extent the comment is focused on 

26 hatcheries funded by the Mitchell Act, NMFS did complete a comprehensive EIS analyzing how that 

27 funding is disbursed. The analysis in that EIS is incorporated here where appropriate, consistent with the 

28 NEPA implementing regulations.

29 5. Spawning Habitat Capacity. Several commenters asked that NMFS clarify and substantiate the 

30 following statement that was made in the EIS: "Furthermore, any increase in escapement of adult 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 253 2018 

1 fish to terminal spawning areas does not translate into an increase in juvenile salmonids because 

2 the capacity limit of the current spawning habitat does not allow for increased juvenile production 

3 at higher escapement numbers."

4 Response: The FEIS has been modified in subsection 4.4.1 to address the relationship between habitat 

5 productivity and resulting juvenile production. 

6 6. 10-year forecasting. Commenters asked that the Final EIS clarify the federal agencies’ 

7 assumption that the average and range of conditions experienced in the past 10 years will apply 

8 for the next 10 years, especially considering the weak stocks, recovering stocks, and climate 

9 change.

10 Response: As explained in subsection 4.1.1. we have disclosed the parameters and assumptions we use to 

11 model the alternatives for worst case scenarios related to low abundances of each of the stocks. 

12 Comments that suggest the use of our 10-year forecast for effects should be more adverse do not provide 

13 quantitative parameters that we could incorporate in our analysis. Without a basis for further 

14 characterizing worst case scenarios we cannot provide actual outcomes. Using the lowest observed 

15 runsize between 2005 and 2015 in our modeling reasonably accounts for adverse unforeseen 

16 environmental impacts. That result is the “low” number used throughout the EIS. This low estimate, 

17 informs our analysis by modeling what a poor climate regime would look like. These low estimates under 

18 a poor climate regime would become more frequent occurrences.

19 7. Non-Retention Impacts. Commenters asked that the Final EIS discuss potential non-retention 

20 impacts (e.g., incidental injury, delayed mortality) from all fisheries including catch and release.

21 Response: We disagree with the general comment that we did not account for delayed mortality in our 

22 analysis. Alternatives that use a goal for escapement upstream of fisheries account for delayed mortality. 

23 The counting station will only count fish that reach its location. Fish that are not harvested but die as a 

24 result of injury during the fishery do not make it to the counting station, but fisheries are still held to 

25 meeting the escapement goal assessed at said location. Alternatives that use a harvest rate, whether fixed 

26 or abundance based, also need an upstream fish count to include in the denominator of their rate 

27 calculation. This means the rate, which is the allowable fish available for harvest, is also limited by the 

28 number of fish reaching a specific upstream location (this can be a counting station, like a dam, or a 

29 terminal tributary spawning ground, etc.). Just as the escapement based alternative, if a lower number of 

30 fish reach that upstream location due to incidental injury, delayed mortality, illegal harvest, etc. en route 

31 then the denominator in the harvest rate calculation will be lower in numerical value and in order to stay 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 254 2018 

1 within the allowed rate fisheries are restricted. This by default takes into account incidental injury, 

2 delayed mortality, etc. across all alternative analyzed in this EIS. 

3 8. Several comments were received regarding NMFS' conclusions of the likely impacts to salmon 

4 and steelhead populations from the implementation of Alternative 5, curtailment of fisheries. 

5 Response: These conclusions involved NMFS' assumption of the continuation of the hatchery production 

6 referenced in the US v Oregon Agreement. When this production assumption is combined with the 

7 curtailment of fisheries, the result is an increase in the escapement levels of hatchery-origin adults onto 

8 the spawning grounds. The comments were centered around the question of "why would NMFS not 

9 assume that reductions would be made to the hatchery programs"? 

10 Decreasing hatchery production in response to a voluntary curtailment of fisheries would not be 

11 instantaneous or certain. Hatcheries in the project area have a wide variety of funders and varying legal 

12 obligations related to the production of fish. Changes to the US v Oregon Agreement would not be 

13 sufficient to affect widespread changes to hatchery production in the region. Funders and the relevant 

14 regulatory agencies would have to agree to alter production levels for individual programs. Therefore, 

15 NMFS’ assumption that hatchery production would not be dramatically reduced is reasonable. 

16 9. Ocean harvest. Several comments that ocean and freshwater harvest are connected legally, 

17 inseparable biologically, and should be evaluated together to comply with NEPA. 

18 Response: Agreements and ESA consultations that govern escapement levels from the ocean fisheries are 

19 separate from those that affect in-river freshwater fishing. Marine fisheries have requirements to meet 

20 conservation levels that return a number of fish to each river consistent with provisions of the Pacific 

21 Salmon Treaty and Pacific Fishery Management Council's Salmon Fishery Management Plan. Scientists 

22 from federal, state, and tribal governments collectively analyze available data on salmon stocks using 

23 peer-reviewed models to forecast stock abundance and the impacts of various fisheries scenarios on those 

24 forecast abundances. Post-season analyses are used to evaluate the effectiveness of fisheries management 

25 in meeting the adopted goals and models are then routinely evaluated and updated. Annual fisheries are 

26 shaped, using these models and analyses, to meet agreed upon goals for the amount of salmon that should 

27 escape the ocean fisheries and be available for inside fisheries harvest and spawning. Freshwater fisheries 

28 are subsequently managed off this returning abundance expected at the Columbia River mouth, which is 

29 how we analyzed fisheries in the US v Oregon Agreement. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 255 2018 

Letter 

Number

Comment 

Number Comment: Response: 

1 1 The Department has no comments on the document at this time. We appreciate the 

opportunity to comment.

Thank you for your submission.

2 1 The DEIS does not clearly identify a preferred or a proposed alternative from among the 

options analyzed and discussed.

See Generic Response 2: Preferred Alternative

3 1 With the listings of salmon under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") beginning in 1991, 

the state and Tribal fishery managers revisited their harvest management and voluntarily 

adjusted it to ensure that it is responsive to the needs of ESA-listed fish. The Tribes 

voluntarily chose to ensure their Treaty harvest was responsive to the needs of the fish in 

these United States Oregon Management Agreements. Other sources of mortality have yet 

to make concomitant adjustments in light of the needs of the fish and that the burden of 

conservation has yet to be fairly allocated consistent with the Treaty case law.

See Generic Response 3: Hydropower Cumulative Effects

3 2 Revise to correctly describe parties to the agreement Thank you. This correction has been made in the FEIS.

3 3 Page i., lines 14-18 The descriptions of the objectives of the Management Agreement

should incorporate the purposes set forth in the Management Agreement. See Management 

Agreement, Preamble, Docket #2546. 

Thank you. This addition has been made in the FEIS.

3 4 Page 3. Ensure consistency and accuracy of project area; the foregoing description and 

Tables 1-1 to 1-4 is different from description in 1.3.1.1. Treaty Indian Fishery location 

and jurisdiction lines 10-13/1-3/7-9 on pages 9-10. 

Thank you for your comment. We have reviewed and provided consistent descriptions 

in the mentioned sections.

3 5 Page 29 - 30. Lines 26-29 and line 1. Revise to delete "fishing" and replace with "harvest" 

(as shown).

Thank you. The revision has been made in the FEIS.

3 6 Pages 3l-32. Lines 29-30 and line 1. This is an inaccurate description regarding Pacific 

Salmon Treaty fishery framework. Suggest deleting phrase "requires that a large number of 

fish return" and replacing with "requires a large forecasted abundance index of fish" (as 

shown). 

Thank you. A revision has been made to reflect this comment while maintaining 

straightforward language. 

3 7 Pages 33-34. Lines 28-30 and lines 1-3. Include reference to "hydrosystem operations" in 

the parenthesis (as shown). 

Thank you. The revision has been made in the FEIS.

3 8 Page 44. Lines 18-22. Flagged. Tables 3-5 to 3-8 there is only table 3-8 that includes a 

column titled "Average Loss to Granite", the others do not include similar information. 

Suggest those tables be updated to include the average loss values to a particular counting 

point. 

The other tables do contain the same information, as the calculation in Table 3-8 was 

simply the escapement past fisheries minus the final counting station. In the call out box 

in Section 4.1.1, page 79, there is a description of how to interpret the tables presented. 

Table 3-8 was modified for consistency with tables 3-5 through 3-7 based on this 

comment. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 256 2018 

3 9 Page 61. This paragraph is inaccurate. There are no Tribal commercial fisheries (or any US

v Oregon tribal covered fisheries in this subregion) in the lower Snake River subregion. 

This would be consistent with tribal harvest values reported in this section and other parts 

of the DEIS.

Thank you. The revision has been made in the FEIS.

3 10 Page 65. The Snake River and its main tributaries, the Clearwater and Salmon, account for 

35 percent of the Upriver steelhead harvest from the Columbia River system (NMFS

2003). Lines 24-25. We question why this information on Snake River and tributary 

harvest is included here for recreational fishery. Those fisheries are not covered under US v 

Oregon.

Thank you for the comment, this reference has been removed in the FEIS.

3 11 Page 69. Lines 15-17. The State of Washington is the only US v Oregon party to fish in the 

lower Snake River region. That is a recreational fishery and only involves the Upriver 

Spring Chinook management period and stocks (i.e., Washington utilizes a small 

percentage of its total allowable harvest rate for mainstem fishery that target stocks going 

to mid-Columbia, Upper Columbia and Snake River to target the Snake River 

spring/summer Chinook stock in its recreational fishery that occurs in that subregion). 

Thank you for your comment, it has been noted.

3 12 Page 69. Lines 23-26. Revise sentence as shown to read as follows: "More than two-thirds 

of jobs and income generated by recreational fishing occur in the Lower Columbia River

Subregion, with most of the remainder occurring in the Mid-Columbia River Subregion 

and a small amount (1.4 percent of income and 2 percent of jobs as a result of recreational 

fishery conducted by Washington) in the Lower Snake River Subregion (Table 3-25). 

Thank you. The revision has been made in the FEIS.

3 13 Page 72-73 Lines 27-28, 1-4. Revise parenthetical to read as follows: "(the Nez Perce 

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

of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the 

Yakama Nation

(collectively, the Columbia River Treaty Tribes); and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes,... 

Suggest deleting the phrase "as well as the Confederated Tribes of the Colville

Reservation, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, and the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde" and 

replace with "as well as other Indian tribes of the Columbia Basin."

Section 3.7.2. has been revised in the FEIS to list Columbia Basin Tribes that have not 

already been addressed as parties to the US v Oregon Management Agreement. The 

FEIS includes a list of all tribes in the Project Area. Thank you for the suggestion. 

3 14 Page 75. Lines 26-29. Suggest revising the sentence to read as follows: "A limiting stock is 

one that constrains harvest during a season, by being the lowest in abundance relative to its 

management objective, lowest in abundance relative to other stocks in fishery, and 

therefore restricting access to more abundant stocks thus limiting total catch. "

Thank you for your comment; however, a limiting stock is not necessarily the lowest in 

abundance relative to other stocks in the fishery. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 257 2018 

3 15 Page 77. Lines 21-23. Lines 26-29. Suggest revising the sentence to read as follows: These 

benchmarks should be viewed as approximations and examples of an approach and not 

recommendations for the specific criteria that should be used for implementing harvest 

policies and the related management frameworks.

Thank you for your comment, it has been noted.

3 16 Page 78. Lines 1-2, lines 2-6, lines 5-6. Page 78. Page 81. Lines 17-20. Page 107. Lines 17-

20. Assume this includes hatchery origin fish. 

Harvest Indicator Stocks do include hatchery and natural-origin fish. Stocks referring to 

only natural-origin fish have been clarified in the FEIS. 

3 17 Page 97-98. Lines 26-27, 1-2. How does Alternative 5 relate to the following assertion 

elsewhere in the document? "Furthermore, any increase in escapement of adult fish to 

terminal spawning areas does not translate into an increase in juvenile salmonids because 

the capacity limit of the current spawning habitat does not allow for increased juvenile 

production at higher escapement numbers." 

See Generic Response 5: Spawning Habitat Capacity

3 18 Page 126. Lines 13-16. Suggest deleting the words "as bycatch" from this part of sentence. Thank you for your comment; however, the term bycatch is used appropriately in this 

context.

3 19 Page 133. Suggest including a basic description of harvest mitigation hatcheries, including 

specific purpose and role for tribal and non-tribal fisheries. 

Thank you for your comment, hatcheries are described in the Mitchell Act FEIS.

3 20 Pg. 144-145. Suggest deleting "Puget Sound" and replace with "Columbia River" Thank you for your suggestion. This has been corrected in the FEIS. 

3 21 Page 145. Lines 6-9. Assume the 42 percent is an error and the numeric value should be 

35. 

That is correct. This correction has been made in the FEIS.

3 22 Page 156. Lines 16-20. As discussed above, there are no commercial fisheries in the Lower 

Snake River subregion (only WDFW sport fishery). 

Thank you. The revision has been made in the FEIS.

3 23 Page 160-161. Lines 1-2. Suggest deleting "Native American tribes" and replace with 

"Columbia River treaty tribes."

Thank you, the FEIS has been revised for clarification.

3 24 Page 178. Lines 24-29. How does improving general habitat and ecosystem function relate 

to the following assertion? "Furthermore, any increase in escapement of adult fish to 

terminal spawning areas does not translate into an increase in juvenile salmonids because 

the capacity limit of the current spawning habitat does not allow for increased juvenile 

production at higher escapement numbers." 

See Generic Response 5: Spawning Habitat Capacity

3 25 Page 188. Lines 23-26. The substance of this paragraph should be applicable to Tribal 

C&S and tribal and non-tribal commercial fisheries as well. 

Thank you for your comment. The substance of the paragraph has been applied to other 

sections where relevant.

4 1 Harvest and Hatchery management and FCRPS Operations are connected legally, 

inseparable biologically, and should be evaluated together to comply with NEPA

See Generic Response 3: Hydropower Cumulative Effects and Generic Response 4: 

Hatchery Cumulative Effects
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 258 2018 

5 1 It would be inconsistent with the US v Oregon management goal for weak runs to remain 

at status quo for the next 10 years. The Final EIS should clarify the federal agencies’ 

assumption to reflect the objective for improvement in weak stocks during the next 10 

years.

See Generic Response 6: 10-year forecasting

5 2 The draft EIS does not identify potential impacts to ESA-listed Snake River

Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon after June 15 (referred to as the summer management 

period)...The above “definitions” and other text describing the spring and summer 

management periods omit potential impacts and create confusion as to ESA-listed Snake 

River spring/summer chinook salmon. During the 2008-2017 US v Oregon Management 

Agreement, observations based on PIT tag and genetic sampling indicate several years 

between 2008-2017 in which portions of late runs of ESA-listed Snake River 

Spring/Summer chinook were below McNary Dam after June 15, where they were 

available to fisheries occurring during the summer management period. Available to TAC

[sic]

Thank you for your comment. We disagree. The harvest rate alternatives do use a date 

range of January 1 through June 15 to estimate potential impacts to ESA-listed Snake 

River spring/summer Chinook salmon, however the escapement goal analysis does not. 

The escapement goal analysis examines how many fish end up returning to a location 

upstream of the fisheries, regardless of date distribution. Therefore we have identified 

potential impacts to this stock under Alternative 4 and Alternative 6.

Additionally, we have updated the text in Section 4.1.1.1. to further address this 

comment. 

5 3 Clarify Bycatch/Incidental Impacts from Full Retention Fisheries/Interdam Loss (E.g., 

Interdam Loss, Impacts of fishing at 80-81). The draft EIS appears to reflect that only 

landed fish are impacted in “full retention” fisheries. However, various investigations and 

observations indicate not all fish are landed in “full retention” fisheries. The Final EIS 

should discuss potential non-retention impacts (e.g., incidental injury/mortality) from all 

fisheries.

For interdam loss, see Generic Response 3: Hydropower Cumulative Effects. For other 

fishery impacts, see Generic Response 7: Non-Retention Impacts 

5 4 In describing escapement, the draft EIS refers to benchmarks,” “objectives” and “goals” in 

a manner that is difficult to follow. The Final EIS should clarify usage of these terms. 

Thank you for your comment. This has been clarified in the FEIS. 

5 5 In addition, the description of “escapement” should reflect that a key purpose of 

escapement under US v Oregon is for broodstock collection and juvenile production.

Hatchery broodstock escapement objectives are not incorporated into the harvest rates 

within the Agreement.

6 1 In general, the DEIS appears to adequately capture the scope and breadth of management 

measures that may be applicable to Columbia River fisheries in the next management 

period (2018-2027). 

Thank you for your submission.

6 2 Figure 1-1 caption, page 4, lines 7-10. Oregon and Washington utilize the same 

terminology for fishing zones, so the caption could be revised to reflect both states. The 

zone boundaries for the river downstream of Bonneville Dam are based upon county line 

boundaries from Washington State counties bordering the river. 

Oregon and Washington do not use the same terminology in their statutes. Washington 

Administrative code 220-22-010 uses "areas" designated by the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 1A through 1H. They correspond to the following 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife "zones": 1A = Zone 1; 1B = Zone 2; 1C = 

Zone 3, 1D = Zone 4; 1E = Zone 5; 1F = Zone 6/61; 1G = Zone 6/62; and, 1H = Zone 

6/63. The caption reflects that the terminology adopted by ODFW statute ("Zone") is 

also adopted by the US v Oregon parties when commonly referring to designated 

boundaries where commercial fisheries might occur.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 259 2018 

6 3 Tables 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 pages 6, 7, 8. The mixed use of “Project Area” and more areaspecific descriptions among different fisheries is confusing. Please clarify that “Project 

Area” is not intended to mean fisheries occur in the entire project area? (For example, 

Treaty Indian Ceremonial and Subsistence fisheries do not occur throughout the entire 

project area as shown in Figure 1-1). 

The "Project Area" was defined as the outer extent of the geographical area within 

which fisheries subject to the US v Oregon Management Agreement may occur. This 

area is depicted in Figure 1-1. We recognize that not all fisheries occur in all parts of the 

project area.

6 4 Table 1-2, 1-3, 1-4 pages 6, 7, 9. The Buoy 10 line does not reflect a lower boundary for 

any current Treaty fisheries. The current agreement does include language that such 

fisheries could occur upon agreement between the States and the Tribes. Table 1-3, page 7. 

If the DEIS is attempting to reflect current non-Treaty regulations, the Summer Chinook 

and Sockeye locations should be from Astoria-Megler Bridge to Bonneville Dam, not 

Buoy 10. These fisheries are not currently open between the Astoria-Megler Bridge and 

Buoy 10.

Thank you for your comment. The "Project Area" was defined as the outer extent of the 

geographical area within which fisheries subject to the US v Oregon Management 

Agreement may occur. Regarding the suggested change in location of the non-treaty 

recreational summer Chinook and sockeye salmon fisheries, this change has been made 

in the FEIS.

6 5 Page 9, line 10-12. Should this read, “...although some fishing does occur both above 

McNary Dam and below Bonneville Dam”? Currently “McNary Dam” is not included in 

the description but the preceding parts of the sentence imply that maybe it was intended to 

be.

Thank you. This revision has been made in the FEIS.

6 6 Page 12, line 3. In the current definition of “SAFE” the E stands for “Enhancement”. Page 

13, line 9-10. Please note that the Steamboat Slough SAFE area has long been 

discontinued and is no longer relevant. We recommend deletion of this area.

Thank you. These corrections have been made in the FEIS.

6 7 Page 16, re: discussion of inclusion of other species in agreement. The discussion that 

fisheries are referenced in the MA because there is some potential for incidental take of 

ESA-listed salmonids in the fishery is not accurate in the case of Pacific lamprey harvest in 

the Willamette River. There is no incidental take of ESA salmonids in pursuit of lamprey 

in the Willamette River, and if there were, it would be of Willamette population fish, not 

those stocks incorporated in the MA. 

Thank you for your comment. Using our legal definitions of take, a biological opinion 

will determine whether incidental take occurs and possible subsequent effects to

Willamette River ESA-listed species as required under the ESA. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 260 2018 

6 8 We suggest that the words “independently by” in line 3 be replaced with “independent of 

the agreement by”. [DEIS p.16 lines 2-4: "Harvest policies for non-salmonid species are 

not specified in the existing US v Oregon agreement, nor would they be in a new 

management agreement. These fisheries are managed independently by the states and 

tribes."]

Thank you. A revision has been made to the FEIS.

6 9 Page 44, table 3-5. Is this table intended to reflect only natural-origin UC CHS, or 

hatchery and NO combined? Label implies the table intended to reflect all. Please review 

similar potential issues with respect to Tables 3-6 and 3-8 as well.

Thank you for your comment. The status quo conditions presented in Section 3 (Tables 

3-5 - 3-8) are for natural-origin Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon, naturalorigin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, Upper Columbia summer Chinook 

salmon, and natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon, respectively. Tables 

referring to natural-origin stocks have been clarified in the FEIS.

6 10 Page 47, line 11-12. In the coho section, areas with extirpated populations were identified. 

It may be helpful and appropriate to identify extirpated populations for other species, 

including but not limited to sockeye in Wallowa Lake. 

Thank you for your comment; however, this EIS focuses on extant stocks of salmon and 

steelhead.

6 11 Page 59, line 21. A small portion of Umatilla County actually borders the river just below 

McNary Dam in Zone 6. If catch contributes to Crook County’s economic activity 

(presumably due to the Deschutes River) then we recommend Jefferson, Deschutes, 

Wheeler, and Grant Counties also be considered for inclusion.

The FEIS has been revised to indicate that counties other than those identified in each 

subregion would likely be affected as well by changes in commercial and recreational 

fishing activity in the Columbia River. 

6 12 Page 60, line 18. Steelhead are not legal for harvest in non-Treaty commercial fisheries. 

All references to harvest of steelhead in non-Treaty commercial fisheries need to be 

corrected.

The FEIS has been revised to reflect that steelhead are not legal to retain for harvest by 

non-Treaty commercial fishers.

6 13 Page 78, re: SR sockeye and snake river CHF benchmarks. Please clarify and provide 

some description of how these values were derived. 

Thank you for your comment, clarification has been added to the FEIS

6 14 Page 78, re: steelhead. Please clarify whether the number of steelhead (e.g., 13400 fish) is 

intended to apply to the sum of all natural-origin A and B run Snake River fish? Please 

clarify the use and basis for referenced metric.

Thank you for your comment, clarification has been added to the FEIS

6 15 Figure 4-1, page 119. In this figure, interdam losses are highest under alternative 5. As a 

result, it appears that escapement to Rock Island Dam is lower under this “no harvest” 

scenario than it is in alternatives 1-3. If this is correct, please provide clarification as to 

why this is the case absent error in figure values. 

Thank you for your comment. Numbers in the DEIS Table 4-58 were inadvertently 

transposed and have been corrected in the FEIS. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 261 2018 

6 16 Page 126, re: coho. Lower river fall fisheries are often constrained by B-Index steelhead, 

but also by other limitations such as Lower Columbia River tule and Lower Columbia 

Natural coho impact limitations. Suggest a revision to re-characterize which fisheries are 

discussed as being solely B-Index limited to exclude fisheries downstream of Bonneville 

Dam. 

Thank you for your comment. Your comment refers to discussion in subsection 4.2.1, 

which is the subsection evaluating the impacts to salmonid species. Please see that by 

this point in the document we have indicated the lower river salmon stocks are not 

addressed in the agreement (for example introduction in subsection 3.2.1, Chinook 

salmon discussion in subsection 3.2.1.1 and coho salmon discussion in subsection 

3.2.1.2) and that the context of further discussion in the document at that point is solely 

focused on upriver stocks of salmon and steelhead.

6 17 Page 126, re: coho. Additionally, this section makes a linkage to stocks such as the SW 

WA DPS and Upper Willamette DPS stocks, which are primarily affected by fisheries that 

occur prior to the B-run “window”. Therefore it is not reasonable to expect harvest and 

impacts for these stocks to be proportional to catch of B-Index fish, as is implied here. 

Thank you for your comment. We disagree. The catch of any individual stock will be 

directly proportional during any annual fishery cycle to whatever stock is most 

consistently limiting. This is generally the B-Index steelhead stock.

6 18 Page 144. Lines 3-5. Suggest that the sentence beginning “Any anadromous fish taken...” 

be modified to provide clarity, potentially by ending that sentence with “ocean habitat, 

prior to having been subject to the fisheries examined in this analysis.” (new text in 

bold).

Thank you. These corrections have been made in the FEIS.

6 19 Page 145, line 1. It appears that “Puget Sound” should be replaced with “Columbia River”

or “project area”.

Thank you for your suggestion. This has been corrected in the FEIS.

6 20 Page 147, line 16; page 155, lines 17-22; page 158, lines 3-9; page 165, lines 5-7 (and 

multiple other areas). Please clarify that Steelhead may not be retained in non-Treaty 

commercial fisheries; therefore, there should be no ex-vessel value expressed for steelhead 

for any non-Treaty commercial fisheries in this analysis. These issues also carry through 

to several tables in Appendix A, where values are included for non-Treaty commercial 

steelhead ex-vessel values. These should be all removed from the relevant tables.

The FEIS has been revised to reflect that steelhead are not legal to retain for harvest by 

non-Treaty commercial fishers. Changes were made in Table A-11 and A-13 of 

Appendix A, and in tables and text in Chapters 3 and 4. 

6 21 Page 158, lines 3-9. Please clarify whether this section is intended to reflect all Snake 

River steelhead, or just B-run? 

The FEIS has been modified to clarify that that the analysis refers to B-Index steelhead 

in the Snake River and Columbia River. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 262 2018 

7 1 [p. 1] Douglas PUD does not support, and believes that NMFS also legally cannot support 

the inclusion of Douglas PUDs mitigation hatchery programs in the U.S. v. Oregon 

agreement (or associated production tables). [7 reasons provided on p.3]. NMFS can avoid 

this conflict (described above) between their HCP, that they signed with Douglas PUD in 

2002, and any new iteration of the US v Oregon agreement, by disentangling the PUD 

mitigation hatchery production from inclusion in or management under the US v Oregon

agreement. Therefore, please remove all of the Douglas PUD-funded hatchery-mitigation 

programs from the US v Oregon agreement to avoid a violation of the adaptivemanagement principles defined in the HCPs. Failure to do so, places NMFS in the 

untenable positon of non-compliance with at least one of two conflicting processes for 

defining PUD hatchery production levels and/or release locations and strategies. Should 

NMFS sign onto a continued or new US v Oregon agreement that retains the PUD 

hatchery-mitigation programs, then they must in the final EIS evaluate the effects on 

recovery of the UCR Spring Chinook ESU resulting from their failure to uphold the 

autonomy of the HCP decision-making process and the abdication of their authority under 

the HCP to mandate scientifically sound hatchery-program decision-making....[p.5 

conclusion] NMFS can rectify the second issue by entirely removing the PUD hatchery 

programs from any version of the US v Oregon agreement that they sign, or by signing an 

iteration of the US v Oregon agreement that includes PUD production available for harvest 

only by noting that the PUDs will produce fish available for harvest but that the details of 

release numbers, locations, and release strategies reside entirely within the FERC 

jurisdictional arena of the respective HCP committees, and will become available on a 

year-by-year basis as those committees release such information to the TAC.

The hatchery production levels in the agreement are not static. Rather, as explained in 

the text of the agreement, they are subject to change based on several factors, including 

when NMFS requires changes due to ESA requirements. The 2008 Agreement

explicitly explains that “[t]he Parties recognize that NOAA may recommend 

modifications to the production actions in this Agreement based on the results of these 

consultations.” We would expect that any future Agreement would retain this language.

We are aware of the Habitat Conservation Plan referenced in the comment (hereafter 

“Mid-Columbia HCP”). The previous US v Oregon Management Agreement explicitly 

reference this HCP and explained that the production programs in the tables “will be 

implemented and/or adjusted based on mid-Columbia HCP’s and Settlement Agreement 

in the future.” The Mid-Columbia HCP process is incorporated into the US v Oregon

process and no conflict exists.

7 2 Page 44, lines 12-22, and Table 3-5: Total harvest rates reported under the baseline 

conditions for Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon do not accurately represent 

demographic subtleties that result from fisheries. Analysis of PIT-tag data indicates that the 

loss rates by brood year of Methow-Basin, natural-origin, 2-ocean spring Chinook from 

brood-years 2005-2013 in Zone-6 averaged 15 percent (median 15%, range 0% to 40%), 

while the loss rate for those same brood years of natural-origin 1-ocean Methow Basin 

spring Chinook was 0 percent. Thus, reporting the gross mean harvest rate does not 

accurately portray the demographic effects of harvest on natural-origin UCR spring 

Chinook, and the final EIS should include additional analyses to evaluate those effects.

Thank you for your comment. PIT tag loss in Zone 6 is not equivalent to a harvest rate. 

Additionally, proportional shifts in any given run year to a certain age class of fish will 

vary, particularly in 1-ocean fish, also known as jacks, which due to their small size are 

known to simply pass through fisheries. This is the reason 1-ocean fish are not included 

in the calculation of harvest rates in the EIS, which this comment indicates was done so 

accurately.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 263 2018 

7 3 Page 50, lines 3-8: Evidence suggests that the “A” and “B” designations based on fork 

length and Bonneville passage-dates do not serve conservation purposes. See Copeland et 

al. (2017). The prudent response to such evidence would include a reconsideration of the 

current management designations. 

Thank you for your comment, the current designations are outside the scope of the EIS.

7 4 Page 54, lines 16-19: Please also include the compelling evidence for a relationship 

between the abundance of host species in the marine environment and abundance of adult 

lamprey range-wide (Murauskas et al. 2013). 

Thank you for your comment, this reference has been added to the FEIS.

7 5 To achieve recovery targets, the desired count at Rock Island Dam would also need to 

account for pre-spawn mortality between Rock Island Dam and the spawning grounds in 

the tributaries, and thus even 6,000 natural-origin fish escaping the fishery would return 

fewer than the target 4,500 natural-origin fish to the spawning grounds. Therefore, the 

escapement and dam-count numbers used in the analyses in this DEIS are inadequate to 

achieve the NMFS-approved recovery goals. The DEIS contains repeated references to 

these inadequate escapement/dam-count goals, including Page 84, Table 4-4; Page 85, 

Table 4-7; Page 86, Table 4-10, lines 11-15; Page 87, lines 28-30; Page 88, lines 1-5, Table 

4-13; Page 119, Table 4-58 and Figure 4-1; Page 120, lines 1-8 (list not exhaustive). 

Therefore, the final EIS must evaluate the effects of this inadequate escapement on the 

recovery of the UCR Spring Chinook ESU.

Section 4.1.1 under the sub-heading Escapement Goals accounts for the pre-spawn 

mortality between the final counting station and the spawning grounds. The text stated 

"In most cases we further adjust the escapement goal at the last upstream counting 

station to account for subsequent mortality while migrating upstream from that final 

counting station...In most cases this adjustment factor is 25 percent, meaning that we 

assume that only 75 percent survive to their final spawning ground." 

7 6 [p.4] Alternatively, NMFS must modify the US v Oregon agreement such that it conforms 

to the recovery goals that NMFS approved in 2007 or provide scientific justification for the 

departure from those recovery goals and also amend the 2007 Upper Columbia Spring 

Chinook and Steelhead Recovery Plan accordingly.

[p. 5 conclusion] NMFS can rectify the first issue by simply increasing the fishery 

escapement number in the US v Oregon agreement to allow the achievement of the UCR 

spring Chinook recovery goals or, conversely, providing the necessary scientific 

justification for reducing those goals (and amending the 2007 Upper Columbia Spring 

Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan, accordingly).

Thank you for your comment. Our EIS analysis specifically captures the impacts of 

setting an escapement goal for UCR spring Chinook salmon at the aggregated total 

natural-origin population-level abundance targets from the recovery plan in Alternative 

4. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 264 2018 

7 7 Page 80, lines 14-20 (also, Page 44, lines 18-20): The accounting for fishery-related losses 

should also include losses attributable to net drop-outs, and such losses comprise target 

fish, and not only bycatch of non-target species/stocks. We observe injured fish at the 

count windows of the dams, and many of the observed injuries are fishery-related, some so 

severe that the likelihood of survival to spawning is very low. Delayed mortality associated 

with the fishery varies with gear type (e.g., very few or no injuries may result from purseseining or heart traps, thereby reducing the injury-related delayed mortality), such that the 

EIS would need to analyze a range of delayed-mortality rates to account for the variety of 

fishery methods that fishers may use under the agreement.

see Generic Response 7: Non-Retention Impacts

7 8 Page 100, Section 4.1.1.3: The DEIS considers only harvest rates, without considering the 

effects of harvest timing on stock diversity, and persistence under changing climate...Thus, 

the persistence of this stock depends upon the diversification of run timing to ensure 

adequate escapement during extreme years. Only the earliest and latest migrants routinely 

avoid the thermal barriers. Therefore, to truly account for climate change, harvest 

managers must protect the shoulders of the run distribution when deciding on timing of 

harvest efforts directed at or incidentally harvesting Okanagan sockeye, and UCR Chinook 

and steelhead.

See Generic Response 6: 10 Year-Forecasting

7 9 Page 132, line 10: We assume that the authors intended “Upper Columbia River Chinook 

Salmon” to be spring Chinook, since the subject sentence and the one that follows include 

the other stocks to which this sentence may refer.

That is correct. This correction has been made in the FEIS. 

7 10 Page 144, lines 5-8 (also Page ix, lines 11-13): In the final EIS, please abandon the 

argument in, or clarify and/or provide references for the sentences stating that “However, 

the capacity limit of the current spawning habitat does not allow for increased juvenile 

production at higher escapement numbers. Therefore, an increase in escapement of adult 

fish to terminal spawning areas does not translate into an increase in juvenile salmonids 

that would eventually serve as adult prey for the SRKW.” Literally interpreted, these 

sentences indicate that all spawning habitat in the Columbia Basin is currently saturated (at 

carrying capacity) such that any increases in adult returns will not result in increased 

recruits. If accurate, this statement begs the question: why then do the action agencies 

continue to release millions of supplementation fish anywhere within spawning tributaries, 

since no additional juveniles will result from adult returns from those programs to target 

tributaries? Why not rather produce only segregated harvest-augmentation fish released 

only from mainstem Columbia (or Snake) River hatcheries, facilitating removal of 

returning hatchery fish at those locations to prevent them from depressing the naturalorigin spawning populations in the tributaries?

See Generic Response 5: Spawning Habitat Capacity
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 265 2018 

7 11 Page 165, lines 19-21: The final EIS should evaluate the economic impact to local 

communities resulting from the continued failure to achieve ESA recovery because of US v 

Oregon escapement targets substantially below recovery goals (see comment above 

regarding targets for Rock Island Dam counts and fishery escapement).

Thank you for your comment. The NEPA Regulations at 40 CFR 1502.23 state that 

"For purposes of complying with the [NEPA] Act, the weighing of the merits and 

drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be displayed in a monetary cost-benefit 

analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative considerations." 

8 1 We ask that NOAA substantially extend the 45 day period for public comments on the 

DEIS.

See Generic Response 1: Public Comment Period

9 1 I am requesting an additional 60 day extension to the public comment period. See Generic Response 1: Public Comment Period

10 1 RiverPartners finds that this draft EIS continues to impermissibly segment US v Oregon

harvest management from Mitchell Act hatchery management and the FCRPS EIS. All 

three proposed major federal actions are connected and cumulative actions that need to be 

addressed in a single EIS as required by NEPA.

See Generic Response 3: Hydropower Cumulative Effects and Generic Response 4: 

Hatchery Cumulative Effects

10 2 On duration of the Agreement, this Draft anticipates extending the current US v Oregon

Management Agreement for another 10 years. There is no basis for such an extended 

timeline given today’s circumstances. As noted, the 2008/2010 10-year Management 

Agreement, shared a common science analysis. The harvest management and FCRPS 

actions were analyzed together because the FCRPS Biological Opinion (“BiOp”) and its 

measures (the “Reasonable and Prudent Alternative”) provided, in part, the mitigation to 

offset impacts resulting from harvest activities. This relationship no longer exists – the 

BiOp’s are not linked – meaning harvest and hatchery production levels and the resulting 

Incidental Take Statement (ITS) need to be adjusted taking into account the current 

situation.

This comment asserts that NMFS should not sign a new Management Agreement with a 

ten-year duration because, in its opinion, ESA coverage will not be available. NMFS 

has prepared and will issue a biological opinion that analyzes the proposed action, 

including the 10-year duration. Compliance with the ESA is required and NMFS 

decision here will be consistent with its obligations under the ESA. USFWS will 

perform similarly for species under its jurisdiction.

10 3 Further, none of the alternatives in the draft EIS address the problem of mitigating the 

impacts of the Management Agreement on listed fish, unless the “sliding scale” of harvest 

based on abundance levels is seen by NMFS as the mitigation. RiverPartners’ finds this 

particularly important because whatever “incidental take” is authorized in the Management 

Agreement will affect the FCRPS level of authorized “take”.

This comment expresses concern with whether the proposed action will comply with the 

ESA. NMFS has prepared and is issuing a biological opinion that analyzes the proposed 

action. Compliance with the ESA is required and NMFS decision here will be consistent 

with its obligations under the ESA. USFWS will perform similarly for species under its 

jurisdiction.

10 4 The Services could consider putting an Interim Management Agreement in place until the 

FCRPS NEPA and a new BiOp are complete. This would allow new data and information 

from those processes to be used in crafting a new Management Agreement and help ensure 

a more complete look at the impacts and interactions of various actions on listed salmon 

stocks.

We do not have an obligation to require that this action be implemented on the same 

timeline as FCRPS. Nothing in NEPA or its implementing regulations requires us to 

merge separate action, carried out by different agencies, into a single action before 

completing an EIS. 

The regulations do require the consideration of cumulative effects, which are the impact 

on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. This EIS has included 

FCRPS and its impacts into the cumulative effects analysis. As a result, regardless of 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 266 2018 

whether the two processes are in lockstep, we have reviewed all information generated 

as part of the FCRPS process and included the relevant information in this EIS. 

10 5 RiverPartners is concerned that the legal foundation for this Draft EIS on the future 

Management Agreement appears to assume that continued significant impacts on ESA

listed fish consistent with the current harvest and hatchery management agreement is an 

acceptable level of environmental impact. Yet, in the same Oregon District Court, Judge 

Simon continues to rule that ESA listed fish in the Columbia River are in great peril and 

that extinction is a very real possibility. These legal findings have led Judge Simon to order 

significant increases in spill from the Lower Columbia and Lower Snake River dams to 

improve survivals of juvenile salmon and steelhead, and to call for multi-million dollar 

studies of breech or removal of the Snake River dams. At the same time, this Draft EIS 

seems to assume that there is no reason for alarm from the proposed actions that continue 

existing harvest and hatchery management practices. Judge Simon’s dire description of the 

status of ESA listed fish is diametrically opposed to the description of proposed take in this 

Draft EIS. The inconsistency of the findings in this Draft EIS with those by Judge Simon 

should provide the Services food for serious thought. Listed salmon and steelhead are 

either on the brink of extinction and every possible action to prevent killing these fish 

needs to be implemented immediately, or, the fish are doing fine and current harvest and 

hatchery activities can continue as usual.

In this EIS, we have considered and disclosed the impact of the proposed action on the 

environment. The comment does not point to any impact that has not been considered 

and disclosed. Instead, it argues that the analysis in the Draft EIS is somehow at odds 

with a decision of the Federal District Court for the District of Oregon. 

In addition to preparation of this EIS, NMFS and USFWS are consulting on the 

proposed action as required by the ESA. Our final decision will be consistent with the 

requirements of the ESA. 

10 6 The federal agencies need to be transparent about the actual effects of each of the three 

proposed actions at issue (hatchery, harvest and hydropower/habitat) to properly conduct 

their respective NEPA processes...

See Generic Response 3: Hydropower Cumulative Effects and Generic Response 4: 

Hatchery Cumulative Effects

10 7 The federal agencies need to be transparent about the actual effects of each of the three 

proposed actions at issue (hatchery, harvest and hydropower/habitat) to properly conduct 

their respective NEPA processes, because as explained by the Justice Department attorneys 

in recent briefing, NWF v. NMFS, “NEPA is a public process - not a private negotiation 

among a limited group of interested parties.” Yet, NMFS is approaching it this way. 

We complied with all applicable federal regulations and requirements for public process 

during the development of this FEIS. The comment points to no substantive errors, but 

instead draws a contrast with a different NEPA process for a very different federal 

action. We have been transparent about the impacts of this proposed action. The 

comment does not point to any impact from either the hatchery or harvest component of 

the action that has not been considered in this EIS. With respect to the impacts of the 

FCRPS, those impacts have also been disclosed as cumulative effects.

10 8 For example, in stark contrast to the NEPA scoping process for the FCRPS which included 

15 public workshops in communities throughout the Northwest, there were no public 

scoping meetings on the Management Agreement.

The NEPA Implementing regulations, at 40 CFR 1501.7 do not require public scoping 

meetings. The public involvement process conducted for this EIS is described in Section 

1.5.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 267 2018 

10 9 [In attachment] We fully understand that NMFS is embarking on two separate proposed 

actions: harvest and hatchery management and the operation of the FCRPS. We further 

understand that NMFS believes these two proposed actions are not “connected” for 

purposes of NEPA because they have “independent utility,” are timed differently and 

therefore need not be considered in the same NEPA document. See 40 C.F.R. 

1508.25(a)(1).

See Generic Response 3: Hydropower Cumulative Effects and Generic Response 4: 

Hatchery Cumulative Effects

10 10 RiverPartners is also requesting that the Services extend the scoping comment period for 

another 60 – 90 days and hold public hearings so that interested members of the public can 

weigh in on these critically important issues. The thirty day comment period provided thus 

far is woefully inadequate under the circumstances and is inconsistent with the letter and 

spirit of the statute that the agencies are attempting to satisfy.

See Generic Response 1: Public Comment Period. The original comment period of 45 

days was extended by a 2 week period.

11 1 The current 2017 return year crisis of upper Columbia/Snake steelhead, especially naturalorigin (henceforth “wild”) Snake River B steelhead, highlights that the current fisheries 

regime under the 2008-2017 Agreement is insufficiently risk-averse when returns of ESAlisted wild populations of Chinook and steelhead are at low abundance. 

Although the comment is indirect we take the comment to express the opinion that 

Alternative 1 is not sufficiently protective for Snake River B-Index steelhead. Thank 

you for your opinion. 

11 2 While each of these alternatives are helpful by outlining extremes of each management 

approach, none is sufficiently protective of ESA-listed stocks or populations. None appear 

capable of meeting all ESA requirements regarding jeopardy, nor do they appear capable of 

optimizing recovery opportunities in the context of also providing harvest opportunities on 

mitigation hatchery returns that provide the majority of treaty and nontreaty fishing 

opportunities. 

Please see the response to comment 6 in this letter.

11 3 Alternative 2 applies incrementally increasing harvest rates to stocks based on the 

estimated return to the relevant in-river management point (location) and would permit 

some level of commercial and recreational fishing regardless of how low the return 

abundance. This is insufficiently protective of ESA-listed stocks and populations. 

Preservation and rebuilding of ESA-listed populations requires securing minimum 

spawning escapements to each spawning population together with the life history diversity 

(age structure, sex ratio, run timing) that is characteristic of local spawning populations. 

None of the current abundance-base harvest regimes secure this.

Please see the response to comment 6 in this letter
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 268 2018 

11 4 Alternative 3 applies a fixed annual harvest rate to each management unit stock regardless 

of abundance. Further, the harvest rates are derived from the recent 10-year average of 

observed (estimated) harvest rates. It is not clear that the selection of these rates has 

appropriately taken account of the variation in the rates observed over the past 10 years or 

the variation in implementation of the associated fishery regimes (implementation error). 

Regardless, this alternative is insufficiently protective of ESA-listed populations and stocks 

when return levels are low. This is clear from the comparisons of minimum escapements 

past fisheries provided in summary tables 4-58 through 4-63, pages 119 - 130. 

See Generic Response 6:10-year forecasting

11 5 Alternative 4 is a particularly inappropriate and misleading caricature of escapement goal 

management, especially so in the context of managing for the recovery of ESA-listed 

populations. There is no good biological reason why managing so as to achieve (whenever 

returns permit) a minimum (floor) spawning escapement requires permitting any and all 

excess return-above-escapement floor to be harvested, rather than dividing the surplus 

between harvest and additional escapement.

We agree that escapement goal policies can be modified to allow for a shared 

distribution of the excess fish above an escapement goal as suggested by the 

commenter. Under the current US v Oregon Agreement that is actually how Upper 

Columbia summer Chinook are managed. But escapement goal policies are commonly 

used for managing fisheries. They are a common feature of management in both the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council and Pacific Salmon Treaty fora. They are most 

often used to manage healthy stocks with good estimates of the escapements associated 

with Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY). 

The purpose of Alternative 4 is to examine the characteristics of an escapement goal 

harvest policy as it is most often applied and compare it to other alternatives. As 

illustrated by the comment, the alternatives analyzed provide an opportunity to illustrate 

characteristics of each policy, consider the pros and cons, and provide information that 

is useful to help decide what harvest policy fits best under a broad range of 

circumstances. Alternative 4 is also not our preferred Alternative. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 269 2018 

11 6 A new alternative is needed that contains protective elements of each of alternative 2, 3, 

and 4. We describe one approach in the following.A Robust Conservation-Based 

AlternativeFor each above-Bonneville stock, provide an abundance-based regime that 

includes the following:1. a minimum, recovery-based spawner escapement level (floor) 

that accounts for sex ratio, run timing, and age-structure diversity of individual spawning 

populations, and assures that all major and minor spawning locations within each 

population are occupied;2. includes a “stop-loss” rule (Essington et al, Science 2015; 

Pikitch, Science 2015) under which no fishing occurs when the expected return is below 

the stock- or population-specific goal;3. a sliding abundance-based harvest rate and 

escapement scale that partitions returns in excess of the escapement floor between 

escapement and harvest. This assures that returns that exceed the escapement floor will add 

to escapements in addition to providing harvest via exploitation rate control rules. 

Management strategy evaluations of each stock and its component populations should be 

conducted to explore the advantages and disadvantages of different ways of apportioning 

the returns in excess ofescapement floors between escapement and harvest (e.g., fixed 

proportion division, incremental increase in harvest as abundance increases, others.); and,4. 

Escapement goals specified as numbers of wild (NOR), and upper limits on nominal 

(census) pHOS levels no greater than Hatchery Science Review Group (HSRG) maximum 

allowable levels for Primary and Contributing (<5%, <10%, respectively). I.e., hatchery 

strays should not be counted toward meeting escapement goal floors.Wild Fish 

Conservancy strongly recommends that this alternative be developed and included in the 

FEIS and in the draft 2018 – 2027 US v Oregon Management Agreement.

Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) suggests that NMFS analyze a new alternative because 

none of the alternatives considered in the DEIS are sufficiently protective of ESA-listed 

stocks or population. Protecting ESA-listed stocks at levels consistent with the ESA is 

inherent in the Management Agreement. The previous Management Agreement 

explains that “[t]he Parties recognize that NOAA may recommend modifications to the 

production actions in this Agreement based on the results of [ESA] consultations.” Any 

final preferred alternative selected will be consistent with either NMFS’s or USFWS’s

biological opinion evaluating this action and will comply with the requirements of the 

ESA.

The DEIS analyzes a broad range of alternatives ranging all the way from unrestricted 

fishing (Alternative 4) to Voluntary Fishery Curtailment (Alternative 5). Alternative 5 

presumes that there would be no harvest necessitated by conservation considerations, 

even at the expense of eliminating Treaty tribal and non-treaty harvest, and thus 

provides a no-fishing benchmark for comparison to the other alternatives. WFC 

suggests that Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are not sufficiently conservative, but describes a 

new alternative that would allow some unspecified level of harvest. WFC’s new 

alternative would therefore fall within the range of alternatives already analyzed.

A further problem with the alternative suggested by WFC is that it does not provide the 

detail needed to analyze and compare to the other alternatives. WFC’s Robust 

Conservation-Based Alternative is described in general terms as an abundance based 

regime that includes several features. It would rely on a minimum recovery-based 

spawner escapement floor that accounts for several characteristics for each population 

(e.g., sex ratio, run timing, age-structure, hatchery/wild ratios). But the numerical 

analysis of an alternative comparable to that done in the DEIS requires specifics for 

each of the Harvest Indicator Stocks. So for example, what escapement goal should be 

used under this new alternative for Snake River spring/summer Chinook or Snake River 

sockeye?

Section 4.1.1 of the DEIS, Escapement Benchmarks, addresses the WFC’s concerns 

related to escapement goals. The benchmarks used are generally based on the 

population abundance criteria that are summed at the ESU and DPS level and reported 

at the last upstream counting location – e.g, Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River or 

Rock Island Dam on the upper Columbia River. These escapement goals were further 

adjusted to account for subsequent mortality while migrating upstream from the final 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 270 2018 

counting station and for the likelihood that fish arriving at the upstream counting station 

would distribute themselves unevenly to the individual tributaries. 

WFC’s new alternative articulates some principles (population-specific escapement 

levels), but does not suggest how to translate those to the kind of benchmarks that are 

required for management. For example, the new alternative advocated by WFC includes 

a “stop-loss” rule. This means that when the expected return is below a specified level, 

there would be no fishing. But analysis of the new alternative requires a specific number 

for each of the Harvest Indicator Stocks. Exactly what is the threshold below which 

there should be no fishing? Another example is where, WFC suggests inclusion of an 

abundance-based harvest rate and escapement scale that partitions returns in excess of 

the escapement floor between escapement and harvest. Here again, the required 

specifics are lacking. What is the escapement floor and how will the excess be 

allocated?

The Harvest Policies considered in the DEIS are designed to explore options for 

achieving the appropriate balance between harvest and conservation objectives and 

disclose the subsequent environmental impacts from implementing a policy. As 

discussed in Chapter 2 of the DEIS, the choice between policies depends in part on the 

status of the affected stocks and nature of available information. Those vary by stock. 

The policies considered in the DEIS for each of the Harvest Indicator Stocks are 

designed to illustrate the features of each policy and were not specific recommendations 

for how each Harvest Indicator Stock should be managed. WFC advocates for an 

alternative that focuses almost entirely on conservation, with little or no apparent

consideration for harvest particularly as it relates to treaty Indian fisheries. However, 

WFC’s suggested alternative falls somewhere above Alternative 5, and therefore within 

the range of alternatives considered and is not specific enough to allow for analysis and 

comparison to the alternatives already considered in the DEIS. For these reasons, we did 

not analyze WFC’s in more detail.

11 7 and 8 The current agreement places a direct 2% cap on the combined non-treaty commercial and 

recreational fisheries take of ESA-listed wild Snake River B steelhead. Non-treaty 

recreational fishers are required to fish mark-selectively and to release any wild steelhead 

unharmed. Non-treaty commercial fishers are encouraged to fish mark-selectively. This 2% 

Non-treaty commercial fishers are required to release all steelhead whether marked or 

not. With respect to the allocation of Snake River Steelhead between treaty and nontreaty fisheries, the comment misunderstands the federal government’s role in how 

ESA-related restrictions are shared between treaty and non-treaty fisheries. As 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 271 2018 

total mortality cap applies regardless of the estimated total return of wild (ESA-listed)-

plus-(non-ESA-listed) hatchery Snake River B returns.In contrast, treaty tribal commercial 

fishers are not required to release non-target salmon and steelhead (including wild Snake 

River B) and instead are given a sliding scale harvest rate allocation (“cap) based upon the 

estimated total hatchery-plus-ESA-listed wild Snake River B steelhead return that is 

considerably greater than 2% and that includes no requirement for release of unmarked, 

wild steelhead or salmon. Under the current agreement these rates range from 13% to 20% 

(total allowable, treaty-plus-non-treaty fisheries, harvest rate 15% to 22%) (DEIS table 4-

47, p. 112). The DEIS provides no clear legal justification for this severe discrepancy. We 

find no good reason for the presumption (implicit in the DEIS) that trust responsibilities to 

the Columbia River treaty tribes requires this. [7]

Requiring mark-selective fishery regulations to apply to the Zone 6 tribal fishery -- would 

clearly appear to meet the above requirements. We recommend consideration of Zone 6 

tribal fishery regulations with a more permissive take limit on listed upriver stocks than 

applies to the non-treaty commercial and recreational fisheries, but more restrictive than 

the current agreement (for wild Snake B steelhead for example, 5% instead of 2%) where 

justified by the appropriate analysis of the population-specific wild escapements required 

for rebuilding and recovery. [8]

described further in comment 10 below, NMFS and USFWS review proposed actions 

like the US v Oregon Agreement for ESA compliance, but the action represents an 

agreement between state and tribal co-managers about how to manage the fisheries and 

share both the opportunities for harvest and requirements for conservation. The sharing 

solution that the commenter objects to is the one agreed to by the state and tribal comanagers.

The commenter appears to suggest that Zone 6 tribal fisheries include mark selective 

components in order to comply with the ESA. NMFS and USFWS are consulting on the 

proposed action under the ESA and any final decision made by either Agency will be 

consistent with the respective Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement.

The commenter quotes provisions of Secretarial Order 3206 that provides guidance on 

federal-tribal trust responsibilities and conservation restrictions that may be considered 

to protect ESA listed species including a set of five conservation standards that must be 

met. We disagree that requiring mark-selective regulations for tribal fisheries meets all 

of those standards for a variety of reasons, but particularly if one of the objectives is to 

reallocate a portion of the ESA take limits to a non-treaty fishery.

11 9 In addition, an alternative that includes an escapement-based stop-loss rule, with an 

exception for a conservative de minimum C&S fishery for specific stocks, would also 

appear to meet the requirements. NMFS would appear to have a legal obligation under the 

ESA to recommend the adoption of such regulations in the renewal of the Agreement. 

Please see the response to comment number 6 in this letter (letter number 9). In 

addition, the commenter earlier couples the stop-loss rule with other features of the 

proposed Conservation-Based Alternative, but here embellish further on the proposal. 

They suggest that the stop-loss rule be coupled with a conservative de minimum C&S 

fishery for specific stocks. Absent necessary specifics, this is not an alternative that can 

be analyzed and compared to those already considered in the DEIS. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 272 2018 

11 10 We also note that nowhere in the DEIS or other related documents has NMFS provided any 

quantitative criteria by which levels of harvest pursuant to trust responsibilities are to be 

calculated or otherwise determined so that they can be weighed against non-tribal harvest 

interests and ESA-recovery requirements. Absent a quantification of de minimus levels of 

harvest necessary to meet trust responsibilities it is impossible for independent observers, 

including the interested public, to determine whether the harvest regimes that NMFS does 

approve are subjective or otherwise arbitrary and capricious. Nor is it possible to make 

rational and optimal decisions to allocate scarce conservation and management resources 

between competing harvest management and ESA recovery objectives and opportunities.

Consistent with Secretarial Order 3206 and other laws and policies, we strive to 

harmonize the federal trust responsibility to the tribes and other statutory missions of 

the Federal government, including the ESA. How ESA impacts are allocated between 

treaty and non-treaty fisheries is not part of the consultation and not something that is 

"approved" by NMFS, nor any other federal agency, but rather part of an overall 

agreement between the state and tribal co-managers that seeks to balance the interests of 

both parties. This NEPA document discloses the impact of the alternatives, but it is not 

required to analyze the Parties’ agreed upon allocations. 

11 11 We also note that the tribal commercial fisheries appear to secure lower financial returns 

than non-tribal commercial fisheries. Table 3-18 (DEIS p. 64) lists the ex-vessel value of 

harvest indicator species under status quo conditions. The lower Columbia (Zones 1 – 5) 

commercial fisheries harvested 53039 fish that returned an exvessel value of $2418367 or 

$45.59 per fish. The non-tribal harvest in the mid-Columbia subregion (Zone 6) above 

Bonneville harvested 3877 fish that returned an ex-vessel value of $148749 or $38.37 per 

fish. The tribal Zone 6 fishery harvested 237785 fish at an ex-vessel value of $7745794 or 

$32.57 per fish. This appears to indicate that the tribal fishery is not receiving an 

appropriate return on their catch relative to the non-treaty commercial fishery. This 

discrepancy might not unreasonably be interpreted as a failure to meet trust obligations. 

As explained in Appendix A, the calculation of ex-vessel values is based on average 

prices per pound paid for different species stocks and runs (see Table A-2 in Appendix 

A). As identified in Tables A-7 through A-11, tribal and non-tribal fishers harvest 

different numbers of the stocks considered in this assessment. As a result of the variable 

prices and variable catch levels among tribal and non-tribal commercial fishers, the 

price per fish, as calculated by the commenter, is correspondingly different. It should be 

noted, however, that prices and level of catch vary from year to year, and the 

differential value in price per fish also changes. In addition, the estimated total ex-vessel 

value of salmon and steelhead harvested by tribal fishers in the Columbia River Basin 

($7,745,794) under the Status Quo Alternative is substantially greater than the estimated 

total ex-vessel value for the non-tribal commercial harvest of salmon ($2,567,116), as 

indicated in Table 3-18.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 273 2018 

11 12 If a more conservation-oriented alternative, such as the integrated one described above is 

adopted, mitigation hatchery programs will have to be re-evaluated and/or re-configured to 

assure that maximum allowable pHOS levels are not exceeded when returns trigger the 

implementation of stop-loss (no harvest) rules. When harvest is allowed, sufficient 

hatchery fish must be removed (harvested) so that the escapements are composed of wild 

spawners, keeping pHOS levels at or below maximum allowable levels. In other words, 

hatchery production levels must be scaled so that management directed at assuring 

achievement of minimum escapement floors for wild populations does not provide 

justification for high harvest rates in order to comply with pHOS requirements.

See Generic Response 8: Hatchery program reductions under Alternative 5

11 13 The DEIS alternatives also assume that the average and range of conditions experienced in 

the past 10 years (during the course of the current Agreement) will apply for the next 10 

years (over the course of the renewed Agreement). This is unlikely and risky for listed 

stocks and populations, as evidenced by the current crisis in returns of upriver steelhead, 

and wild Snake River B steelhead in particular. The current (2017) disastrous returns of 

sockeye to the Skeena and Fraser rivers in British Columbia also suggest that climatic 

conditions in the northeast and northcentral Pacific Ocean have changed relative to 

conditions at the beginning of the current Agreement, and are becoming more variable and 

unpredictable. The huge block of warm Ocean water off the coasts of Southeast Alaska, 

British Columbia and Washington, commonly referred to as the “blob” that appeared in 

2013-14 and returned in 2016 is but one indication that conditions can change rapidly and 

unpredictably. Elements of the climatic regime in the northeast Pacific where most CR 

salmonids rear appear to have shifted since the early years of the current Agreement. 

Consequently, model scenarios for any of the alternatives should include a wide range of 

values for marine survival and egg to smolt survival in the several basins of the upper 

Columbia and Snake River, particularly modeling conditions that are as and more adverse 

than some experienced by CR stocks in the last 5 years.

See Generic Response 6:10-year forecasting
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 274 2018 

11 14 Zone 6 “Conversion Rate”. 

The so-called Bonneville-to-McNary “conversion rate” refers to the unaccounted loss of 

salmon and steelhead that are detected passing Bonneville Dam but neither detected at 

McNary Dam nor accounted for in fisheries in Zone 6. For several salmon and steelhead 

stocks this loss is in the neighborhood of 20% of the numbers detected at Bonneville. It is 

unlikely, in our and others opinion, that this magnitude loss can be assigned entirely to 

migration mortality. Rather, it appears more likely that some if not all of this loss is due to 

unreported catch, including illegal (poaching) catch by some one or more of treaty tribal 

commercial fishers, non-treaty commercial fishers, and/or recreational fishers. The paucity 

of WDFW and ODFW checkers of the recreational fisheries in the large area between 

Bonneville and McNary, and the absence of independent observers/checkers of the tribal 

commercial fishery appear to provide considerable scope for illegal fishing. This issue 

needs to be explicitly addressed in the new agreement. This should include immediate 

plans to convene a working group of state, tribal (CRITFC), federal, and independent 

fisheries scientists and statisticians to develop a research and monitoring plan to address 

the loss.

Unreported catch is not a component of the proposed action and any impact from such 

catch is not attributable to the proposed action. Regardless, this EIS discloses the extent 

of loss, including the amount attributable to the proposed action, as well as the amount 

of loss attributable to other sources. As described in the comment, the average loss of 

Spring/Summer Chinook between Bonneville and McNary Dam is about 20%. Roughly 

half of that can be attributed to legal and properly reported catch. Identifying the source 

of the remainder of the loss is an ongoing challenge for the US v Oregon parties. A 

recent report analyzed the adult survival characteristics of upriver spring/summer 

Chinook in the Columbia River (see revisions in Section 4.1.1.1). It is apparent from 

this report that adult survival is affected by many things including the downstream 

migration history and whether the fish are hatchery or wild origin. At this time, this is 

the only species that has an analysis of this type available. Run timing is key 

particularly as it relates to high flow and temperature conditions within differences as 

even a few weeks making significant differences.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 275 2018 

11 15 Snake River SteelheadSnake River wild (NOR) B steelhead are returning this year (2017) 

in record low abundance. In addition to harvest impacts permitted under the current 

abundance-based management agreement, particularly in the Zone 6 fishery as noted 

above, hatchery stray rates a concern in all Snake steelhead MPGs, including the major 

tributaries of the Clearwater MPG, the South Fork Salmon and tributaries, and the Middle 

Fork salmon and tributaries that contain major spawning grounds for Snake River B 

steelhead. This is noted in the Idaho Management Unit Recovery Plan appendices to the 

2016 Draft Snake Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan, and in NMFS’ 2016 5-Year 

Review: Summary and Evaluation. The renewed agreement should better address these 

threats by (among other actions):• placing a conservative incidental take limit on wild 

steelhead encountered in this fishery, instead of the current total mortality limit on all 

(hatchery and wild) Snake River B steelhead, and• requiring the treaty tribal fisheries in 

Zone 6 to transition to mark-selective fisheries within the period of the renewed agreement, 

and then requiring release of all wild (non-adipose-clipped) steelhead.

We appreciate that the return of steelhead in 2017 is low and is of particular concern. 

The abundance based harvest schedule is designed to respond to varying conditions. We 

also appreciate your comment that a more conservative limit is preferred. Non-treaty 

fisheries are managed with a take limit on wild steelhead because their fisheries are 

mark selective. Treaty fisheries are not mark selective and are therefore managed to 

limit the overall number of steelhead they catch. The hatchery programs in the Snake 

Basin are being reviewed separately through a set of bundled HGMPs. 

11 16 We also believe that harvest under a new agreement must provide for minimum 

population-specific recovery based spawner escapement goals for Snake River B steelhead 

(as well as other ESA-listed populations). If minimum escapement goals for the aggregate 

population measured at Lower Granite Dam are chosen, the aggregate should be large 

enough to assure that each major spawning population in the Clearwater and Salmon 

MPGs has a high probability (explicitly quantified in the agreement) of attaining their 

minimum escapements and that all major and minor spawning locations within those major 

spawning populations are occupied. 

There is already a discussion in section 4.1.1 of the DEIS under Escapement Goals that 

seems to address the point made by WFC related to escapement goals. The goals used 

are based on the population abundance criteria targets from the respective recovery 

plans that are summed at the ESU and DPS level and reported at the last upstream 

counting location – e.g, Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River or Rock Island Dam on 

the upper Columbia River. These were further adjusted to account for subsequent 

mortality while migrating upstream from the final counting station.

12 1 The public would have benefitted from a public meeting or two in order for NOAA to 

explain how it conducted its analysis in the alternatives review and comparison.

The NEPA Regulations nor the "Policy and Procedures for Compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act and Related Authorities Companion Manual for 

NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A" do not require public meetings during the 45-day 

public comment period. 

12 2 Critically, NOAA Fisheries did not provide some of the cited materials, reports, data, but 

merely contained citations to many papers and other resources that were not readily 

available to the public.

Please see the response to comment 4 of this letter.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 276 2018 

12 3 Compounding that difficulty, NOAA Fisheries’ Harvest DEIS tiers to a 2,000+ page FEIS 

on Columbia River hatchery issues that was incredibly complicated and convoluted as the 

Mitchell Act FEIS evaluated economic issues as well as environmental issues and even 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) issues.

We recognize that the harvest, economic, environmental, and ESA issues associated 

with the US v Oregon Agreement are complex. The NEPA Implementing Regulations, 

at 40 CFR 1502.21 require incorporation by reference such that "Agencies shall 

incorporate material into an environmental impact statement by reference when the 

effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and public review of the 

action. The incorporated material shall be cited in the statement and its content briefly 

described." We have not tiered (see 40 CFR 1508.28) this EIS. Rather, we have

incorporated elements of the Mitchell Act EIS in order to 'cut down on bulk'. Page xi of 

the Executive Summary clarified that, "Therefore, while this EIS stands separate from 

the Mitchell Act EIS, it incorporates data, analyses, and conclusions from the Mitchell 1 

Act EIS as appropriate." Where specific material is incorporated by reference (e.g., 

Section 3.2 and 3.3, Paragraph 1 and the end of Section 3.4), the relevant section of the 

source document is cited. 

12 4 The Harvest DEIS mentions public outreach to Native American tribes, and to commercial 

and recreational anglers, but does not reference any outreach to conservation organizations. 

Section 4.7.3, Public Participation, stated that "Emails [indicating the availability of the 

DEIS] were also sent to individuals who we were previously aware that are interested in 

salmon fishery issues" and provided examples of non-tribal commercial, recreational 

and tribal fishermen. We have updated this statement in the FEIS to capture other 

stakeholders, including conservation organizations. Section 6.3 in the DEIS presented 

the distribution list for the DEIS that included Conservation Anglers and several other 

Organizations and Associations.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 277 2018 

12 5 There appears little if any evidence that the Harvest DEIS considered any of our scoping 

comments which focused on presenting other alternatives than those presented in the 

Notice of Intent (NOI). Indeed the Harvest DEIS on p. 35 notes that several alternatives 

were considered but not analyzed but yet only specifically responds to a single alternative - 

what NOAA describes as a “fixed effort” alternative. NOAA brief dismissal of other 

alternatives weakens its overall Alternatives analysis.

We did consider the six alternatives suggested by the commenter in their response to the 

NOI. The DEIS makes a distinction between Harvest Policies and Harvest Management 

Measures. The Introduction to Section 2 of the DEIS explains the distinction between 

Policies and Management Measures. The alternatives suggested by the commenter all 

fall within the definition of Management Measures that include allocation decisions and 

the types of fisheries and gears that might be used to implement a specific harvest 

policy. The DEIS is designed to evaluate the effect to the environment of a broad set of 

harvest policies, rather than Management Measures.

12 6 The Proposed action is drafting an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) for fisheries, 

presumably authorized by the on-going federal court action known as “US v Oregon,” that 

will result in the direct and indirect take of ESA-listed species of salmon and steelhead,

and drafting a Biological Opinion that the authorized “take” of ESA-listed species will not 

jeopardize the future survival and recovery of the listed species.

The Proposed Action is for the Federal parties to sign the new management agreement, 

as negotiated by the parties to US v Oregon, and for NMFS and USFWS to issue an ITS 

exempting take of listed species pursuant to the implementation of the management 

agreement. The process for development of an ITS are listed in CFR 50.402. 

12 7 The priority for NOAA has been protecting resources and understanding the oceans and 

atmosphere. NOAA’s first order in this effort is to comply with mandates to protect and 

recover species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA). NOAA’s second priority is to ensure, as a representative of the United States 

government, that treaties signed with Native American Tribes are honored. Northwest 

treaty tribes’ right to harvest salmon and steelhead is strong, but not absolute - they cannot 

catch the last of an ESA-listed fish. In that way, NOAA Fisheries role is not to “balance” 

the use or right to use a national or international resource, but to ensure those marine 

resources (in this case, Pacific salmon and steelhead) are sustained and protected - for use 

now, and in perpetuity. There can be no balancing when there are zero fish on one side of 

the scale.

Thank you for your opinion. We, specifically NMFS in regards to the content of this 

comment, manage the resources that are the subject of the US v Oregon Agreement

consistent with a broad set of laws, plans and policies many of which are discussed in 

detail in section 1.6 of the DEIS.

12 8 There is no Preferred Alternative despite specific language requiring it in NOAA’s own 

regulations.

See Generic Response 2: Preferred Alternative

12 9 It is not unforeseeable nor unreasonable that the legal basis of the Agreements arising from 

US v Oregon might be overturned or significantly modified by future litigation that 

establishes that the federal ESA can and does constrain salmon and steelhead harvest 

management and hatchery production and therefore the inclusion of such a scenario is a 

viable alternative that NOAA fails to consider. NOAA needed to consider a broader 

spectrum of alternatives and its failure to do so renders the Harvest DEIS inadequate. Very 

specifically, the Harvest DEIS unreasonably fails to include or even adequately assess 

additional alternatives that were identified through public comments.

We cannot reasonably anticipate the outcome of future litigation or consider related 

outcomes through the NEPA process. NMFS has conducted past and ongoing review for 

ESA compliance on US v Oregon Management Agreements. We did consider a broad 

spectrum of alternatives, which included Alternative 5 that curtailed most fishing, and 

disagree that the range of alternative was inadequate.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 278 2018 

12 10 Alternative 1 is barely different than Alternative 6 (No action) as both describe little 

change from the current Agreement and both make assumptions that “anticipate” certain 

vague actions that provide little detail to enable reviewers from assessing the efficacy of 

the alternative. does not mean there will be no change. The description of the No Action 

alternative assumes that if an agreement is not signed, and if no ITS or Bi-Op is signed, 

that harvest will change. Where is the evidence that would occur? There is little to no 

substantive difference between Alt 1 and Alt 6 because harvest practices and harvest policy 

could be the same. 

Harvest was higher prior to the first issuance of an ITS for any harvest related activity 

subject to US v Oregon. Therefore, the evidence is in the historical record. We believe 

that there is a substantive difference between Alternative 1 and Alternative 6. While 

both alternatives assume harvest would occur, they differentiate the general level at 

which harvest would occur as described in Section 2.

12 11 Rigid assumptions are applied to each alternative which rarely reflect reality or history. 

These rigid assumptions are too numerous to address individually but appear to have 

invaded the treatment and evaluation of most every alternative (presumably to foster an 

easier comparative analysis?).

We sought, to the degree possible, to compare alternatives by quantifying their relative 

effects. Quantification depends on the use of assumptions in order to simplify what is an 

inherently complicated system. Throughout we have tried to explain those assumptions. 

12 12 The No Action Alternative mischaracterizes the effects of Alt 4 (escapement) on harvest 

rates, attributing a harvest rate to all fish returning in excess of escapement goals. This 

assumption ruins Alternative 4 as a viable alternative in the analysis and comparison of the 

entire Harvest DEIS.

See response to comment number 5 in letter number 11 that is also related to Alternative 

4. 

12 13 There is no fundamental discussion or presentation or description of the underlying science 

behind the Alternatives and the specific fishery management policies that are part of most 

of the alternatives.

Section 2 does discuss each alternative and their general characteristics and 

applications. Alternative 2, 3, and 4 (Abundance-based, Fixed Harvest rates, and 

Escapement Based) in particular are standard fishery management policies used 

throughout the world. There are more detailed discussion of the Alternatives and how 

and why they are applied in Section 4. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 279 2018 

12 14 There is frequent reference to modeling yet no explanation or user guide to the scientific 

validity of the modeling upon which NOAA and other managers rely for forecasting and 

analyzing the effects of harvest on populations. Models used to calculate impacts of 

various harvest schemes should be explained, and their key assumptions and critical 

uncertainties described.

The material is inherently complex, but we disagree that there is no explanation or guide 

to explain to the reader how information was modeled. In subsection 2.1.1 through 2.1.6 

we explain the conceptual basis for modeling each alternative. Within each alternative 

we give an example of how a modeled analysis could be performed to orient the reader. 

In subsection 3.2.1 we explain baseline components that will be used in modeling the 

anticipated effects of each alternative, and for the economic analysis we provide an 

Appendix A. Subsection 4.1.1 is titled "Description of Modeled Metrics for Harvest 

Indicator Stocks and Abundance Indicator Stocks" where we attempt to further explain 

the outputs and format of material presented in subsequent sections detailing the 

biological impacts to affected salmon and steelhead resources. We provide explicit 

examples of key assumptions and critical uncertainties in these various specific 

subsections. 

12 15 Incorporation by reference of the US v Oregon Management Agreement as a baseline 

appears as a “precisional” statement, even if it refers to a federal court settlement. The fact 

is that it is an ongoing settlement that can and does change. What does NOAA mean by 

describing it as a baseline? How is that different than a no action or current case 

alternative? If the US v Oregon Management Agreement is a baseline, then it should be, as 

it exists today, as an alternative to be analyzed fully.

Alternative 1 is described in Section 2.1.1 as an "extension of the current agreement" 

and therefore is analyzed fully as an alternative in this EIS.

The EIS has been edited for clarity to remove references to “baseline” and better 

explain when a comparison is made to current, status quo conditions and when a 

comparison is made to the No Action Alternative.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 280 2018 

12 16 The Harvest DEIS merely describes the concept of harvest stocks v. indicator stocks -

without the basis for this delineation, or the scientific literature that supports this 

designation and labeling.TCA believes that NOAA begins with a fundamental flaw - 

managing in aggregate - and that this is already a policy choice that was not analyzed As 

presented in Section 1.3.1 and detailed in Section 4.1, harvest policies are established for 

each Harvest Indicator Stock. Harvest Indicator Stocks are called “Management Units” in 

the US v Oregon management agreement and tend to be aggregates of fish runs larger than 

the ESA-listed “units” (ESU or DPS). Abundance Indicator Stocks are equivalent to the 

ESA-listed “units” (DPS or ESU) affected by implementing fisheries that adhere to harvest 

policies specified in the agreement. Harvest Indicator Stock - where did this concept arise, 

who proposed it, was it evaluated as a scientifically sound management concept. What are 

the critical uncertainties for using this concept, what are the assumptions behind it. What 

have critics of this management concept said about it? Not a single citation to scientific 

basis for modeling, a single citation for forecasting, and none for the scientific basis for 

abundance based management, indicator stock management harvest indicator stock 

management NOAA should be describing the scientific rational and underlying basis for 

each policy concept being employed and evaluated. The same is true for relying on an 

abundance-based management regime.

The stock concept has been a hallmark of salmon management for several decades now, 

extending into various management fora charged for dealing with salmon harvest 

management. A biological opinion determines whether the action (e.g., in river 

implementation of salmon and steelhead fisheries) is likely to adversely affect an ESAlisted species and, if so, would the action therefore appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

survival and recovery of ESA-listed species or adversely modify or destroy their critical 

habitat (situations that are also known as "jeopardy"). If the action is likely to adversely 

affect an ESA-listed species, the biological opinion will include an incidental take 

statement that will describe and set limits for the level of take that is anticipated. If the 

action is found to jeopardize the continued existence of an ESA-listed species, NMFS or 

USFWS will determine during ESA consultation a reasonable and prudent alternative 

(RPA) to the proposed action that is consistent with the intended purpose of the 

proposed action that will remove the risk of jeopardy. 

The NEPA analysis is examining the effects of alternate harvest policy choices, and not 

recommendations for the specific biological criteria that should be used for 

implementing harvest policies and the related management frameworks. We disagree 

that there is no explanation or guide to explain to the reader how information was 

modeled. Please also refer to response to comment number 14 in letter 12. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 281 2018 

12 17 Finally, since harvest is often provided by hatchery production, it means that the effects, 

impacts, cumulative impacts must be evaluated completely. The Harvest DEIS improperly 

segments its evaluation to Columbia River basin harvest, without evaluating the impacts to 

abundance and stock structure caused by fisheries in Alaska, British Columbia and ocean 

fisheries off Oregon and Washington. These harvest regimes are also often driven by and 

reliant on hatchery production. Tiering to an already completed NEPA analysis so 

interwoven wit the Harvest DEIS is confusing and difficult to compare, contrast and not 

find “predecisional” conclusions already hard-wired. This precedent is set by the 

incorporation by reference of the Mitchell Act FEIS which does consider considered 

Alaskan, foreign and ocean catch (p. 1.4). 

See Generic Response 4: Hatchery Cumulative Effects, and for ocean fisheries, see 

Generic Response 9: Ocean harvest. 

12 18 NOAA should have incorporated by reference Fishery Management Plans adopted by the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council on an annual basis. There is much more to be 

understood about the information and scientific analysis contained in these annual reports, 

and could have served as a model for the Harvest DEIS.

Thank you for your comment. The FMPs adopted by the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council do contain a wealth of information, as do the annual Stock Assessment and 

Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Documents found at http://www.pcouncil.org/salmon/stockassessment-and-fishery-evaluation-safe-documents/. These documents have been 

referenced where germane to the content of the specific section of the EIS (e.g., 

economics appendix). See 40 CFR 1502.21 for specific requirements pertaining to 

incorporation by reference in a NEPA document. Section 1.8 of the EIS has also been 

updated to reflect this suggestion. 

12 19 Gear and timing of fisheries are not considered in the Harvest DEIS when they have a 

direct and meaningful affect on all species and stocks of salmon and steelhead. There is no 

analysis of the non-selective nature of the commercial fishing gear used by non-tribal 

commercial and tribal Treaty commercial fishers. The effect of non-selective gear and their 

effect on stock structure and life history is one of depletion and mis-management across 

the entire nation, and particularly in the Pacific Northwest.

Thank you for your comment, however we disagree, as we did explain in the 

introduction to Section 2 regarding the distinction between Harvest Policies and Harvest 

Management Measures, please refer to response to comment number 5 in letter number 

12. 

12 20 The Harvest DEIS does not account for delayed mortality as a result of any fishery that is 

required to safely release non-target species. This includes a failure to evaluate the impacts 

of sport C&R fisheries. The Harvest DEIS did not account for sub-lethal effects, delayed 

mortality after release, nor spawning failure from escaping net fisheries or in sport catch 

and release fisheries.

See Generic Response 7: Non-Retention Impacts
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 282 2018 

12 21 TCA finds deep concern that Columbia River summer steelhead (the so-called “A-run”) is 

not considered in the Harvest DEIS.

Columbia River summer steelhead are considered. We explain why the B-Index 

component of the steelhead run is an adequate proxy for effects to all other stocks of 

steelhead in subsection 4.1.1.5. 

12 22 We share the same concern that Skamania Summer run steelhead are not considered 

despite effects on population by harvests governed by US v Oregon both below and above 

Bonneville Dam. 

Lower Columbia River steelhead are considered. We explain why the B-Index steelhead 

stock is an adequate proxy for effects to all other stocks of steelhead in subsection 4.2.1. 

12 23 LCR winter steelhead not considered while harvests are also governed by US v Oregon

regarding spring chinook and summer chinook fisheries. 

Lower Columbia River steelhead are considered. We explain why the B-Index steelhead 

stock is an adequate proxy for effects to all other stocks of steelhead in subsection 4.2.1. 

12 24 Simply trying to determine the scope of the analysis for each of these documents is 

daunting, let alone trying to assess how the scope of each meshes with the other in the 

repetitive efforts to decipher the environmental, economic and ESA impacts of the varied 

alternatives is actually impossible due to the different affected environments each 

document addressed. There is no logical way for the public to understand how these three 

documents relate to each other, particularly given the short period allowed for public 

comment.

The subject matter is inherently complex and, although difficult, we believe that the 

DEIS includes an appropriate range of alternatives and well described analysis that help 

inform the necessary conclusions and recommendations. 

12 25 While the Mitchell Act FEIS addresses congressionally authorized hatchery funding that is 

aimed to mitigate for the lost natural production of salmon and steelhead caused by the 

construction of large dams, the weight of credible and sound scientific evidence that 

hatcheries cannot achieve their originally ascribed objectives should carry more weight in 

favor of a complete top-to-bottom review of what was lost to the dam building and how 

those losses can be mitigated so that the old solutions of hatcheries are cast aside in favor 

of a holistic program that fosters the natural productivity of wild salmon and steelhead. The 

current congressionally authorized mitigation programs are doomed to eventually failure 

and it behooves the states and tribes to work together to revised the legislative focus from 

the original solution of hatcheries now that there is clear and convincing evidence that they 

are harmful to the watersheds of Oregon, Washington and Idaho. 

Thank you for your comment. We will support States and Tribes in their efforts to 

improve the natural productivity of wild salmon and steelhead. 

12 26 The analysis of the water quality issues with hatcheries missed the cumulative impacts of 

long term discharge, degradation and build up of non-biodegradable chemicals and 

pollutants from hatchery facilities. 

Section 5.3.2, Water Quality and Quantity - Hatchery Effects and Marine Derived 

Nutrients, does clearly disclose that, under all alternatives the impacts of hatchery 

effluent would continue to add to cumulative negative impacts to water quality.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 283 2018 

12 27 It is reported that 100% of hatchery facilities are in compliance with their NPDES permits. 

We doubt that.

All hatchery facilities which produce enough fish to require monitoring under the Clean 

Water Act, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System - managed by either the 

States of Washington and Oregon, or by the EPA for the State Idaho and for Federallyfunded Hatcheries, currently have in place NPDES Discharge permits and operate 

consistent with said permits.

12 28 It was interesting to note that multiple facilities are operating on very old permits that have 

not been reviewed in a timely manner as required by the Clean Water Act.

Thank you for your comment. It has been noted.

12 29 Despite efforts to search for and review these documents, TCA finds that there is very little 

discussion of the connectivity of hatchery production that leads to harvest - related impacts 

on ESA-listed salmon and steelhead recovery and diminishment impact of natural 

production. 

The DEIS does acknowledge that the hatchery production that is referenced in the 

Agreement, at least for those programs whose objective is harvest augmentation, 

support many of the fisheries that are managed under the Agreement. See Section 1.3.1 

and 1.3.2. 

12 30 There does not appear to be any discussion or analysis of the presence, creation and impact 

of non-clipped hatchery fish on harvest alternatives in the Harvest DEIS, though they are 

identified in Mitchell Act FEIS.

Thank you for your comment. It has been noted.

12 31 Finally, it is unclear to TCA whether the incorporation by reference to the Mitchell Act 

FEIS opens that NEPA document up for additional review. Even if it does not, the findings 

or results still deserve questions and clarifications. 

The Mitchell Act DEIS analyzed four action alternatives. Alternatives four and five were 

distinct among these because they distinguish between the Interior Columbia recovery 

domain and the Willamette/Lower Columbia recovery domain and because they apply 

different performance metrics in each domain. The analysis provides important insights 

regarding how the "intermediate" and "stronger" performance goals would affect each of 

these domains. Yet the analysis does not provide a rationale for applying different metrics 

to each domain, nor for treating the two domains separately. What is missing in the FEIS is 

an alternative that applies the stronger performance metric to each domain. 

Thank you for the comment. The Mitchell Act Record of Decision was issued on March 

23, 2017 and can be found at 

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/hatchery/mitchellact_feis/mitchell

_act_eis_recordofdecision.pdf. 

The preferred alternative has been incorporated into the baseline analysis of this EIS. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 284 2018 

12 32 It was unclear if the FEIS incorporated discussion of the monitoring program, including 

program development; key monitoring parameters; how implementation and effectiveness 

monitoring would be addressed. It left adaptation/reform unaddressed, and certainly did not 

confirm whether it would be implemented or funded. There does not appear to be any 

mention of the MER concept within the Harvest DEIS which casts doubt on whether 

hatchery or harvest operations in the Columbia River will ever receive ongoing or even 

partial review in any sort of comprehensive manner, which will leave critical uncertainties 

unaddressed between now and the next time the US v Oregon Management Agreements are 

revised.

The Mitchel Act FEIS and Record of Decision discuss hatchery-specific Monitoring, 

Evaluation, and Reform unique to the Mitchell Act program, it stands for Monitoring, 

Evaluation, and Reform (MER). In our identified preferred alternative, under subsection 

2.1.1. in this US v Oregon FEIS, we do expect to evaluate performance of harvest 

policies relative to achievement of their respective goals on an annual basis. A 

description of the 2008-2017 Agreement's performance evaluation is listed on page 26, 

for which we've provided a link in Section 1.8 of the EIS. We expect a similar 

component will be included in the new Agreement. 

12 33 The Executive Summary of the Harvest DEIS makes a statement at line 11 on p. ix that 

more adults escaping to spawn does not result in more juveniles because “escapement 

capacity is limiting.” This is completely incorrect. This is the common agency opinion 

about habitat capacity and density dependence. It is essentially an MSY-oriented, harvest 

max-oriented opinion lacking clear supporting data. This statement also ignores the value 

of selection for highly competitive animals that is relevant to recovery. That is, even if 

there is data indicating that there is currently a ceiling on parr capacity, for example, 

recovery is likely to be enhanced by assuring high spawning and consequent high fry and 

parr numbers to assure high competition for rearing space. Further, such increased density 

and competition is likely necessary to push juveniles to explore marginal rearing habitats.

See Generic Response 5: Spawning Habitat Capacity

12 34 Another flawed assumption appears in the Mitchell Act FEIS where it states that marine 

derived nutrients from hatchery production are constant and stable across all alternatives. 

While this statement may be made as an assumption to ease the comparison of the 

alternatives, where is the evidence that this is in fact ever true?

Thank you for your comment. We assume you are referring to the US v Oregon EIS, 

and have added clarifying language.

12 35 The Harvest DEIS declares that it would not consider the lower Columbia as tribes do not 

harvest below Bonneville. This is an inaccurate statement. The Treaty tribes DO harvest 

salmon and steelhead below Bonneville. If the analysis was completed based on this 

statement, then the economic analysis in the Harvest DEIS is flawed.

The FEIS has been revised to clarify that the tribes do fish below Bonneville Dam and 

that this harvest was considered in the economic analysis.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 285 2018 

12 36 The economic analysis considers hatcheries as part of a positive economic impact. This 

ignores reality, as the inputs of federal and state funds aimed at operating hatcheries come 

from other sources (federal excise taxes, state general funds) where the funds expended on 

hatchery subsidies and mitigation agreements would have been spent elsewhere in the 

economy. In that sense, these government funds are “costs” and not revenue. Mitigation 

hatcheries would not have been necessary if wild salmon and steelhead had not been 

prevented from reaching the natal streams. Every dollar spent on hatchery production is a 

“cost” or expense that all of us are paying for something that was essentially free to society 

but was lost. All anyone has to do is look at watersheds that still produce wild salmon and 

evaluate the economic benefits wild salmon produce for the local and regional economies. 

These are positive economic contributions. Funds spent from other sources to produce 

hatchery fish which in turn spurs spending to raise, release and harvest them are merely 

subsidies. 

The commenter raises an important distinction concerning different types of economic 

analyses. The analytical objective of the economic analysis conducted for the DEIS was 

to compare the different harvest policy alternatives in terms of different economic 

metrics. These metrics included measures of economic value as estimated by the exvessel value of commercial landings and estimates of trip-related expenditures made by 

recreational anglers, and by the direct and indirect contribution of the harvest policy 

alternatives to the local and regional economy, as measured in terms of employment and 

personal income. Although from a state or federal budget perspective expenditures to 

construct and operate hatcheries would be considered a cost with a corresponding 

benefit, the FEIS takes a more local perspective, focusing on how the different harvest 

policy alternatives contribute to generating economic value for commercial and 

recreational anglers and to economic activity at the local and regional level. This type of 

"contribution" analysis considers the value added to recreational and commercial 

anglers, and the number of jobs and amount of personal income directly and indirectly 

supported by each of the harvest policy alternatives. The type of analysis that the 

commenter refers would be appropriate to determine the economic efficiency of the 

harvest policy alternatives; but for purposes of the FEIS, a comparative assessment 

framework focusing on changes in the different economic metrics better serves the 

purpose and objectives of the economic analysis. Clearly, to persons who work at 

hatcheries and persons whose job is supported by hatchery operations or on the 

expenditures made to participate in affected fisheries, the budgetary costs for hatchery 

operations also provide a local and regional benefit. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 286 2018 

12 37 The economic study relied upon in the Harvest DEIS was completed in 1991. Apparently it 

has been revised and updated in “2016” dollars. The age of this economic analysis may 

make it helpful in terms of comparing its findings with the current and future economic 

landscape, but if all that was done was update the 1991 dollars to 2016 dollars, it renders 

the entire effort meaningless.

Presumably the commenter is referring to the Columbia River: Oregon Angler Survey 

and Economic Study, The Research Group 1991 study, which is referenced in Table A4 of Appendix A. Very limited information from this study was used in the economic 

analysis conducted for the DEIS. The information from this study that was used in the 

DEIS economic analysis was estimates of the average cost of a sportfishing trip for 

salmon and steelhead on the Columbia River. Although measurement of this metric is 

important to the economic analysis of the affected recreational fisheries, these estimates 

of average per-trip spending ($92.84) are considered reasonable relative to recent but 

more limited estimates of angler spending per trip. 

12 38 Appendix for economic analysis: It states that money is spent only within specific harvest 

regions. It is highly likely that salmon harvesters will spend money in one region and travel 

to a different harvest region and not spend any money. This is a poor and likely invalid 

assumption. 

The commenter apparently misunderstood that the analysis assumes that money is spent 

only within specific harvest regions. Because information on the distribution of 

recreational and commercial fishing-related expenditures among the four subregions of 

the Columbia River Basin and outside the basin was not available to allocate 

expenditures to each regions, the economic impacts associated with these expenditures 

were assigned to the region where the fishing activity occurs. This assumption is 

considered reasonable and is considered preferable to attempting to provide a level of 

precision that cannot be supported by the available data. 

12 39 Appendix for economic analysis: There does not appear to be any economic analysis or 

effort to quantify non-consumptive fisheries where anglers fish, spend money and do not 

harvest fish.

The analysis of effects on recreational fisheries is based on the predicted number of 

angler trips that would result from the implementation of each harvest policy 

alternative. As such, the unit of analysis is trips, which includes both consumptive and 

non-consumptive (catch-and-release) fishing trips.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 287 2018 

12 40 The following statement creates questions whether an Economic analysis should have been 

conducted at all. The section states “Because dynamic changes in the economy over time 

are not considered in this analysis, results of the assessment are not considered valid for 

measuring effects on the economy over the long term from changes in fish abundance or 

policy.” p. 215 

Economic analysis is limited by the tools and data available for the analysis. The 

statement referred to by the commenter is intended to inform the reader that the analysis 

does not attempt to factor in uncertain future changes in the economy that could affect 

the magnitude of impacts. Attempting to forecast and incorporate such conditions into 

the analysis would introduce an unacceptable level of speculation. Because the primary 

purpose of the analysis is to compare effects across alternatives, future conditions would 

likely affect the alternatives similarly and would not be expected to materially affect the 

relative results.

12 41 NOAA Fisheries Staff and NW Fisheries Science Center staff have become aware and 

knowledgeable of a phenomenon of lost up-stream migrating adult salmon and steelhead. 

This issue is discussed in the 2015 NOAA Five-year ESA Status Review and it is estimated 

that up to a 20% loss of fish occurs between dams (these are fish that are unaccounted for). 

This phenomenon casts doubt on the effectiveness of harvest rate data, catch reporting and 

escapement...The fact that the Harvest DEIS did not address “conversion” despite the fact 

that it relates to harvest governed by the current 2008-2017 Management Agreement is a 

serious and game-changing flaw.

See Generic Response 3: Hydropower Cumulative Effects. The 'Conversion' is 

addressed and analyzed as interdam loss as explained under Generic Response 3.

12 42 Our rough calculations above would have been greatly more informed had NOAA 

provided us with documents, materials and communication related to the issue of 

“Conversion” or interdam loss as we requested in a Freedom of Information Action request 

(FOIA #DOC-NOAA-2017-001528). However, despite a late and very partial disclosure, 

TCA did not receive the bulk of the documents in time to analyze them and assist in our 

evaluation of the Harvest EIS in relationship with the stunning and extensive loss of wild 

salmon and steelhead between each and every dam. In fact, as the day of the comment 

deadline comes to an end, we have still not received over 80% of the relevant documents.

We received your FOIA request on June 14, 2017. The request involved over 8,000 

documents across multiple parts of the government, including the Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center. 

We understand your comment regarding your concern with interdam loss. These issues 

are well known to us and were sufficiently raised here to allow us to respond to your 

comment. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 288 2018 

12 43 TCA is aware of extensive evidence of regularly occurring illegal harvest of both ESAlisted salmon and steelhead, as well as other non-listed salmonids and non-salmonids in the 

Columbia River. Despite regular requests, there has been no data released on the extent of 

illegal harvest, and how or if it is incorporated into forecasting and harvest models or catch 

records. Evidence of illegal harvest is present in non-tribal commercial fishing fleet in the 

lower Columbia, the sport fishing fleet throughout the Columbia and Snake River main 

stem and in tributaries, and in the Treaty tribal fisheries (commercial, Ceremonial and 

subsistence fisheries).The evidence that has been collected points to an extensive pattern 

and frequency of illegal fishing and harvest, whose effect does not clearly appear to be 

factored into the Harvest DEIS anywhere.

"Section 4.1.1, Escapement Goals, described Interdam Loss as "the difference in fish 

stocks between the mouth of the river and the last upstream counting station 

independent of fishing. The difference represents fish loses due to natural mortality or 

turnout to mainstem tributaries, and mortality associated with hydro operations, illegal 

fishing, and habitat degradation." Interdam loss represents a pool of "missing" fish or 

unaccounted for mortality. Upstream migration that can involve hundreds of miles is a 

challenge for fish in the best to of times. We know that pinniped predation in the lower 

river is significant. Recent analysis has highlighted the influence of high temperature 

and flow on upstream survival. Wild fish tend to have higher upstream survival rates 

than hatchery fish. Fish that migrated downstream inriver as juveniles have higher 

survival rates during upstream passage than transported fish. Illegal harvest certainly 

occurs and contributes to the pool of missing fish, but the relative importance compared 

to the other sources of mortality is unknown. Efforts are underway to assess monitoring 

programs and improve them where needed and to address instances of illegal harvest as 

they become apparent. In the meantime, interdam loss is accounted for in management 

through the development of forecasts and in the analysis of the alternatives considered 

in the DEIS.

12 44 There is little mention of the adequacy of efforts to measure the effectiveness of various 

catch recording activities in the Harvest DEIS, and absolutely no mention of what 

comprises an effective deterrent for illegal fishing by current, let alone future fisheries 

enforcement.

Fishery monitoring is an important element of any fishery management program. The 

DEIS focuses on choices between several harvest policy alternatives. As discussed in 

Section 2 and elsewhere, the DEIS made a distinction between its consideration of 

harvest policies and harvest management measures which are the actions and tactics 

used to implement a fishery policy. Monitoring is therefore part of the considerations of 

management measures that are used once a harvest policy is chosen. Fishery monitoring 

is a necessary element of all of the harvest policies considered, but was not discussed in 

more detail because it would not help inform considerations of the alternatives. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 289 2018 

12 45 There is no discussion nor even a citation of the 2015 Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

Five-year Status Review of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. NOAA published the 

Science Center review in 2016, though neither can be found in the DEIS.Because neither 

newest 5-Year review nor the one before that suggested any change to the status of these 

fish, there are likely problems with the existing and current policies and management in the 

US v Oregon. The status of Columbia and Snake River salmon and steelhead matters in the 

Harvest DEIS, particularly since the review points out harvest as a significant factor.

We have listed the ESA-listed species that are in the 2015 Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center Five-year Status Review. NEPA does not perform an ESA consultation, please 

refer back to response to comment 12.16 of this letter. 

The relationship between ESA and NEPA is complex, in part because both laws address 

environmental values related to the impacts of a proposed action. However, each law 

has a distinct purpose, and the scope and standards of review under each statute are 

different. The purpose of an EIS under NEPA is to promote disclosure, analysis, and 

consideration of the broad range of environmental issues surrounding a proposed major 

Federal action by considering a full range of reasonable alternatives, including a noaction alternative.Public involvement promotes this purpose. The purpose of ESA is to 

conserve listed species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Determinations 

about whether proposed actions meet ESA requirements are made under separate 

evaluations for ESA section 4(d), section 7, or section 10. 

12 46 The Harvest DEIS incorporates by reference the 2014 Mitchell Act FEIS yet it states it 

only affects about one-half of the US v Oregon Agreement.

Please see the response to comment number 3 in this letter (number 12) for an 

explanation of this EIS's use of incorporation by reference. 

12 47 The Harvest DEIS stated that it will not cover Lower Columbia River fisheries, yet tribal 

fisheries are permitted below Bonneville Dam. 

The FEIS has been revised to clarify that the tribes do fish below Bonneville Dam and 

that this harvest was considered in the economic analysis.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 290 2018 

12 48 The Harvest DEIS mentions the Pacific Salmon Treaty, Pacific Fishery Management 

Council ocean salmon management process as well as the North of Falcon process. 

However, it fails to analyze how prosecution of these fisheries, let alone the forecasting 

used to build these fisheries, have ultimate effect on how all of the salmon and steelhead 

returning above Bonneville Dam fare in terms of meeting escapement and ESA recovery 

goals.

See Generic Response 9: Ocean harvest.

12 49 The totality of separate salmon harvest regimes, independently assessed, is nothing more 

than sorting fish into more and more distinct and smaller user buckets as the fish approach 

their natal rivers and streams. This is evident with the multiple in-season management 

adjustments issued by NOAA and PFMC where catch and quotas are routinely transferred 

between aggregate catch areas or user groups. Harvest management operated in this 

manner is upside down and backwards in terms of managing a resource dependant on 

returning enough wild salmon and steelhead spawners to their natal rivers. 

Fishery managers must use the best information available to them at the time that 

management decisions have to be made. As noted by the commenter, information about 

stock composition improves as the fish get closer to their natal streams. Fisheries in the 

ocean or lower in the river are called mixed stock fisheries because it is not possible to 

observe or enumerate the abundance of individual populations. As a consequence, they 

manage for the stock groups that can be distinguished and observed. The Harvest 

Indicator stocks considered in the DEIS are examples of such stock groups. The status 

of the populations affected by mixed stock fisheries is accounted for as harvest policies 

are set and those are designed to protect the weaker components of the stock. Sockeye 

management provides an example. Although there have been hundreds of thousands of 

harvestable sockeye returning to the upper Columbia River in recent years, harvest in 

mixed stock fisheries has been limited significantly because of the weak status of Snake 

River sockeye. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 291 2018 

12 50 A simple look across the Columbia and Snake basin provides all the evidence needed to 

confirm that the management regimes employed by federal, state and tribal fishery 

authorities are not working for wild steelhead. We do not believe that a single alternative 

being considered in the Harvest DEIS will change this trajectory. We challenge NOAA to 

use every option at its disposal to change the regime and the extinction trajectory for this 

magnificent wild animal.

Thank you for your comment. One alternative, Alternative 5, would curtail almost all 

fishing and is therefore as conservative as it can be. Beyond that any of the alternatives 

could be configured to be as restrictive as needed depending on how it is configured and 

implemented. As discussed in Section 2, harvest policies are used to manage weak 

stocks that need protection, like Snake River sockeye, and healthy stocks that provide 

the opportunity for considerable harvest like upriver fall Chinook salmon. The DEIS is 

not designed to focus only on harvest policies needed to protect weak stocks. Instead, it 

is designed to provide information related to the consideration of what policy to use 

under a wide variety of circumstances.

12 51 The Conservation Angler looks forward to helping shape the development of the Harvest 

DEIS so that it can become a management framework that disrupts the current direction.

Thank you for your comment. We believe that your comments, as well as input from 

other commenters, have helped shape the development of the FEIS.

13 1 The following claim is made: "However, the capacity limit of the current spawning habitat 

does not allow for increased juvenile production at higher escapement numbers. Therefore, 

an increase in escapement of adult fish to terminal spawning areas does not translate into 

an increase in juvenile salmonids." Do you have a citation for this statement? And also do 

you mean that spawning habitat is limited or that juvenile habitat is limited? 

See Generic Response 5: Spawning Habitat Capacity

14 1 We need to stop the....taking of all salmon for public consumption. Thank you for your comment. It has been noted.

15 1 It would be helpful if a list of the assumptions used in the analysis were provided up front 

in the document or in an Appendix. In the current version of the DEIS you have to search 

deep into the document to find a rationale for a previous conclusion or statement. 

Thank you for your comment.

15 2 the following statement needs substantial support: "Furthermore, any increase in 

escapement of adult fish to terminal spawning areas does not translate into an increase in 

juvenile salmonids because the capacity limit of the current spawning habitat does not 

allow for increased juvenile production at higher escapement numbers." This is a bold

statement that is being applied over the entire Columbia River. The DEIS provides no 

support for such a conclusion nor is a source cited. ...Has NMFS concluded that these 

habitat actions will not increase the quality and quantity of available spawning and juvenile 

rearing habitat? If yes, this conclusion should be clearly stated in the DEIS and supported. 

See Generic Response 5: Spawning Habitat Capacity
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 292 2018 

15 3 If the density assumption is maintained in the DEIS, then the document needs to be made 

consistent in regards to the claimed benefits of increased adult escapement. The values for 

each species at which increased adult production does produce more juveniles needs to be 

defined. Adult escapement levels above these levels would then be considered to produce 

no benefits. 

See Generic Response 5: Spawning Habitat Capacity

15 4 The DEIS relies on the Mitchell Act EIS to cover hatchery production effects and this 

DEIS to cover harvest. This leads to conclusions about hatchery effects that seem to make 

little sense. For example, the DEIS assumes that if harvest is turned off under Alternative 5 

hatchery production would continue as described in the Agreement. The analysis then 

concludes that more returning hatchery fish would have large negative effects to wild 

populations. But why would managers continue to spend money producing large numbers 

of hatchery fish for harvest if there was no harvest? Additionally, NMFS would also not 

allow this to occur due to impacts to ESA listed stocks so a likely response by NMFS 

would be to severely reduce hatchery production to levels that protect ESA listed stocks 

while providing for harvest in marine fisheries (?). Shouldn’t these actions/responses be 

stated in the cumulative effects section or foreseeable future activities of the DEIS? 

See Generic Response 8: Hatchery program reductions under Alternative 5

15 5 The implementation of each alternative results in a different set of cascading effects 

(feedback) which are not clearly presented (or maybe not required in a programmatic 

EIS?). For example, alternatives which have a large negative effect on wild populations 

will reduce population abundance resulting in a decrease in overall harvest rates (for some 

alternatives) in both marine and freshwater fisheries. These negative effects have the 

potential to reduce population abundance to levels that may require NMFS to change the 

listing status of populations from Threatened to Endangered resulting in severe reductions 

in harvest. 

Thank you for your comment. Cumulative Effects are analyzed in Section 5 and the 

relationship between ESA and NEPA is complex, in part because both laws address 

environmental values related to the impacts of a proposed action. However, each law 

has a distinct purpose, and the scope and standards of review under each statute are 

different. The purpose of an EIS under NEPA is to promote disclosure, analysis, and 

consideration of the broad range of environmental issues surrounding a proposed major 

Federal action by considering a full range of reasonable alternatives, including a noaction alternative.

Public involvement promotes this purpose. The purpose of ESA is to conserve listed 

species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Determinations about whether 

proposed actions meet ESA requirements are made under separate evaluations for ESA 

section 4(d), section 7, or section 10. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 293 2018 

15 6 If freshwater harvest was terminated, yet hatchery production remained unchanged, why 

wouldn’t regulatory agencies respond by increasing ocean harvest rates or implementing 

selective fisheries to remove the now surplus hatchery fish? This action would result in a 

transfer of benefits to primarily non-tribal entities the effects of which should be covered in 

the Final EIS.

Voluntary curtailment of fisheries in-river would not negate the agreements and ESA

consultations that govern escapement levels from the ocean fisheries. Therefore effects 

of a US v Oregon agreement are specific to the Project and Analysis Areas, described in 

Subsection 1.3, and ocean harvest occurs outside this area and will not be affected by 

the alternatives being analyzed in this EIS. 

15 7 I did not see any information provided on how the implementation of each alternative 

would affect ocean fisheries. Is such an analysis needed in a Programmatic EIS? The 

negative effects to ESA-listed stocks from some of the alternatives would reduce total adult 

abundance over time which would likely require ocean harvest rates to be reduced?

Most of the harvest indicators stocks are not caught in ocean fisheries including Upriver 

spring Chinook, Snake River sockeye, or Snake River B-run steelhead (or any of the 

Columbia River steelhead for that matter) so a broader analysis of impacts to ocean 

fisheries is not needed. Upper Columbia summer Chinook and Upriver fall Chinook are 

caught in ocean fisheries, but they are managed based on their run size and return to the 

Columbia River. See Generic Response 9: Ocean harvest. 

15 8 It would seem that the 10-12 year time frame for describing effects of the alternatives may 

be too short. For example, implementation of alternative 4/6 would likely severely reduce 

long term (>12 years) natural origin fish abundance which would result in decreased 

harvest. Or is it assumed that all alternatives will be implemented consistent with ESA and 

NOR abundance will not be substantially affected?

The US v Oregon parties are considering a new agreement that would extend for the 

next 10 years. The analysis is therefore configured to be consistent with the proposed 

action. The DEIS was designed to explore a wide range of potential harvest policy 

alternatives that could be used to manage both weak stocks that required protection and 

healthy stocks that provide opportunity for harvest. The analysis of alternatives was 

designed to illustrate the features of each policy and help inform the decision about 

what policy might be best for any particular circumstance. Additionally please see our 

comment response to comment 12.32 regarding our expectation of the US v Oregon

Parties continued performance evaluation of the Agreement.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 294 2018 

15 9 Additionally, the entire economic analysis shows results by alternative based on minimum, 

average and maximum run sizes estimated for the previous 12 years. This gives the 

impression that harvest benefits from, say the implementation of alternatives 4 and 6, and 

are likely to occur. But given the impacts to ESA listed stocks is it likely that these 

benefits are sustainable over 12 years? Past 12 years?

Although different run sizes are presented in the DEIS, the economic analysis only 

evaluated economic effects associated with the average (median) run size. As discussed 

in the preceding comment, the analysis is designed to inform decisions about what 

harvest policies might be better suited for the wide range of circumstances encountered 

in the Columbia River. As such the analysis illustrates examples where the policy may 

be inappropriate if implemented because it strikes the wrong balance between 

conservation and use objectives. The sustainability to ESA-listed stocks is why the 

baseline was chosen. The immediate years preceding the following decade should be a 

strong indicator of environmental and economic similarity to draw from for expected 

outcomes. 

15 10 The write-up on page 77 states that a 25 percent survival adjustment factor is applied at the 

last counting location to account for survival to their final spawning ground. However its’ 

use is confusing in some sections of the DEIS. For example, on pg 122 it states that the 

aggregate abundance of natural origin spawners necessary meet recovery objectives for 

natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon is 25,500 at Lower Granite. 

And with an average survival rate of 75 percent, the river mouth goal (Columbia River?) is 

34,000. If it is meant to account for survival from the last counting station (Lower Granite) 

to the spawning grounds why isn't the 34,000 the target value at Lower Granite Dam? 

Thank you for your comment. The value you identify is the target value at Lower 

Granite Dam as shown in Figure 4-2. 

15 11 It would be helpful if tables such as 4-59 has one additional column that showed fish alive 

on the spawning grounds (i.e. effective spawners). 

Thank you for the suggestion; however, we only have targets for effective spawners. It 

is not feasible to determine the number of fish alive at each spawning ground in the 

Columbia River Basin.

15 12 The description of Alternative 5 on page iv does not match the text presented later in the 

document. Here, the alternative is described as curtailing harvest or having extreme harvest 

curtailment. Later (pg vii) it states that fishing will be eliminated under Alternative 5. The 

economic analysis assumes no harvest. These sections should be made consistent in the 

Final EIS.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 5 should read as curtailing harvest. Under this 

alternative, there would be voluntary curtailment of most fishing, except, as described in 

Section 2.1.5, "some very limited treaty fishing opportunity to meet base ceremonial 

needs of the tribes." This type of treaty fishing offers a value that is not evaluated by 

this economic analysis and hence the economic analysis assumes no harvest. This has

been clarified in the FEIS.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 295 2018 

15 13 On page vii it is stated the implementation of Alternative 5 would result in escapement of 

larger numbers of hatchery-origin adults, leading to potential negative effects from 

elevated levels of hatchery origin fish spawning naturally. This may indeed be the case for 

Oregon and Idaho populations but not necessarily for Washington State. Washington State 

policy calls for meeting HSRG standards for the proportion of hatchery origin fish on the 

spawning grounds. Therefore, the State would take actions (increased weir operations, 

decrease in hatchery production etc.) to achieve these targets. Shouldn’t the possibility of 

this response be covered in the analysis? 

See Generic Response 8: Hatchery program reductions under Alternative 5

15 14 The data in Table 4-58 appear to be in error or requires more explanation. Although there 

is no fishing, fish escapement past Rock Island dam for Alternative 5 is lower than three of 

the harvest alternatives.

Thank you for your comment. Numbers in the DEIS Table 4-58 were inadvertently 

transposed and have been corrected in the FEIS. 

15 15 It is unclear why under this alternative the Lower Granite Run size was not set up to meet 

the escapement benchmark? For example, for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook the 

minimum escapement goal is 4,000 adults measured at Lower Granite Dam (?). However, 

alternative 4 shows that 3,000 adults was used for all run-sizes (Table 4-61). The text on 

page 78 states that the escapement benchmark is 4,000 and was calculated as 3,000/0.75 

(4,000). Seems like the 3,000 at Lower Granite Dam in this table should be replaced with 

4,000 adults?

Thank you for your comment, this revision has been made in the FEIS.

15 16 The figures in section 4 show that total salmon production by stock/population is the same 

under each alternative. This seems to be because the analysis assumes that the same 

number of adults return to the mouth of the Columbia River for each alternative. This 

starting number is then apportioned to escapement past fisheries and certain points. Thus, 

the analysis is meant to show a relative comparison of outcomes between alternatives 

under an assumed minimum, maximum and average run size and not differences in the 

range of adult production that would be expected for each alternative; this should be stated 

in the headings of the figures or as a footnote. 

Thank you for your comment. Your interpretation is correct, and clarification has been 

added in the text of Text Box 4-1, Column A in Section 4. 

15 17 It would be helpful if the figure and table headings clearly identified numbers that referred 

to natural-origin only fish or are based on a combination of natural-origin and hatcheryorigin fish.

Thank you for your suggestion. Tables and figures referring to natural-origin stocks 

have been clarified in the FEIS. 

15 18 Having a single table where all pertinent information for each population is summarized 

would also be helpful. The reviewer has to sort through a lot of sections to find data needed 

to understand the analysis.

Thank you for your comment. We acknowledge the material is complex and believe we 

have presented alternatives that cover the range necessary for the public to provide 

meaningful input.
US v Oregon Management Agreement FEIS - Appendix C 

US v Oregon EIS 296 2018 

 1 

 2 

15 N/A I have attached a PDF of the DEIS with comments/edits embedded...no need to respond to 

these comments directly as they are for the most part covered in the letter

Thank you for the detailed review of the DEIS. As requested, we are not responding to 

each comment embedded in the PDF of the DEIS, however, we have made changes 

where appropriate in the FEIS. 
United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

620 SW Main Street, Suite 201

Portland, Oregon 97205-3026

IN REPLY REFER TO: 9043.1

ER17/0307

 August 4, 2017

Jeromy Jording, Fishery Biologist

NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region

510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 103

Lacey, WA 98503-1263

Dear Mr. Jording: 

The Department of the Interior has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to analyze impacts of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service joining as a signatory to a 

new U.S v. Oregon Management Agreement for the Years 2018-2027. The Department has no comments on the 

document at this time.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment.

 Sincerely, 

 

 Allison O’Brien

 Regional Environmental Officer




TRIBAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

p.O. BOX 305 . LApWAl, TDAHO 83540 . (208) 843-2253

August 21,2017

Sent via email only to: usyorneDa@noaa.gov

Mr. Jeromy Jording, Fishery Biologist

NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region

510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 103

Lacey, V/A 98503 -1263

Re: Nez Perce Trìbe's Comments on NOAA Fisheries' Uníted Støtes v. Oregon

Drøfr Envíronmental Impact Statement

Dear Mr. Jording:

The Nez Perce Tribe ("Tribe") appreciates the opportunity to comment on the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") Fisheries' Draft Environmental Impact

S tatement analy zing fi shery harve st po lic ie s.

In its 1855 Treaty with the United States (12 Stat. 957),the Tribe reserved the right to take

fish at all usual and accustomed fishing places and the United States secured that right to the Tribe.

The Tribe has traditionally and historically managed its Treaty fisheries to be responsive to the

needs of the fish. In 1968, the United Statés, as trustee for the Yakama, V/arm Springs, Umatilla,

and Nez Perce Tribes, initiated United States v. Oregon to protect Treaty-reserved fishery harvest

from infringement by the State of Oregon. The United States v. Oregoncase and the companion

United States v. Washington case (involving similar treaties negotiated by Isaac Stevens) establish

that regulatory restrictions cannot be imposed on the Treaty fishery unless it is demonstrated that

such regulation is "reasonable and necessary" for "conservation"; that such regulation is the least

restrictive means to achieve the required conservation purpose; that such regulation does not

discriminate against Indian activities, either on their face or as applied; that such regulations'

pulpose cannot be achieved by restrictions on non-treaty cilizens; and, that voluntary tribal

conservation measures are not adequate to achieve the required conservation purpose. After years

of fishing season-by-fishing season litigation, and at the United States District Court's direction,

fhe United States v. Oregon parties have negotiated a series of Management Agreements that have

been entered as court orders. These Management Agreements have described their goal as follows:
Mr. Jeromy Jording

August 2I,2017

Page2

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 flrsheries.

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 pu{pose, the Parties intend to use (as herein

specif,red) 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 only after good faith efforts to settle disagreements through

negotiation are unsuccessful.

See United States v. Oregon Management Agreement, United States v. Oregon,68-513, Docket #

2546.

V/ith the listings of salmon under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") beginnin g in 1991 

,

the state and Tribal fishery managers revisited their harvest management and voluntarily adjusted

it to ensure that it is responsive to the needs of ESA-listed fish. The Tribes voluntarily chose to

ensure their Treaty harvest was responsive to the needs of the fish in these United States Oregon

Management Agreements. Other sources of mortality have yet to make concomitant adjustments

in light of the needs of the fish and that the burden of conservation has yet to be fairly allocated

consistent with the Treaty case law.

The state and Tribal fishery managers are presently using a blend of harvest policies,

including abundance-based management, escapement-based management, and harvest-rate

management, acknowledging the varying conservation requirements with some providing more

opportunity for harvest and some requiring more protection. NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, as parties to United States v. Oregon, have participated and witnessed the

efforts by all of the parties over the decades to look toward the future, to consider all alternatives,

and to refine fisheries management including fishery harvest policies.

The Tribe views the overarching legal framework as consisting of the Tribe's 1855 Treatyreserved fishing rights which are the "supreme law of the land" under the U.S. Constitution and

the United States v. Oregon case law. As a result, the attached comments are primarily focused

on ensuring precision in the DEIS.
Mr. Jeromy Jording

August 2l;2017

Page 3

Please contact Joseph Y. Oatman, Deputy Director, Nez Perce Fisheries, if you have any

questions.

Sincerely,

Mary Jane Miles

Chairman
Attachment - Nez Perce Tribe Comments on DEIS on Harvest Policies

The Nez Perce Tribe's harvest and production staff are committed to continuing to assist NOAA

Fisheries with the accuracy and descriptions of the US. v. Oregon harvest and production

programs, in addition to the comments set forth below.

Page i, lines 3-5.

Revise to coruectly describe that: "United States v. Oregon (US v Oregon) ß the ongoíng Federøl court proceedíng thøt enforces and implements the reservedfishing

ríghts of the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Íllarm Spríngs, and Yakama¡anCåkeslæn+

Baaaee* tribes."

Page i, lines 14-18

The descriptions of the objectives of the Mønagement Agreement should íncorporate

the purposes setforth in the Management Agreement. See Manøgement Agreement,

Preamhle, Docket #2 54 6.

Page ix. Furthermore, any increase in escapement of adult fish to terminal spawning areas does

not translate into an increase in juvenile salmonids because the capacity limit of the current

spawning habitat does not allow for increased juvenile production at higher escapement

numbers. Lines 11-13.

Flagged.

Page 3. The project area is the geographic area where the Proposed Action would take place. It

includes the Columbia River mainstem, the primary segment of the river as contrasted to

tributary rivers that drain into it, from its mouth upstream to Wanapum Dam (river mile 415) and

to the Idaho - Washington state boundary just upstream of Lower Granite Dam on the Snake

River mainstem (Snake River river mile (RM) 107) (Figure 1-1). These mainstem Columbia and

Snake River areas are where the Columbia River treaty tribes and other US v Oregon pafües

regulate fishing activities detailed in the Management Agreement in order to fairly share

harvestable salmon and steelhead. Fishing activities, which are further detailed in Subsection

1.3.1, occur to varying degrees across the project area.

Ensure consistency ønd accuracy of project area; theforegoing descríptíon and Tables

1-I to l-4 ß differentfrom descrìptíon ín 1.3.1.1. Treøty Indían Fßhery location and

jurisdiction línes 10-13/1-3/7-9 on pages 9-10.

Section 2

Page 29 - 30. The numbers presented in the sections that follow are based on actual observed

rates of fishing harvest and should be viewed as approximations and examples of an approach

They are not recommendations for the specific biological criteria that should be used for

1
implementing harvest policies and the related management frameworks. Nonetheless, they are

used here to evaluate the relative effects of each alternative. Lines 26-29 and line 1.

Revße to delete "Jishing" and replace with "harvest" (as shown).

Pages 3l-32. This type of policy tends not to be very aggressive towards a stock as it requires

alargeforecastedabundanceindexoffishbeforeallowinga

large level of harvest to occur. Lines 29-30 and line 1.

This ìs an inøccurøte descriptíon regarding PacíJíc Sølmon TreatyJisheryframework.

Suggest deleting phrøse "requíres that a lørge number ofJish return" ønd replacing

with "requíres a largeforecasted abundance índex ofJish' (as shown).

Pages 33 - 34. The circumstances in which the parties may adopt a voluntary extreme harvest

curtailment policy would likely be where they determine that in the context of other mortality

factors acting on the stocks across their life-cycle (e.g. prior fishery interceptions; hydrosystem

operations; critically low emigration; extreme environmental impacts in ocean or

spawning/rearing areas), that adding adult harvest mortality would further reduce escapement

levels to the point that continued viability of upriver stocks is at imminent risk. Lines 28-30 and

lines 1-3.

Include reference to uhydrosystem operations" ín the pørenthesß (as shown).

Section 3

Page 41. Harvest Indìcator Stocks are the "Management Units" of the US v Orego,n Fisheries

and tend to be aggregate of fish runs larger than the ESA-listed "units" (ESU or DPS). Lines 6-

7.

Page 4l . Abundance Indicator Stocks are equivalent to the ESA-listed "units" (DPS or ESU)

affectedby US v Oregon fisheries. Lines 13-14.

Page 44. The difference between escapement past fisheries and escapement to a specific

counting point represent fish loses due to natural mortality or turnout to mainstem tributaries,

and mortality associated with hydro operations, illegal fishing, and habitat degradation. The

baseline summarizes information from 2005 to 2016. The current management framework was in

place during that time. Lines 18-22.

Flagged.

Tables 3-5 to 3-8, there ìs only tøble 3-8 that includes a column tìtled "Average Loss to

Granite", the others do not ínclude sìmilør ìnformøtíon. Suggest those tables be

updated to include the average loss values to a partícular countìng poínt.

2
Page 61. The tribal commercial fisheries in the upper Columbia River and lower Snake River

subregions are mostly Chinook salmon fisheries, although small numbers of steelhead are also

caught in the Lower Snake River subregion. This region is described as follows, "Lower Snake

River subregion, where catch assumed to contribute to economic activity in five counties (V/alla

Walla, Columbus, Garfield,'Whitman, and Franklin Counties in Washington) that are upstream

of the confluence with the mainstem Columbia River." (Page 59lines 2l-29)).

Thß paragraph ís ínaccurate. There are no Tríbal commerciulfnheries (or any

USvOR tribal covered jisherìes ìn thís subregion) in the lower Snøke Ríver subregion.

This would be consßtent with tribøl harvest vølues reported in this sectíon and other

parts of the DEIS.

Page 65. The Snake River and its main tributaries, the Clearwater and Salmon, account for 35

percent of the Upriver steelhead harvest from the Columbia River system (NIMFS 2003). Lines

24-25.

ll/e questíon why this informatíon on Snake River and tributary hanest ís included

herefor recreationalJishery. ThoseJisherìes øre not covered under USvOR.

Page 69. Commercial harvest and recreational fishing (trips) and associated employment and

personal income are distributed among the four subregions constituting the analysis area (Table

3-25). Lines 15-17.

The Stste of Washington ìs the only USvOR party tofish in the lower Snake Ríver

regìon. Thut ís a recreationøl jishery and only involves the Upríver Spring Chínook

münügement period and stocks (ie.,lløshington utilízes a small percentage of íts total

allowable hamest ratefor mainstemJïshery that target stocks goíng to mid-Columbia,

Upper Columbia and Snake Ríver, to target the Snake Ríver spring/summer Chinook

stock in íts recreationalJishery that occurs in thøt subregion).

Page 69. More than two-thirds ofjobs and income generated by recreational fishing occur in the

Lower Columbia River Subregion, with most of the remainder occurring in the Mid-Columbia

River Subregion and a small amount (1.4 percent of income and2 percent ofjobs as result of

recreational fishery conducted by Washington) in the Lower Snake River Subregion (Table 3-

25). Lines 23-26.

Revíse sentence as shown to read asfollows: "More than two-thírds of jobs and

income generated by recreøtíonølJíshíng occur ín the Lower Columbía Ríver

Subregion, wìth most of the remøínder occurring ín the Mid-Columbia Rìver

Subregion and a smøll amount (1.4 percent of income and 2 percent of jobs as result of

recreøtionalJishery conducted by llashíngton) ìn the Lower Snake Ríver Subregíon

(Tøble 3-25).

Page 72-73. The tribes include those that are parties to the U.S. v. Oregon Agreement as

discussed in Section 1.1 (the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated

Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the'Warm Springs

3
Reservation of 1 Oregon, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation

(collectively,theColumbiaRiverTreatyTribes))aswellas

other Indian tribes of the Columbia Basin. Lines 27-28,l-4'

Revíse parenthetical to read øsfollows: "(the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes

of the Umatilla Indiøn Reservatíon, the Confederated Tribes of the l(ørm Springs

Reservation oJ'Oregon, and the Confederøted Tribes and Bønds of the Yakama Nøtlon

(collectively, the Columbiø River Treaty Tribes); and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes,.,.

Suggest deletíng the phrase "as well øs the Confederated Tríbes of the Colvílle

Reservøtion, Cowlitz Indian Tríbe, ønd the Confederøted Trìbes of the Grand Ronde"

and repløce wíth "ss well as other Indian tribes of the Columbia Bøsín."

Section 4

Page 7 5. A limiting stock is one that constrains harvest during a season, by being the lowest in

abundance relative to its management objective, lowest in abundance relative to other stocks in

fishery, and therefore restricting access to more abundant stocks thus limiting total catch. Lines

26-29.

Suggest revìsing the sentence to read as follows: "A límítíng stock is one that

constrains harvest duríng ü seüson, by beíng the lowest ín abundance reløtíve to its

management objective, lowest in abundance relative to other stocks inftshery, and

thereþre restrictíng øccess to more abundant stocks thus limiting total catch. "

Page 77. For each of the abundance indicator stocks, we use escapement related benchmarks to

assess the conservation outcomes and impacts for each alternative. These are generally based on

the population abundance recovery criteria that are summed at the ESU or DPS level and

reported at the last upstream counting location - Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River and

Rock Island Dam on the upper Columbia River. Lines 14-18. In most cases this adjustment

factor is 25 percent, meaning that we assume that only 75 percent survive to their final spawning

ground. The 25 percent value is used as a suffogate absent better, stock specific information.

Lines 2l-23. These benchmarks should be viewed as approximations and examples of an

approach and not recommendations for the specific criteria that should be used for implementing

harvest policies and the related management frameworks. Nonetheless, they are used here to

evaluate the relative effects of each alternative. Lines 26-29.

Suggest revising the sentence to read øsfollows: These benchmarks should be viewed

as approximations and exømples of an approach and not recommendations for the

specítíc criteriø that should be usedfor ímplementing hørvest policies and the related

man üg e me nt framewo r ks.

Page 78. The aggregate abundance of natural-origin spawners necessary to meet recovery

objectives for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon is 34,000

(25,50010.75). Lines 3-5. Page l2l-I22. The aggregate abundance of natural-origin spawners

4
necessary to meet recovery objectives for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook

salmon is 25,500 at Lower Granite. And with an average survival rate of 75 percent, the

rivermouth goal is 34,000. Lines 5-6,1-2.

Page 78. Description of the abundance related benchmark of 2,700 B-run steelhead was

determined. Lines 14-24. Page 114. This alternative uses an escapement goal of 4,700

natural-origin B-run steelhead at Lower Granite which is based on the 10 year average

run size. This was expanded to an equivalent run size at Bonneville Dam of 8,200 using

TACs run reconstruction methodology. Lines 2-6.

Page 107. For reference, the abundance related recovery objective for natural-origin

Snake River fall Chinook salmon is 3,500. Lines 5-6.

Page 81. Under the current agreement, Upriver spring Chinook salmon are managed using an

abundance based management framework that depends on the abundance of Upriver spring

Chinook salmon, natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, and natural-origin

UCR spring Chinook salmon. Lines 17-20.

Assume thß íncludes høtchery oríginJish.

Page 86-87. For this example, the escapement goal was set at 3,000 natural-origin UCR spring

Chinook salmon past fisheries. The escapement goal approximates the aggregate abundance of

natural-origin spawners necessary to meet recovery objectives for the UCR spring Chinook ESU

Lines 12-15. In this Alternative, the fixed escapement policy was coupled with a de minimis

harvest rate cap of 1 percent for non-treaty fisheries and 5 percent for treaty hsheries. The basis

for choosing the conservative approach offers the highest likelihood of adhering to recovery

plans. Lines 4-5, 15-16.

Fløgged.

Page 97-98. Table 4-23 shows the maximum escapement of Upriver summer Chinook salmon

that could occur absent all fishing. Under Alternative 5, the impacts associated with harvest are

removed. This hereby provides the largest possible spawning population to the greatest extent

possible each year. Lines 26-27, I-2.

How does Alternatìve 5 relate to thefollowíng øssertíon elsewhere ín the document?

"Furthermore, any increøse ìn escapement of adultJish to termínøl spøwning areus

does not translate ínto an increøse ín juvenile sølmoníds because the cøpacíty limit of

the current spawning høbitøt does not øllowfor íncreased juveníle production at

higher escapement numbers."

Page 107. For reference, the abundance related recovery objective for natural-origin Snake

River fall Chinook salmon is 3,500. Lines 5-6.

5
Page 112. Under the current agreement, B-run steelhead are used as an indicator stock. B-run

steelhead are defined as those that pass above Bonneville dam between July 1 and October 31

and are at least 78 cm in length. Lines 7-8.

Page 126. Fisheries targeting these two species operate during the fall and simply retain coho

salmon asåpateh, but there is no harvest policy in the US v Oregon agreement specific for a

conservation requirement for coho salmon upstream of Bonneville Dam. Lines 13-16.

Suggest deleting the words "as bycatch" from thß pørt of sentence.

Page 133. Atthough individual programs are technically independent of harvest goals and would

be expected to continue under any of the alternatives, continued impacts from the collective

hatchery production in the Columbia River basin adopted cumulatively in a new US v Oregon

management agreement is considered part of the impacts discussed here. Lines 12-15.

Suggest ìncluding ø basic description of hamest mitígation hatcheries, including

specffic purpose and rolefor trihal and non-tribalftsheríes.

Page 139. The parties to the US v Oregon management agreement track any salmon or steelhead

bycatch, regardless of the low level, to ensure they remain static and accounted for in allocation

and fishery management calculations. Lines 14-16.

Page 144-145. Potential changes in the direct and indirect contribution of the harvest policy

altematives to employment and personal income in the four economic impact subregions of the

Columbia River basin are estimated. The numbers ofjobs estimated in this analysis below are

expressed as full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs. However, most jobs in the commercial fishing

industry are part-time positions due to the seasonality of commercial salmon fishing in Pt*gp+

Sænd Columbia River. Lines 26-29,lines 1.

Suggest deleting "Puget Sound" and replace with "Columbiø Rìver."

Page 145. Ex-vessel values associated with the total harvest of Upriver Spring Chinook salmon

($848,193) also would be the same as under status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries

accounting for about 65 percent ($493,029) of total ex-vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for

about 42percent($355,164) of the value. Lines 6-9.

Assume the 42 percent is øn eruor and the numeric vølue should be 35.

Page 156. Commercial Fisheries: Overall impacts from tribal and non-tribal commercial

fisheries would be $1.6 million income and34 FTE jobs greater than under Existing Conditions

and Alternative 1. Increases would occur in the Lower Columbia subregion (+$2.: million

income and +51jobs) and Lower Snake River subregion (+$tg0 thousand income and +6 jobs),

while the Mid-Columbia subregion would see a decrease of $622 thousand income and l7 jobs.

Lines 16-20.

6
As díscussed above, there are no commercialJisheríes in the Lower Snøke Ríver

s ubre g io n (o n ly l{D FIY sp o rt fis h ery).

Page 160-161. Under Alternative 1, Extension, Alternative2, Abundance, and Alternative3,

Fixed Harvest, Native ¡\meriean tribes Columbia River treaty tribes in the project area would be

able to continue their C&S harvest without substantial changes to tribal cultural viability. Lines

9, Lines 1-2.

Suggest deleting "Nutive American tribes" ønd repløce wíth "Columbiø River treaty

tribes."

Page 162. Given the significance of salmon and steelhead to Indian tribes, and given that this

significance is not paralleled among other populations that may be affected by the C&S harvest,

these negative effects would be disproportionate. This disproportionate effect cannot be

quantified as no metric can be attributed to the importance of this cultural resource to Indian

tribes and because the importance of the C&S harvest among non-Indian tribes is essentially

zero. Lines 11-15.

Page 165. Alternative 5 does not represents a disproportionate economic effect on Indian tribes

because tribes and non-tribes a¡e equally affected. Lines Il-12.

Flagged.

Section 5

Page 178. Throughout the Columbia River Basin, habitat restoration efforts are supported by

Federal, state, and local agencies; tribes; environmental organizations; and communities. Projects

supported by these entities focus on improving general habitat and ecosystem function or

species-specific conservation objectives that, in some cases, are identified through ESA recovery

plans. The larger, more region-wide, restoration and conservation efforts, either underway or

planned throughout the Columbia River Basin, are presented below. Lines 24-29.

How does ímprovíng general habitat ønd ecosystemfunction relate lo thefollowíng

assertion? "Furthermore, any increase in escapement of adultfah to terminal

spawníng üreas does not translate into an increøse ín juvenile salmonìds because the

capacíty limit of the current spawníng høbitat does not allowfor increased juveníle

productíon at higher escüpement numbers."

Page 180. The effects of Alternative 3 on these same resources is slightly positive relative to

baseline conditions, as it increases the average level of spawning escapements. Alternative 4 and

Alternative 6 have the greatest negative effects (largest harvest) on all affected salmonid species,

especially for Snake River Fall Chinook salmon, Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon,

Upper Columbia River Chinook salmon, Snake River sockeye salmon and B-run steelhead. Only

for Upper Columbia River summer/fall Chinook salmon the effects of Alternative 4 or

Alternative 6 are lower than for Altematives I,2, and 3. These negative impacts to spawning

escapements would subject lower numbers of spawning adults to conditions where greater

7
abundances for a spawning population might mitigate high rates of elevated mortality due to

climate change impacts described above. Thereby Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 may

cumulatively add to the future climate change impacts by subjecting lower spawning populations

to higher levels of elevated mortality and diminishing future returns. Lines 19-30.

Page 181. Alternative 5 has a positive harvest effects on all salmonid species because it involves

no fishing. Alternative 5, while having a positive harvest effects on all salmonid species, because

it involves no fishing, would however, likely result in escapement of larger numbers of hatcheryorigin adults, leading to potential negative effects from elevated levels of hatchery-origin fish

spawning. These effects, discussed in Section 4,rclate to the effects of high levels of unharvested

hatchery fish ending up on natural spawning grounds and competing with and reproductively

interacting with natural-origin fish of the same species/run. Cumulatively, when combined with

all past, present and future actions in the Columbia River Basin, the harvest and hatcheries will

have a greater effect on genetic impacts from hatchery-origin interbreeding with natural-origin

fish, and mortality of natural-origin fish associated with competition, predation, and disease

impacts from hatchery-origin hsh as those summarized above and in Section 4. Lines 1-11.

Page 181-182. For example, if hatchery production disrupts unique patterns of genetic diversity

in a natural-origin salmon or steelhead population, that population may be less able to adapt to

the changing environmental conditions anticipated because of future climate change (Subsection

5.3.1, 1 Climate Change).Lines 28-30, lines 1.

Page 188. To some unpredictable extent, restoration actions within the basin would be expected

to benefit salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. Overall, it is unknown whether restoration

actions would fully, or even partially, mitigate for the impacts of climate change or development

on the abundance of fish species that provide recreational fishing opportunities. Lines 23-26.

The substønce of this pørøgraph should be applicable to Tríbal C&S and tribal and

no n-trib al c omme rc ial fts h e r ies øs w e ll.

Pages 190. However, as C&S harvests are given priority over commercial harvests, the adverse

effect on C&S harvests is anticipated to be low when commercial harvests exist. Under

Alternatives I,2,3, 4, and 6, commercial harvests would continue. The size of the C&S harvest

would therefore be driven primarily by the harvest framework in each alternative and not by

other concurrent development changes or climate change. Each of these five alternatives will

contribute a meaningful effect to the overall cumulative adverse effect on cultural resources.

Lines 4-9.

Flagged.

Page 191. As described in Subsection 4.7.2, Altemative 4 andAlternative 6 results in a

disproportionate adverse economic effect on Indian tribes resulting from a decrease in tribal

commercial harvest of and revenue from Upriver Fall Chinook salmon by 2l percent under both

alternatives compared to an increase in non-tribal commercial harvest by 59 percent. The

economic impact on the tribes is driven primarily by the selected harvest. It may be affected by,

but it is not driven by, other development or restoration activities. Alternative 4 and Alternative

6 would result in a cumulative disproportionate adverse economic effect on the tribes. Lines 2-8

8
Section 4.7.2. description is as follows "As shown in Table 4-68, Altemative 4

and Alternative 6 would result in a 198 percent increase in tribal commercial

harvest for Upper Spring Chinook salmon compared to a corresponding non-tribal

commercial increase of 48 percent. Similarly, Alternative 2 would result ina40

percent increase in tribal commercial harvest for UCR Sockeye salmon, compared

io no increase for the non-tribal commercial harvest. Both examples are positive

disproportionate effects on an Environmental Justice population." þages 162-163,

lines26-28 and lines 1-2).

Fløgged.

9






Keeping Idaho’s Wildlife Heritage

Equal Opportunity Employer  208-334-3700  Fax: 208-334-2114  Idaho Relay (TDD) Service: 1-800-377-3529 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov

IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

600 S Walnut / P.O. Box 25 C.L. "Butch" Otter / Governor

Boise, Idaho 83707 Virgil Moore / Director

August 21, 2017

Submitted Via Email To: usvornepa@noaa.gov

Jeromy Jording, Fishery Biologist, Comment Coordinator:

NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region

510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 103

Lacey, WA 98503-1263

Re: U.S. v. Oregon Draft EIS Comments

Dear Mr. Jording:

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) submits the following comments on the U.S. v. Oregon 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

1. Clarify Management Agreement Objectives and Assumptions regarding Stock Status (e.g., 

Executive Summary, Page i, lines 14-18; Metrics, Section 4.1.1, Page 76, lines 4-5).

The Draft EIS states that NOAA and USFWS “make the explicit assumption that the environmental 

conditions and status of the fish stocks for the next 10 years will be similar to those observed in the past.”

The primary goals of the U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement 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; it would be inconsistent with the U.S. v. 

Oregon management goal for weak runs to remain at status quo for the next 10 years. The Final EIS 

should clarify the federal agencies’ assumption to reflect the objective for improvement in weak stocks 

during the next 10 years.

2. Discuss Potential Impacts to Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook in the U.S. v. Oregon 

Summer Management Period.

The draft EIS does not identify potential impacts to ESA-listed Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook 

Salmon after June 15 (referred to as the summer management period). For example, the draft EIS 

indicates the following “definitions” for chinook salmon: 

4.1.1.1 Upriver Spring Chinook Salmon 

For management purposes, Upriver spring Chinook salmon are defined in the agreement as all 

adult spring and Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon returning to areas upstream of 
Keeping Idaho’s Wildlife Heritage

Equal Opportunity Employer  208-334-3700  Fax: 208-334-2114  Idaho Relay (TDD) Service: 1-800-377-3529 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov

Bonneville Dam between January 1 and June 15. This stock includes both hatchery and naturalorigin fish. 

*** *** ***

4.1.1.2 Upriver Summer Chinook Salmon. For management purposes, upper Columbia summer 

Chinook salmon are defined in the agreement as all Chinook salmon passing Bonneville Dam 

between June 16 and July 31. They are not listed under the ESA.

The above “definitions” and other text describing the spring and summer management periods omit 

potential impacts and create confusion as to ESA-listed Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon. 

During the 2008-2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement, observations based on PIT tag and 

genetic sampling indicate several years between 2008-2017 in which portions of late runs of ESA-listed 

Snake River Spring/Summer chinook were below McNary Dam after June 15, where they were available 

to fisheries occurring during the summer management period. Available to TAC

The Final EIS should discuss potential impacts to ESA-listed Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook 

during the U.S. v. Oregon summer fishery management period.

3. Clarify Bycatch/Incidental Impacts from Full Retention Fisheries/Interdam Loss (E.g.,

Interdam Loss, Impacts of fishing at 80-81).

The draft EIS appears to reflect that only landed fish are impacted in “full retention” fisheries. However, 

various investigations and observations indicate not all fish are landed in “full retention” fisheries. The 

Final EIS should discuss potential non-retention impacts (e.g., incidental injury/mortality) from all 

fisheries.

4. Clarify Description of Escapement (E.g., Section beginning at Page 77)

In describing escapement, the draft EIS refers to benchmarks,” “objectives” and “goals” in a manner that 

is difficult to follow. The Final EIS should clarify usage of these terms. In addition, the description of 

“escapement” should reflect that a key purpose of escapement under U.S. v. Oregon is for broodstock 

collection and juvenile production.

Please contact Lance Hebdon, Anadromous Fish Manager, at 208-287-2711 if there are any questions 

regarding these comments.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ed Schriever, Acting Director for

Virgil Moore

Director
Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Fish Division

4034 Fairview Industrial Drive SE

Salem, OR 97302

(503) 947-6201

FAX (503) 947-6202

www.dfw.state.or.us/

August 21, 2017 

Mr. Jeromy Jording 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

West Coast Region 

510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 103 

Lacey, WA  98503‐1263 

Mr. Jording,  

The Oregon Department  of Fish and Wildlife  (ODFW) appreciates  the  opportunity  to  review  the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to Analyze Impacts of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service 

joining as a signatory to a new U.S v. Oregon Management Agreement (MA) for the Years 2018‐2027.   

The 2008‐2017 MA represented a significant improvement in the coordination and operation of Treaty 

tribal  and  non‐Treaty  fisheries  among  the  signatory  parties,  particularly  when  contrasted  with  prior 

agreements.  Prior agreements were generally of much shorter duration and required significant within‐

agreement  negotiations  to ensure  conservation  needs  for  Columbia  River  fish  populations –  including 

multiple ESA‐listed stocks – were met, Treaty trust responsibilities for fisheries were honored, and fishery 

opportunities for non‐Treaty fisheries were available.   

The 2008‐2017 MA provides an excellent venue for the Parties’ to collaborate to meet these needs, and 

as  a  result  has  served  the  parties  well,  while  meeting  our  collective  conservation  goals.    The MA,  as 

currently  implemented,  has  proven  to  be  a  robust  agreement,  providing  a  strong  framework  for  the 

Parties to discuss and resolve issues.  One example is the Parties’ consensus agreement to implement run 

forecast ‘buffers’ for non‐Treaty spring Chinook fisheries following unanticipated results in the first two 

years of the 2008‐2017 MA.  ODFW is proud to have been an active participant in the current MA process, 

and of the results the Parties have collectively achieved through the auspices of the agreement.  We look 

forward to continuing to work with the other Parties in the future. 

In general, the DEIS appears to adequately capture the scope and breadth of management measures that 

may be applicable to Columbia River fisheries in the next management period (2018‐2027).  ODFW has 

provided an attached document with specific comments and suggested edits. 

Thank you for your time and attention. 

Sincerely, 

Chris Kern, Deputy Fish Division Administrator, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

   

Oregon 

Kate Brown, Governor 
[Type here] 

Specific Comments and Suggested Edits 

Figure 1‐1 caption, page 4, lines 7‐10.  Oregon and Washington utilize the same terminology for fishing 

zones, so the caption could be revised to reflect both states.  The zone boundaries for the river 

downstream of Bonneville Dam are based upon county line boundaries from Washington State counties 

bordering the river.  

Tables 1‐2, 1‐3, and 1‐4 pages 6, 7, 8.  The mixed use of “Project Area” and more area‐specific 

descriptions among different fisheries is confusing.  Please clarify that “Project Area” is not intended to 

mean fisheries occur in the entire project area?  (For example, Treaty Indian Ceremonial and Subsistence 

fisheries do not occur throughout the entire project area as shown in Figure 1‐1). 

Table 1‐2, 1‐3, 1‐4 pages 6, 7, 9.  The Buoy 10 line does not reflect a lower boundary for any current 

Treaty fisheries.  The current agreement does include language that such fisheries could occur upon 

agreement between the States and the Tribes.   

Table 1‐3, page 7.  If the DEIS is attempting to reflect current non‐Treaty regulations, the Summer 

Chinook and Sockeye locations should be from Astoria‐Megler Bridge to Bonneville Dam, not Buoy 10.  

These fisheries are not currently open between the Astoria‐Megler Bridge and Buoy 10. 

Page 9, line 10‐12. Should this read, “...although some fishing does occur both above McNary Dam and

below Bonneville Dam”? Currently “McNary Dam” is not included in the description but the preceding 

parts of the sentence imply that maybe it was intended to be. 

Page 12, line 3.  In the current definition of “SAFE” the E stands for “Enhancement”. 

Page 13, line 9‐10.  Please note that the Steamboat Slough SAFE area has long been discontinued and is 

no longer relevant.  We recommend deletion of this area. 

Page 16, re: discussion of inclusion of other species in agreement. The discussion that fisheries are 

referenced in the MA because there is some potential for incidental take of ESA‐listed salmonids in the 

fishery is not accurate in the case of Pacific lamprey harvest in the Willamette River.  There is no 

incidental take of ESA salmonids in pursuit of lamprey in the Willamette River, and if there were, it 

would be of Willamette population fish, not those stocks incorporated in the MA.  We suggest that the 

words “independently by” in line 3 be replaced with “independent of the agreement by”.    

Page 44, table 3‐5.  Is this table intended to reflect only natural‐origin UC CHS, or hatchery and NO 

combined?  Label implies the table intended to reflect all.  Please review similar potential issues with 

respect to Tables 3‐6 and 3‐8 as well. 

Page 47, line 11‐12.  In the coho section, areas with extirpated populations were identified.  It may be 

helpful and appropriate to identify extirpated populations for other species, including but not limited to 

sockeye in Wallowa Lake. 

Page 59, line 21.  A small portion of Umatilla County actually borders the river just below McNary Dam in 

Zone 6.  If catch contributes to Crook County’s economic activity (presumably due to the Deschutes 

River) then we recommend Jefferson, Deschutes, Wheeler, and Grant Counties also be considered for 

inclusion.  
[Type here] 

Page 60, line 18.  Steelhead are not legal for harvest in non‐Treaty commercial fisheries.  All references 

to harvest of steelhead in non‐Treaty commercial fisheries need to be corrected. 

Page 78, re: SR sockeye and snake river CHF benchmarks.  Please clarify and provide some description of 

how these values were derived.  

Page 78, re: steelhead.  Please clarify whether the number of steelhead (e.g., 13400 fish) is intended to 

apply to the sum of all natural‐origin A and B run Snake River fish? Please clarify the use and basis for 

referenced metric. 

Figure 4‐1, page 119.   In this figure, interdam losses are highest under alternative 5.  As a result, it 

appears that escapement to Rock Island Dam is lower under this “no harvest” scenario than it is in 

alternatives 1‐3.  If this is correct, please provide clarification as to why this is the case absent error in 

figure values.  

Page 126, re: coho.  Please qualify the statement that B‐run wild steelhead impacts are the only limiting 

factor for all fisheries.  This is not a correct statement in reference to all fisheries but it may be if 

clarification provided that this statement refers only to fisheries upstream of Bonneville.  Lower river fall 

fisheries are often constrained by B‐run steelhead, but also by other limitations such as Lower Columbia 

River tule and Lower Columbia Natural coho impact limitations.  Suggest a revision to re‐characterize 

which fisheries are discussed as being solely B‐run limited to exclude fisheries downstream of Bonneville 

Dam.  Additionally, this section makes a linkage to stocks such as the SW WA DPS and Upper Willamette 

DPS stocks, which are primarily affected by fisheries that occur prior to the B‐run “window”.  Therefore 

it is not reasonable to expect harvest and impacts for these stocks to be proportional to catch of B‐run 

fish, as is implied here.   

Page 144.  Lines 3‐5.  Suggest that the sentence beginning “Any anadromous fish taken...” be modified 

to provide clarity, potentially by ending that sentence with “ocean habitat, prior to having been subject 

to the fisheries examined in this analysis.”  (new text in bold). 

Page 145, line 1.  It appears that “Puget Sound” should be replaced with “Columbia River” or “project 

area”. 

Page 147, line 16; page 155, lines 17‐22; page 158, lines 3‐9; page 165, lines 5‐7 (and multiple other 

areas).  Please clarify that Steelhead may not be retained in non‐Treaty commercial fisheries; therefore, 

there should be no ex‐vessel value expressed for steelhead for any non‐Treaty commercial fisheries in 

this analysis.  These issues also carry through to several tables in Appendix A, where values are included 

for non‐Treaty commercial steelhead ex‐vessel values.  These should be all removed from the relevant 

tables. 

Page 158, lines 3‐9.  Please clarify whether this section is intended to reflect all Snake River steelhead, or 

just B‐run?   
Jeromy Jording August 21, 2017 

Sustainable Fisheries Division

National Marine Fisheries Service

West Coast Region

510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 103 

Lacey, WA 98503-1263 

usvornepa@noaa.gov 

Dear Jeromy,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to Analyze 

Impacts of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service joining as a signatory to a new 

U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement for the Years 2018-2027. We trust that our comments 

will assist NMFS in their compliance with both the NEPA and ESA, and with their obligations 

and responsibilities under the Wells Hydroelectric Project Anadromous Fish Agreement and 

Habitat Conservation Plan, and the Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead 

Recovery Plan. 

Should you have any questions regarding our comments, please direct them to Mr. Shane 

Bickford sbickford@dcpud.org (509-881-2208) or Mr. Tom Kahler tomk@dcpud.org (509-881-

2322). 

Sincerely,

Gary Ivory

General Manager

Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County

Enclosures: Douglas PUD Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to Analyze 

Impacts of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service joining as a signatory to a new U.S. 

vs. Oregon Management Agreement for the Years 2018-2027. 
1 

Douglas PUD Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to Analyze 

Impacts of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service joining as a signatory to a new U.S. 

vs. Oregon Management Agreement for the Years 2018-2027 

For organizational purposes, we present these comments in a sequential manner, referring to the 

page and line numbers for your convenience. 

Page 2, line 22: Not all hatchery programs listed in the U.S. v. Oregon agreement have 

“stipulated” production levels; instead some programs have adaptive, fluctuating or even 

temporary production. Specifically, the Wells Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and settlement 

agreements and Biological Opinions for the mid-Columbia Public Utility Districts (PUDs) 

include mitigation hatchery production comprising several categories of hatchery programs each 

subject to production modulation either automatically or upon consent of the parties to those 

agreements. Indeed, those agreements require systematic recalculation of production obligations 

at regular intervals for some programs. The HCP also establish committees comprising 

representatives from each signatory party to the HCP, and invest those committees with the 

authority to determine hatchery-release locations and strategies for Douglas PUD hatchery 

programs. Furthermore, the HCP authorizes the NMFS to unilaterally 1) enforce changes in 

PUD hatchery programs necessary to address emergency effects of those programs on ESAlisted species, and 2) to require changes in mitigation production in response to changes in 

NMFS hatchery policy under the ESA. 

By signing the current U.S. v. Oregon agreement stipulating production levels and release 

locations for PUD hatchery programs, NMFS placed itself in conflict with the provisions of the

HCP that NMFS had previously signed in 2002, and signing a continued or modified 

U.S. v. Oregon agreement would perpetuate that conflict. While the harvest of production from 

the PUD hatchery programs occurs at the discretion of the parties to the U.S. v. Oregon

agreement, that production and the locations and strategies for release of that production are 

independent of the U.S. v. Oregon agreement (see Page 2, lines 27-29), falling instead under the 

purview of NMFS’s HCP agreement with Douglas PUD under the jurisdiction of the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 

Section 3.1, specifically Page 37, lines 8-17 and Page 38, lines 1-9: The Mitchell Act EIS 

(referenced on page 38 as “NMFS 2014”) did not address the unintended effects of the 

U.S. v. Oregon agreement in precluding scientifically sound management of hatchery programs 

in the Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook ESU and Upper Columbia River Summer 

Steelhead DPS. By signing onto an agreement that establishes harvest policies and defines 

management frameworks for fisheries and adopts cumulative hatchery programs, NMFS agrees 

that the implementation of that agreement will not impede the recovery of ESA-listed species or 

conflict with other previous agreements. However, language within the current U.S. v. Oregon

agreement (regarding release numbers and locations for various hatchery programs) has impeded 

local-scale hatchery-program management actions intended to assist in the recovery of listed 

stocks in the UCR Spring Chinook ESU and UCR Summer Steelhead DPS. Before signing onto 

the proposed U.S. v. Oregon agreement, yet again, the onus is upon NMFS to ensure that nothing 

in that agreement could be misconstrued and/or misapplied to impede actions or research 
2 

necessary to facilitate the recovery of natural-origin ESA-listed stocks. Specifically, NMFS 

must ensure that language in that agreement does not interfere with responsibilities and 

capabilities of NMFS or other parties under the Wells HCP to which NMFS and the other parties 

agreed in 2002, preceding the current U.S. v. Oregon agreement. Nothing in any agreement 

continuing or replacing the current U.S. v. Oregon agreement should impede local non-fishery 

actions intended to improve Viable Salmonid Population parameters or for monitoring the effects 

of local actions on such parameters, for any ESA-listed stock. 

Douglas PUD does not support, and believes that NMFS also legally cannot support the 

inclusion of Douglas PUDs mitigation hatchery programs in the U.S. v. Oregon agreement (or 

associated production tables) for the reasons stated above and for the following specific reasons: 

1) Federal jurisdiction over Douglas PUD hatchery production is via the FERC license for the 

Wells Hydroelectric Project, specifically incorporating the Wells HCP and ESA Section 10 

permit issued by NMFS for the operation of the Wells Project and all associated mitigation as 

described in the Wells HCP. In contrast, U.S. v. Oregon has no jurisdiction over Douglas PUD’s 

hatchery production, and NMFS has no authority to include Douglas PUD programs within 

U.S. v. Oregon, and cannot do so without placing themselves in conflict between the two 

agreements; 2) Douglas PUD has a separate regulatory process guided by and under the 

jurisdiction of the FERC that requires Douglas PUD to participate in decision making regarding 

their mitigation hatchery production, whereas U.S. v. Oregon does not provide an opportunity for 

Douglas PUD to participate in decision making, nor does Douglas PUD seek participation in 

U.S. v. Oregon decision making; 3) The NMFS agreement with Douglas PUD (the 2002 Wells 

HCP) defines processes and schedules for implementation, monitoring, and modification of 

Douglas PUD’s hatchery-production programs that differ from the process and schedule 

governing U.S. v. Oregon hatchery production (e.g., Douglas PUD no-net-impact (NNI) 

hatchery-production recalculation occurs at 10-year intervals, with the next recalculation in 

2023; production numbers for NNI programs also automatically change with each survivalverification study, the next of which is scheduled for 2020); 4) Douglas PUD hatchery programs 

are adaptively managed via the HCP committee process, which was envisioned to and explicitly 

incorporates greater flexibility in the management of its hatchery programs when compared to 

the U.S. v. Oregon programs that appear relatively inflexible and non-adaptive; 5) The Wells 

HCP explicitly included robust programs for monitoring and evaluating the effects of Douglas 

PUD hatchery programs on target populations, with the intent that the information gained from 

such monitoring would inform management decisions regarding continued implementation of 

those hatchery programs. Inclusion of the PUD hatchery programs in the current U.S. v. Oregon

agreement has effectively prevented the implementation of some studies necessary to rigorously 

monitor and evaluate the effects of the PUD hatchery programs on target populations; 6) The 

unfortunate inclusion of the Douglas PUD hatchery programs in the current U.S. v. Oregon

agreement has resulted in a conflict of interest for those HCP committee representatives, 

including the NMFS representative(s), bound to terms of both the HCPs and the U.S. v. Oregon

agreement, and this conflict would continue under any new or modified agreement unless those 

PUD hatchery programs are explicitly excluded from or exempted from management under the 

U.S. v. Oregon agreement; and 7) Douglas PUD secures and holds all of its own environmental 

permits and is not dependent upon the U.S. v. Oregon agreement or its related permitting process 

for either permit compliance, ESA coverage, or implementation. 
3 

NMFS can avoid this conflict (described above) between their HCP, that they signed with 

Douglas PUD in 2002, and any new iteration of the U.S. v. Oregon agreement, by disentangling 

the PUD mitigation hatchery production from inclusion in or management under the 

U.S. v. Oregon agreement. Therefore, please remove all of the Douglas PUD-funded hatcherymitigation programs from the U.S. v. Oregon agreement to avoid a violation of the adaptivemanagement principles defined in the HCPs. Failure to do so, places NMFS in the untenable 

positon of non-compliance with at least one of two conflicting processes for defining PUD 

hatchery production levels and/or release locations and strategies. Should NMFS sign onto a 

continued or new U.S. v. Oregon agreement that retains the PUD hatchery-mitigation programs, 

then they must in the final EIS evaluate the effects on recovery of the UCR Spring Chinook ESU 

resulting from their failure to uphold the autonomy of the HCP decision-making process and the 

abdication of their authority under the HCP to mandate scientifically sound hatchery-program 

decision-making. 

Page 44, lines 12-22, and Table 3-5: Total harvest rates reported under the baseline conditions 

for Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon do not accurately represent demographic 

subtleties that result from fisheries. Analysis of PIT-tag data indicates that the loss rates by 

brood year of Methow-Basin, natural-origin, 2-ocean spring Chinook from brood-years 2005-

2013 in Zone-6 averaged 15 percent (median 15%, range 0% to 40%), while the loss rate for 

those same brood years of natural-origin 1-ocean Methow Basin spring Chinook was 0 percent. 

Thus, reporting the gross mean harvest rate does not accurately portray the demographic effects 

of harvest on natural-origin UCR spring Chinook, and the final EIS should include additional 

analyses to evaluate those effects.

Page 50, lines 3-8: Evidence suggests that the “A” and “B” designations based on fork length 

and Bonneville passage-dates do not serve conservation purposes. See Copeland et al. (2017). 

The prudent response to such evidence would include a reconsideration of the current 

management designations. 

Page 54, lines 16-19: Please also include the compelling evidence for a relationship between the 

abundance of host species in the marine environment and abundance of adult lamprey rangewide (Murauskas et al. 2013). 

Page 78, lines 1-3: The Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan, 

approved by NMFS in 2007, includes abundance thresholds for recovery for each subbasin 

supporting spring Chinook in the UCR Spring Chinook ESU. These recovery thresholds 

generated by the Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team are as follows: 2,000 

natural-origin spawners for each of the Wenatchee and Methow MPGs, and 500 for the Entiat 

MPG, for a total of 4,500 natural-origin spawners on the spawning grounds within the ESU. To 

achieve a count of 4,500 at Rock Island Dam according to the method used in the DEIS for 

calculating dam counts post fishery escapement (dividing escapement by 0.75), at least 6,000 

natural-origin fish must escape the fishery. To achieve recovery targets, the desired count at 

Rock Island Dam would also need to account for pre-spawn mortality between Rock Island Dam 

and the spawning grounds in the tributaries, and thus even 6,000 natural-origin fish escaping the 

fishery would return fewer than the target 4,500 natural-origin fish to the spawning grounds. 

Therefore, the escapement and dam-count numbers used in the analyses in this DEIS are 
4 

inadequate to achieve the NMFS-approved recovery goals. The DEIS contains repeated 

references to these inadequate escapement/dam-count goals, including Page 84, Table 4-4; Page 

85, Table 4-7; Page 86, Table 4-10, lines 11-15; Page 87, lines 28-30; Page 88, lines 1-5, Table 

4-13; Page 119, Table 4-58 and Figure 4-1; Page 120, lines 1-8 (list not exhaustive). Therefore, 

the final EIS must evaluate the effects of this inadequate escapement on the recovery of the UCR 

Spring Chinook ESU. Alternatively, NMFS must modify the U.S. v. Oregon agreement such 

that it conforms to the recovery goals that NMFS approved in 2007 or provide scientific 

justification for the departure from those recovery goals and also amend the 2007 Upper 

Columbia Spring Chinook and Steelhead Recovery Plan accordingly. 

Page 80, lines 14-20 (also, Page 44, lines 18-20): The accounting for fishery-related losses

should also include losses attributable to net drop-outs, and such losses comprise target fish, and 

not only bycatch of non-target species/stocks. We observe injured fish at the count windows of 

the dams, and many of the observed injuries are fishery-related, some so severe that the 

likelihood of survival to spawning is very low. Delayed mortality associated with the fishery 

varies with gear type (e.g., very few or no injuries may result from purse-seining or heart traps, 

thereby reducing the injury-related delayed mortality), such that the EIS would need to analyze a 

range of delayed-mortality rates to account for the variety of fishery methods that fishers may 

use under the agreement. 

Page 100, Section 4.1.1.3: The DEIS considers only harvest rates, without considering the effects 

of harvest timing on stock diversity, and persistence under changing climate. As an example, the 

Okanagan (Canadian spelling) sockeye stock faces thermal barriers in both the U.S. Okanogan 

River and Osoyoos Lake, whereby in most years the run stalls in the Columbia River at the 

confluence with the Okanogan River awaiting relief from the thermal impediment to their 

migration. Substantial mortality occurs among those fish attempting to complete their migration 

through the Okanogan River/Osoyoos Lake during periods of fluctuating temperatures prior to 

breakdown of the thermal barrier, and, although suitable for adult survival, temperatures in the 

Columbia River in July and August are too warm for ideal egg development. Climate change 

will affect the timing, severity, and persistence of these thermal barriers, as observed in 2015. 

Thus, the persistence of this stock depends upon the diversification of run timing to ensure 

adequate escapement during extreme years. Only the earliest and latest migrants routinely avoid 

the thermal barriers. Therefore, to truly account for climate change, harvest managers must 

protect the shoulders of the run distribution when deciding on timing of harvest efforts directed 

at or incidentally harvesting Okanagan sockeye, and UCR Chinook and steelhead. Additionally, 

the success of future efforts to reintroduce sockeye above Grand Coulee Dam may depend upon 

the abundance of early returning adults (Iwamoto et al. 2012) and the size of those individuals 

(Doctor and Quinn 2009), but both the largest and earliest returning sockeye are those most 

susceptible to U.S. v. Oregon fisheries targeting spring Chinook. Thus, the final EIS should 

consider a range of stock-specific consequences of harvest actions not just resulting from harvest 

rates, but also harvest timing and selectivity.

Page 132, line 10: We assume that the authors intended “Upper Columbia River Chinook 

Salmon” to be spring Chinook, since the subject sentence and the one that follows include the 

other stocks to which this sentence may refer.
5 

Page 144, lines 5-8 (also Page ix, lines 11-13): In the final EIS, please abandon the argument in, 

or clarify and/or provide references for the sentences stating that “However, the capacity limit of 

the current spawning habitat does not allow for increased juvenile production at higher 

escapement numbers. Therefore, an increase in escapement of adult fish to terminal spawning 

areas does not translate into an increase in juvenile salmonids that would eventually serve as 

adult prey for the SRKW.” Literally interpreted, these sentences indicate that all spawning 

habitat in the Columbia Basin is currently saturated (at carrying capacity) such that any increases 

in adult returns will not result in increased recruits. If accurate, this statement begs the question: 

why then do the action agencies continue to release millions of supplementation fish anywhere 

within spawning tributaries, since no additional juveniles will result from adult returns from 

those programs to target tributaries? Why not rather produce only segregated harvestaugmentation fish released only from mainstem Columbia (or Snake) River hatcheries, 

facilitating removal of returning hatchery fish at those locations to prevent them from depressing 

the natural-origin spawning populations in the tributaries? 

Page 165, lines 19-21: The final EIS should evaluate the economic impact to local communities

resulting from the continued failure to achieve ESA recovery because of U.S. v. Oregon

escapement targets substantially below recovery goals (see comment above regarding targets for 

Rock Island Dam counts and fishery escapement). 

In summary, within the DEIS we have identified a few issues to correct of an editorial nature, 

and others that will require additional analyses to cover aspects of potential effects not 

considered in the DEIS, but that should not prove too complicated to consider in the final EIS. 

Additionally, we have identified two substantial shortcomings of the DEIS that apparently stem 

from issues within the current U.S. v. Oregon agreement and any continued or modified form of 

that agreement that NMFS is considering signing: first, the issue of the DEIS escapement targets 

for UCR spring Chinook that fail to achieve escapement targets specified in the NMFS-approved 

2007 Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan; and second, the

conflict between the Wells HCP and the U.S. v. Oregon agreement that results from the 

misappropriated inclusion of PUD hatchery programs within the U.S. v. Oregon agreement. 

NMFS can rectify the first issue by simply increasing the fishery escapement number in the

U.S. v. Oregon agreement to allow the achievement of the UCR spring Chinook recovery goals 

or, conversely, providing the necessary scientific justification for reducing those goals (and 

amending the 2007 Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan, 

accordingly). NMFS can rectify the second issue by entirely removing the PUD hatchery 

programs from any version of the U.S. v. Oregon agreement that they sign, or by signing an 

iteration of the U.S. v. Oregon agreement that includes PUD production available for harvest 

only by noting that the PUDs will produce fish available for harvest but that the details of release 

numbers, locations, and release strategies reside entirely within the FERC jurisdictional arena of 

the respective HCP committees, and will become available on a year-by-year basis as those 

committees release such information to the TAC.
6 

References

Copeland, T., M. W. Ackerman, K. K. Wright, and A. Byrne. 2017. Life history diversity of 

Snake River steelhead populations between and within management categories. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 37:395-404. 

Doctor, K. K. and T. P. Quinn. 2009. Potential for adaptation-by-time in sockeye salmon 

(Oncorhynchus nerka): the interactions of body size and in-stream reproductive span with 

date of arrival and breeding location. Canadian Journal of Zoology 87:708-717. 

Iwamoto, E. M., J. M. Myers, and R. G. Gustafson. 2012. Resurrecting an extinct salmon 

evolutionarily significant unit: archived scales, historical DNA and implications for 

restoration. Molecular Ecology 21:1567-1582. 

Murauskas, J. G., A. M. Orlov, and K. A. Siwicke. 2013. Relationships between the abundance 

of Pacific Lamprey in the Columbia River and their common hosts in the marine 

environment. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 142:143-155. 


87233675.1 0054995-00001 

August 18, 2017

VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL 

Barry A. Thom 

Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS 

7600 Sand Point way NE 

Seattle, WA 98115-6349

Re: U.S. v. Oregon DEIS Comment 

Dear Mr. Thom: 

Northwest RiverPartners (“RiverPartners”) provides these comments on the 

National Marine Fisheries Service’s (“NMFS”) Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (“EIS”) (together with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or “FWS”, 

collectively “the Services”) for a programmatic environmental impact statement on 

proposed harvest and hatchery actions pursuant to the U.S. v. Oregon Management 

Agreement. We find the DEIS to be insufficient from a legal and public process 

standpoint and urge the Services to take the necessary time to do the NEPA 

analysis correctly and comprehensively. 

RiverPartners is an alliance of utilities, ports, farmers and businesses that support 

salmon restoration efforts based in sound science to ensure actions taken provide 

demonstrable benefits to the listed species. Our members and their customers and 

constituents pay the vast majority of the costs of the region’s fish and wildlife 

program and have a vested interest in how proposed management actions for both 

hatcheries and harvest affect the region’s recovery efforts. RiverPartners has a 

keen interest in issues pertaining to the conservation and management of salmon 

and steelhead and in ensuring that the Federal Columbia River Power System 

(“FCRPS”) continues to co-exist with healthy, robust populations of Endangered 

Species Act (“ESA”) protected species and all other fish and wildlife in the basin. 

RiverPartners appreciates the importance of sport, commercial and tribal harvest 

and the role hatcheries play in ensuring productive fisheries and to some extent, 
87233675.1 0054995-00001 

species conservation. We recognize and appreciate the unique commercial, 

subsistence and ceremonial interests held by the Treaty Tribes in particular to fish 

for salmon and steelhead as well as non-Treaty tribes that also rely on fishing for 

sport or their livelihoods. By filing these comments, RiverPartners communicates 

its concerns that NMFS has not fully satisfied its duties under either the ESA or the 

National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) for reasons described below. 

RiverPartners finds that this draft EIS continues to impermissibly segment U.S. v. 

Oregon harvest management from Mitchell Act hatchery management and the 

FCRPS EIS. All three proposed major federal actions are connected and 

cumulative actions that need to be addressed in a single EIS as required by NEPA. 

The proposed harvest and hatchery Management Agreement and court orders and 

biological opinions directing FCRPS operations are cumulative actions that are 

being proposed in the same geographic area, occur at the same time, and impact 

the same fish. It is not only logical that the agencies should develop one 

comprehensive NEPA analysis, it is exactly what the law intends and requires (See 

Stoel Rives legal analysis attached). 

Indeed, the agencies clearly recognized this inherent linkage in 2008 by joining the 

FCRPS, US vs Oregon Management Agreement, and the Upper Snake project 

review, all together with a common science analysis. In elaborating on this issue, 

the agencies explained that: 

“The FCRPS and Reclamation Actions, along with the fishery Actions being 

considered in this Biological Opinion, are largely coincident both in time 

and place. The actions would all occur over the next ten years...and affect 

listed species by their action in significant portions of the Columbia River 

basin. Understanding the relationship between the FCRPS and Reclamation 

Actions and fisheries considered under the proposed 2008 Agreement, 

provides necessary context for this consultation”, and, “This coordination of 

consultations insures that the best available information, reflected by the 

Comprehensive Analysis and Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis, was 

used consistently,” 

The region cannot continue to adequately protect ESA-listed salmon without a 

science-driven, comprehensive all-“H” (hydro, habitat, hatcheries, harvest) 

approach addressing all sources of human caused mortality throughout the entire 

salmon’s life-cycle. To adequately meet its ESA, NEPA and Treaty obligations, 

the agencies must take a “hard look” at the totality of the adverse effects of these 

actions on all salmon, especially ESA listed species, in the basin. This is 

especially true because ocean conditions, recognized by fisheries scientists as the 
87233675.1 0054995-00001 

overwhelming factor affecting salmon returns and over which we have no control, 

vary widely over time. And, there is little to no regulation of commercial ocean 

harvest impacts on listed stocks. This means there must be a “hard look” at all 

those factors over which there is some measure of control and that independently 

and cumulatively affect listed stocks. 

The only way to be transparent, and to properly satisfy the NEPA mandates for the 

US v Oregon and FCRPS proposed actions, is to merge these analyses into a single 

document and a single NEPA process. This would give the public, state, tribal and 

federal decision-makers a more robust and simultaneous look at the whole problem 

presented by the ESA listings and provides for reasonable alternatives to emerge 

that take into account the entirety of actions affecting listed stocks. As stated by 

Judge Simon in his May 3 ruling on the FCRPS Biological Opinion: “...the threats 

facing the listed species and the required responses are ‘simply too interconnected’ 

to have any response other than a response of a ‘suite’ of ‘all-H’ measures”. 

Instead, given the poor construct of this DEIS, anyone that wishes to understand 

the environmental consequences of proposed actions to recover endangered salmon 

and steelhead must now consult the EIS for the U.S. v. Oregon Harvest 

Management Agreement, the EIS for Mitchell Act Hatchery actions, and the yet to 

be conducted EIS for operation of the FCRPS. This piecemeal approach to 

evaluating the environmental effects of proposed and cumulative federal actions 

falls short of the legal requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, 

which does not serve the Services or the parties to the Agreement very well. 

On duration of the Agreement, this Draft anticipates extending the current U.S. v. 

Oregon Management Agreement for another 10 years. There is no basis for such 

an extended timeline given today’s circumstances. As noted, the 2008/2010 10-

year Management Agreement, shared a common science analysis. The harvest 

management and FCRPS actions were analyzed together because the FCRPS 

Biological Opinion (“BiOp”) and its measures (the “Reasonable and Prudent 

Alternative”) provided, in part, the mitigation to offset impacts resulting from

harvest activities.

This relationship no longer exists – the BiOp’s are not linked – meaning harvest 

and hatchery production levels and the resulting Incidental Take Statement (ITS) 

need to be adjusted taking into account the current situation. Further, none of the 

alternatives in the draft EIS address the problem of mitigating the impacts of the 

Management Agreement on listed fish, unless the “sliding scale” of harvest based 

on abundance levels is seen by NMFS as the mitigation. RiverPartners’ finds this 

particularly important because whatever “incidental take” is authorized in the 
87233675.1 0054995-00001 

Management Agreement will affect the FCRPS level of authorized “take”. Quite 

simply, there is only so much “take” of listed salmon that can be allowed overall 

without compromising the ability to restore these fish. All of this (again) argues 

for a comprehensive all-“H” approach and a much shorter term Management 

Agreement that provides some flexibility to respond to current fishery and other 

conditions, as has been done in the past. That said, the Services could consider 

putting an Interim Management Agreement in place until the FCRPS NEPA and a 

new BiOp are complete. This would allow new data and information from those 

processes to be used in crafting a new Management Agreement and help ensure a 

more complete look at the impacts and interactions of various actions on listed 

salmon stocks. 

RiverPartners is concerned that the legal foundation for this Draft EIS on the future 

Management Agreement appears to assume that continued significant impacts on 

ESA listed fish consistent with the current harvest and hatchery management 

agreement is an acceptable level of environmental impact. Yet, in the same Oregon 

District Court, Judge Simon continues to rule that ESA listed fish in the Columbia 

River are in great peril and that extinction is a very real possibility. These legal 

findings have led Judge Simon to order significant increases in spill from the 

Lower Columbia and Lower Snake River dams to improve survivals of juvenile 

salmon and steelhead, and to call for multi-million dollar studies of breech or 

removal of the Snake River dams.

At the same time, this Draft EIS seems to assume that there is no reason for alarm 

from the proposed actions that continue existing harvest and hatchery management 

practices. Judge Simon’s dire description of the status of ESA listed fish is 

diametrically opposed to the description of proposed take in this Draft EIS. 

The inconsistency of the findings in this Draft EIS with those by Judge Simon

should provide the Services food for serious thought. Listed salmon and steelhead 

are either on the brink of extinction and every possible action to prevent killing 

these fish needs to be implemented immediately, or, the fish are doing fine and 

current harvest and hatchery activities can continue as usual.

The federal agencies need to be transparent about the actual effects of each of the 

three proposed actions at issue (hatchery, harvest and hydropower/habitat) to 

properly conduct their respective NEPA processes, because as explained by the 

Justice Department attorneys in recent briefing, NWF v. NMFS, “NEPA is a public 

process - not a private negotiation among a limited group of interested parties.” 

Yet, NMFS is approaching it this way. For example, in stark contrast to the NEPA 
87233675.1 0054995-00001 

scoping process for the FCRPS which included 15 public workshops in 

communities throughout the Northwest, there were no public scoping meetings on 

the Management Agreement. NMFS simply issued a one-page Notice of Intent, 

identified alternatives and asked for written comments within 30 days, with one 

comment extension. 

In summary, by trifurcating the NEPA analysis, the Services are obfuscating the 

cumulative environmental effects of the major federal actions affecting listed 

salmon species. This DEIS also applies different legal and process standards as 

compared to those applied to the FCRPS and thus falls short of meeting the law’s 

requirements. We urge you to take the time to do a transparent, robust DEIS that 

looks at all the actions affecting the listed salmon species and to provide 

opportunities for more public involvement. 

Sincerely, 

Terry Flores, Executive Director 

Cc: Elliot Mainzer, Regional Administrator, Bonneville Power Administration 

Brigadier General Scott A. Spellmon, Commander Northwestern Division, US 

Army Corps 

 Lorri Lee, Pacific Northwest Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation 

 Henry Lorenzen, Chair, NW Power and Conservation Council 

 

 
600 University Street, Suite 3600 

Seattle, Washington 98101 

T. 206.624.0900 

F. 206.386.7500 

www.stoel.com 

BETH S. GINSBERG Direct 

206.386.7581 

beth.ginsberg@stoel.com 

The US v. Oregon Management EIS should be combined with the FCRPS EIS in a single NEPA 

document addressing the totality of the environmental effects on salmon and steelhead. 

The Services appear intent on improperly segmenting the harvest and hatchery management 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the broader National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) inquiry being simultaneously conducted by the Services and the action agencies, (e.g., 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”), the Bureau of Reclamation (“BOR”) and the 

Bonneville Power Administration (“BPA”) for the Federal Columbia River Power System 

(FCRPS) EIS. But, the Harvest/Hatchery Management EIS and the FCRPS EIS are plainly 

closely related and should be addressed in the same NEPA analysis to properly satisfy the intent 

of the statute, which as applied here, is to ensure that impacts to these ESA protected salmonids 

are fully, fairly and publicly evaluated. 

As required by NEPA, the FCRPS EIS must take a hard look at alternatives to the planned 

operation and maintenance of the FCRPS including consideration of reasonable and prudent 

alternatives (“RPAs”) that reduce mortality of listed salmonids. The Harvest/ Hatchery 

Management EIS, as required by NEPA, must take a hard look at alternatives to planned harvest 

and hatchery activities that are a major source of mortality for those very same listed salmonids 

that travel in the same action area in which the FCRPS operates. It is extremely difficult to 

comprehend how the Services could possibly take a “hard look” at the effects of the US vs 

Oregon Management Agreement (“Management Agreement”) on salmonids without 

simultaneously looking at effects to these same species from hydropower operations. See e.g., N. 

Plains Res. Council, Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd, 668 F.3d 1067, 1075 (9th Cir. 2011)(requiring 

agencies to take a “hard look” at all of the environmental impacts of their actions). 

NMFS’ plan to evaluate the impacts of harvest and hatcheries separately and in advance of 

planned operations for the FCRPS is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of NEPA. These fish 

are simultaneously impacted by the hydrosystem, harvest, hatchery management, habitat 

impairment and hatcheries (“the 4 Hs”), and to pretend otherwise is to do nothing other than 

subvert the intent of the “hard look” mandated by NEPA. 

We fully understand that NMFS is embarking on two separate proposed actions: harvest and 

hatchery management and the operation of the FCRPS. We further understand that NMFS 

believes these two proposed actions are not “connected” for purposes of NEPA because they 
William W. Stelle, Jr 

Page 2 

have “independent utility,” are timed differently and therefore need not be considered in the same 

NEPA document. See 40 C.F.R. 1508.25(a)(1). But, as explained more fully below, the history 

of these actions and the manner in which they were treated by the Services in the past indicates 

that they are clearly connected. Moreover, any timing distinctions are entirely artificial. Both 

the Management Agreement and the FCRPS operations are ongoing and long running actions. 

They will be implemented at the same time and impact the exact same endangered and 

threatened fish in the same geographic area. Salmon and steelhead do not understand or respect 

the “proposed action” distinctions and legal niceties; those are legal artifices that as applied here 

by the federal government, hide the actual and synergistic effects of these federal actions. 

What the Services overlook in structuring the “serial yet separate” NEPA reviews proposed for 

these two actions is that the completion of the new Management Agreement will undoubtedly 

affect the manner in which the FCRPS operations are managed and visa versa. Both proposed 

actions harm these fish while the goal of both proposed actions is to accomplish their respective 

purpose and need (i.e., continued operation of the hydrosystem, and continued authorization and 

management of harvest and hatchery activities) while not doing so to the point of jeopardizing 

these species or adversely modifying their habitat, as prohibited under ESA section 7(a)(2), 16 

U.S.C. §1536(a)(2). 

In other words, the levels of harvest and hatchery production authorized in the proposed 

Management Agreement will undoubtedly affect the amount of incidental take authorized by 

future Biological Opinions for the FCRPS because there is only so much “take”-- whether 

“incidental” or otherwise-- that can be authorized before compromising the ability to restore 

these protected fish. Thus, to look at the effects of one action, separate and apart from the effects 

of the other, when they each involve the same geographic area-- the Columbia River mainstem 

and the very same fish-- is to impermissibly segment the full analysis and to subvert the “hard 

look” required by NEPA. 

This argues strongly in favor of a 4H approach to the NEPA process- similar to the 4H approach 

utilized by the Services and the action agencies in conducting the ESA section 7 consultations for 

the FCRPS since the publication of the Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy (“BSRS”) in 2000. 

The Services’ decision to evaluate harvest and hatcheries in a vacuum from the operation of the 

FCRPS and other actions that may be directly, indirectly, or cumulatively impacting salmonids is 

a one hundred eighty degree and unprecedented departure from its conduct over the better part of 

the last two decades. See Natl. Wildlife Fedn v. Natl. Marine Fisheries Serv., 254 F. Supp. 2d 

1196, 1212 (D. Or. 2003) (“In the 2000 BiOp and the BSRS, NOAA makes clear that the shortterm survival and recovery of the eight salmon ESUs depend in part on range-wide offsite 

mitigation, habitat, harvest, and hatchery actions.”). 
William W. Stelle, Jr 

Page 3 

A further look at the prior history of the manner in which these two proposed actions were 

handled by the government in the analogous ESA context illustrates their connectivity. The 

Services’ desire to now de-couple these two proposed actions flies in the face of the manner in 

which the Services previously treated these two proposed actions. Indeed, the last time the 

Management Agreement was re-negotiated, and re-issued in 2008, the Services clearly 

understood their inherent linkage and issued the respective BiOps on the basis of the same 

“Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis” and aggregated the analyses for: (1) the BOR’s 

operation of the Upper Snake projects; (2) the Corps’ operation of the FCRPS; and (3) NOAA 

Fisheries’ participation in the 2008-20017 Management Agreement. See U.S. v. Oregon 

Management Agreement Biop (May 5, 2008) at 1-9 establishing that: 

The FCRPS and Reclamation Actions, along with the fishery 

Actions being considered in this Biological Opinion, are largely 

coincident both in time and place. The actions would all occur 

over the next ten years. . . and affect listed species by their actions 

in significant portions of the Columbia River basin. Understanding 

the relationship between the FCRPS and Reclamation Actions and 

fisheries considered under the proposed 2008 Agreement, provides 

necessary context for this consultation. 

Id. In elaborating on this point, the Services explained that “this coordination of consultations 

insures that the best available information, reflected by the CA and SCA, was used consistently.” 

Id. The Services further justified its joint treatment of the Management and FCRPS actions by 

emphasizing that 

[t]he close relationship between the remand process, the 

consultation on the FCRPS and Reclamation Actions, and 

consultation on the 2008 Agreement is worth noting. All of the 

state and Tribal parties to U.S. v. Oregon were directly involved in 

the FCRPS litigation and associated remand process. 

Id. at 1-10. Notably, the rationale for historically combining these analyses remains equally 

availing today, where the parties to the Management Agreement are parties to the continuing 

FCRPS litigation, and given the close relationship between the issues involved in each EIS. 

Thus, in executing their statutory responsibilities, the Services recognized (as did Federal District 

Judge Redden) that these various federal actions were taking place in the same geographic area, 
William W. Stelle, Jr 

Page 4 

involved the same fish, and had similar consequences (i.e., harm to protected ESA species) and 

therefore needed to be evaluated together. 1See Natl. Wildlife Fedn. v. Natl. Marine Fisheries 

Serv., CV 01-640-RE, 2005 WL 3576843, at *9 (D. Or. Dec. 29, 2005) (“The federal defendants 

have promised a thorough review of the four ‘H's’”). Natl. Wildlife Fedn. v. Natl. Marine 

Fisheries Serv., CV 01-640-RE, 2005 WL 1278878, at *21 (D. Or. May 26, 2005) (“I conclude 

that the ESA regulations and NOAA's Consultation Handbook appropriately require NOAA to 

consider the effects of future state-managed harvest and hatcheries in any jeopardy analysis 

because such actions are reasonably certain to occur and undoubtedly impact the status of the 

listed species.”) 

While the Services did not at that time complete a NEPA review, their actions in carrying out 

their ESA responsibilities in this comprehensive manner is both telling and an acknowledgement 

of their inherent linkage. The fact that the Services and Judge Redden understood the need to 

simultaneously, comprehensively and transparently evaluate these “two sides of the same coin” 

demonstrates the problems inherent in attempting to de-link them in the manner now proposed by 

the Services. See Westlands Water Dist v. U.S. Dept of Interior, 275 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 119091 

(E.D. Cal. 2004)(“whatever nomenclature is applied to the relationship between the Biop’s 

RPMs, the EIS and the ROD the end result is that they are inextricably intertwined as part of the 

same action to restore the Trinity River fishery, which in turn requires they be analyzed in the 

same EIS.”). 

Separating the effects analyses as now proposed is counter to Judge Simon’s recent NEPA 

ruling in National Wildlife Federation v. NMFS 

In segmenting the harvest/hatchery management and FCRPS EISs, the Services are effectively 

thwarting Judge Simon’s recent NEPA ruling in NWF v. NMFS, 2016 WL 2353647 **55-62. In 

recently ordering the governmental defendants in NWF v NMFS to conduct a comprehensive 

NEPA analysis encompassing the effects of all 73 individual actions comprising the FCRPS 

RPA, Judge Simon was intent on requiring the government to look at the totality of the effects on 

these listed species in a manner that addressed all four of the “H’s”- hydropower, habitat, 

harvest, and hatcheries. He was concerned that failing to look at all the individual RPA measures 

together in one single EIS would subvert the very purpose of NEPA. After all, “[t]he idea behind 

NEPA is that if the agency’s eyes are open to the environmental consequences of its actions, and 

if it considers options that entail less environmental damage, it may be persuaded to alter what it 

proposed. Lemon v. Geren, 514 F.3d 1312, 1315 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

 

1

 The harvest management and FCRPS proposed actions were also analyzed together because the FCRPS BiOp and its 

attendant Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (“RPA”) provided the necessary mitigation to offset the impacts 

resulting from harvest. 
William W. Stelle, Jr 

Page 5 

Accordingly, he held that the various individual RPA measures were both connected and 

cumulative actions and otherwise resulted in cumulative effects that needed to be addressed in a 

single EIS. Judge Simon emphasized that 

[a]s the Federal Defendants contend in the jeopardy portion of their 

summary judgment brief, the threats facing the listed species and 

the required responses are “simply too interconnected” to have any 

response other than a response of a “suite” of “all-H” measures. 

NWF v. NMFS, 2016 WL 2353647, * 55. See Earth Island Ins. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 

1291, 1304-05 (9th Cir. 2003)(noting that a single EIS is required where the projects are 

connected, cumulative or similar); Native Ecosystems Council v. Dombeck, 304 F.3d 886, 89394 

(9th Cir. 2002) (same). See also 40 C.F.R. 1508.25 (a)(2)(defining cumulative actions as those 

“which when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant impacts and 

should therefore be discussed in the same impact statement.”); 40 C.F.R. 

1508.25(a)(3)(defining “similar actions” as those which when viewed with other reasonably 

foreseeable or proposed agency actions, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their 

environmental consequences together, such as common timing or geography”). These 

implementing regulations further admonish agencies to evaluate similar actions in the same EIS 

when “the best way to assess adequately the combined impacts of similar actions or reasonable 

alternatives to such actions is to treat them in a single impact statement.” 

Indeed, the crux of Judge Simon’s NEPA decision required a single EIS “so that the Action 

Agencies, the public, and public officials can take a hard look at the programmatic plan to offset 

the adverse effects of the FCRPS and consider the reasonable alternatives.” 2016 WL 2353647 

* 56. It is difficult to imagine how the agencies can accomplish this task without looking at the 

effects of harvest and hatchery management and the on-going FCRPS operations, together with 

habitat actions, in the same EIS. 

In other words, to use Judge Simon’s words, “at a macro level, these [actions] are all connected 

because they are needed to offset the adverse effects of [each other.] . . . If one action is replaced 

with a different action providing greater survival benefits, another “independent” action will not 

be required.” Id. Thus, “for example, a very large offset can be achieved through bypassing one 

or more of the four lower Snake River dams, than many other actions may not need to occur, 

such as killing DCCO, hazing Caspian terns, or improving the estuary habitat.” Id. Judge Simon 

could just as easily used modifications to on-going harvest/hatchery management as another 

example to illustrate his broader holding that that the 73 individual actions that comprise the 

broader RPA needed to be evaluated in a single EIS. 
William W. Stelle, Jr 

Page 6 

The 30-days scoping period proposed for the U.S. v. Oregon EIS is woefully insufficient 

In addition to impermissibly segmenting the effects analysis of the U.S. v. Oregon Management 

Agreement from the broader EIS for the FCRPS, the Services are proposing a pro forma 30-days 

public process that does not meet the spirit or requirements of NEPA given the issues at hand. In 

juxtaposition, this 30-days scoping period commencing on the eve of the long Fourth of July 

weekend with no notice other than a Federal Register notice is woefully inadequate to achieve 

the underlying purpose of the NEPA e.g. to enable decision-makers to take “a hard look” at the 

totality of environmental effects caused by their proposed actions and develop reasonable 

alternatives that if taken, would avoid such adverse effects. The Services should reconsider this 

bare-bones “process” and instead, afford members of the public a robust and transparent 

opportunity to weigh in on issues governing hatcheries and harvest. 

Conclusion 

NEPA requires a comprehensive assessment of the significant environmental impacts of 

reissuance of the U.S. v Oregon Management Agreement. NEPA also requires that cumulative, 

connected and similar actions be evaluated in the same EIS to provide the various 

decisionmakers the information necessary to make informed decisions about the ramifications of 

their proposed actions on the environment. 

To that end, RiverPartners asks the Services to combine the Harvest Management EIS process 

with the FCRPS EIS process so that one comprehensive, robust analysis is produced that would 

enable the states and Tribes and the Services, together with BPA, the Corps and the BOR to 

make informed decisions about continued harvest management and continued FCRPS operations 

that will impact the same fish in the same stretches of the Columbia and Snake rivers. That is 

what Judge Simon demanded in his recent Opinion and Order in NWF v. NMFS, and that is what 

the region needs to participate in an informed manner in the upcoming NEPA review(s) for these 

proposed actions. 

RiverPartners is also requesting that the Services extend the scoping comment period for another 

60 – 90 days and hold public hearings so that interested members of the public can weigh in on 

these critically important issues. The thirty day comment period provided thus far is woefully 

inadequate under the circumstances and is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the statute that 

the agencies are attempting to satisfy. 

 
U.S. v. Oregon DEIS Comments

Submitted by

Wild Fish Conservancy

August 21, 2017

Attn: Jeromy Jording, Fishery Biologist

National Marine Fisheries Service

West Coast Region

510 Desmond Dr., SE, Suite 103

Lacey, WA 98503-1263

usvornepa@noaa.gov

Jeromy,

Wild Fish Conservancy appreciates the opportunity to provide the following comments on the DEIS. We hope 

you find our comments constructive and helpful in achieving a new U.S. v. Oregon Fisheries management plan 

that is fully protective of all affected ESA-listed populations while meeting NMFS’ treaty trust responsibilities.

Sincerely,

Kurt Beardslee

Executive Director

Wild Fish Conservancy

P. O. Box 402

Duvall, WA 98019

kurt@wildfishconservancy.org

In support of these comments:

Pete Soverel,

President

The Conservation Angler

Bill Bakke

Conservation Director

The Conservation Angler
Introduction

The renewal of the U.S. v. Oregon management agreement (henceforth, “Agreement”) presents NMFS with the 

ability to improve opportunities for recovering ESA-listed Chinook and steelhead populations in the Upper 

Columbia and Snake River basins, relative to the current state of affairs. Wild Fish Conservancy believes that it is 

possible to achieve improvement in recovery of ESA-listed populations and improve economic returns to tribal 

and non-tribal commercial fisheries. The current 2017 return year crisis of upper Columbia/Snake steelhead, 

especially natural-origin (henceforth “wild”) Snake River B steelhead, highlights that the current fisheries regime 

under the 2008-2017 Agreement is insufficiently risk-averse when returns of ESA-listed wild populations of 

Chinook and steelhead are at low abundance. In our assessment, none of the four primary, viable, alternatives 

described in the DEIS (alternatives 1 – 4) are adequate by themselves. However, three (alternatives 2, 3, and 4) 

contain elements that could be combined to provide a credibly risk-averse management plan, if also combined 

with additional elements pertaining to the conduct of individual fisheries. In the following comments, we first 

describe the combination of elements from alternatives 2, 3, and 4 that we recommend NMFS further examine in 

developing a draft Agreement for 2018-2027. We then address additional issues in the DEIS that we believe to be 

important.

A Risk-Averse Alternative

Alternative 2 would extend the abundance-based management regime that currently applies to a subset of 

Chinook, sockeye and steelhead stocks in the upper Columbia/Snake basin to all upriver (above Bonneville Dam) 

populations. Alternative 3 would manage all fisheries affecting upriver populations using fixed harvest rates. The 

harvest rates for individual stocks (population aggregates) or populations would be the average harvest rates 

observed in the past 10 years (essentially those observed under the current agreement). Alternative 4 would 

manage all fisheries affecting upriver populations to attain fixed stock- or population-specific escapement goals, 

also based on the recent 10-year averages. Under this alternative no or only de minimus tribal ceremonial and 

subsistence (C&S) fisheries would occur when the estimated terminal run of a stock or population to a specific 

location (Columbia River (CR) mouth, Bonneville, Rock Island, or Lower Granite Dam) was expected to be 

below the escapement goal. Otherwise, harvest would be configured to take all of the return in excess of the goal.

While each of these alternatives are helpful by outlining extremes of each management approach, none is 

sufficiently protective of ESA-listed stocks or populations. None appear capable of meeting all ESA 

requirements regarding jeopardy, nor do they appear capable of optimizing recovery opportunities in the context 
of also providing harvest opportunities on mitigation hatchery returns that provide the majority of treaty and nontreaty fishing opportunities. 

Alternative 2 applies incrementally increasing harvest rates to stocks based on the estimated return to the relevant 

in-river management point (location) and would permit some level of commercial and recreational fishing 

regardless of how low the return abundance. This is insufficiently protective of ESA-listed stocks and 

populations. Preservation and rebuilding of ESA-listed populations requires securing minimum spawning 

escapements to each spawning population together with the life history diversity (age structure, sex ratio, run 

timing) that is characteristic of local spawning populations. None of the current abundance-base harvest regimes 

secure this.

Alternative 3 applies a fixed annual harvest rate to each management unit stock regardless of abundance. Further, 

the harvest rates are derived from the recent 10-year average of observed (estimated) harvest rates. It is not clear 

that the selection of these rates has appropriately taken account of the variation in the rates observed over the past 

10 years or the variation in implementation of the associated fishery regimes (implementation error). Regardless, 

this alternative is insufficiently protective of ESA-listed populations and stocks when return levels are low. This is 

clear from the comparisons of minimum escapements past fisheries provided in summary tables 4-58 through 4-

63, pages 119 - 130.

Alternative 4 would employ a fixed escapement goal for each stock and employ associated fishing control rules 

that would aim to harvest all surplus returns in excess of the goal. While this would secure the largest (modeled) 

minimum escapement of the four alternatives, it would secure the lowest maximum and average escapements of 

the four (Tables 4-58 through 4-63). Further, as with the stock-specific harvest rates under Alternative 3, the 

proposed escapement goals appear to be derived from average escapements for the most recent 10 years, and not 

from biological determination of recovery requirements. Alternative 4 is a particularly inappropriate and 

misleading caricature of escapement goal management, especially so in the context of managing for the recovery 

of ESA-listed populations. There is no good biological reason why managing so as to achieve (whenever returns 

permit) a minimum (floor) spawning escapement requires permitting any and all excess return-above-escapement 

floor to be harvested, rather than dividing the surplus between harvest and additional escapement.

These extreme characterizations of alternatives 3 and 4 require the conservation-minded public to gamble between 

obtaining slightly greater escapements when returns are greater than the floor escapement levels under alternative 

4 (by choosing alternative 3) against the slightly to modestly greater escapements when returns are near or below 

the escapement goals (by choosing Alternative 4. This Sophie’s Choice is unnecessary and inappropriate.
A new alternative is needed that contains protective elements of each of alternative 2, 3, and 4. We describe one 

approach in the following.

A Robust Conservation-Based Alternative

For each above-Bonneville stock, provide an abundance-based regime that includes the following: 

1. a minimum, recovery-based spawner escapement level (floor) that accounts for sex ratio, run timing, and 

age-structure diversity of individual spawning populations, and assures that all major and minor 

spawning locations within each population are occupied; 

2. includes a “stop-loss” rule (Essington et al, Science 2015; Pikitch, Science 2015) under which no fishing 

occurs when the expected return is below the stock- or population-specific goal; 

3. a sliding abundance-based harvest rate and escapement scale that partitions returns in excess of the 

escapement floor between escapement and harvest. This assures that returns that exceed the escapement 

floor will add to escapements in addition to providing harvest via exploitation rate control rules. 

Management strategy evaluations of each stock and its component populations should be conducted to 

explore the advantages and disadvantages of different ways of apportioning the returns in excess of 

escapement floors between escapement and harvest (e.g., fixed proportion division, incremental increase 

in harvest as abundance increases, others.); and,

4. Escapement goals specified as numbers of wild (NOR), and upper limits on nominal (census) pHOS 

levels no greater than Hatchery Science Review Group (HSRG) maximum allowable levels for Primary 

and Contributing (<5%, <10%, respectively). I.e., hatchery strays should not be counted toward meeting 

escapement goal floors.

Wild Fish Conservancy strongly recommends that this alternative be developed and included in the FEIS and in 

the draft 2018 – 2027 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement.

Selective Fishery Requirements and Tribal Treaty Trust Responsibilities

Commercial harvest in the CR, both treaty tribal and non-treaty, is directed primarily at hatchery stocks produced 

to subsidize harvest (mitigation). The principal exception to this are harvest of upper CR Summer Chinook and 

Fall Upriver Bright (particularly Hanford Reach) Chinook. This includes the major tribal Zone 6 fishery for Snake 
River fall Chinook. Wild, including ESA-listed steelhead, are known collateral damage in both the Zone 6 tribal 

and below-Bonneville non-treaty commercial and recreational fisheries. The current agreement places a direct 2% 

cap on the combined non-treaty commercial and recreational fisheries take of ESA-listed wild Snake River B 

steelhead. Non-treaty recreational fishers are required to fish mark-selectively and to release any wild steelhead 

unharmed. Non-treaty commercial fishers are encouraged to fish mark-selectively. This 2% total mortality cap 

applies regardless of the estimated total return of wild (ESA-listed)-plus-(non-ESA-listed) hatchery Snake River 

B returns.

In contrast, treaty tribal commercial fishers are not required to release non-target salmon and steelhead (including 

wild Snake River B) and instead are given a sliding scale harvest rate allocation (“cap) based upon the estimated 

total hatchery-plus-ESA-listed wild Snake River B steelhead return that is considerably greater than 2% and that 

includes no requirement for release of unmarked, wild steelhead or salmon. Under the current agreement these 

rates range from 13% to 20% (total allowable, treaty-plus-non-treaty fisheries, harvest rate 15% to 22%) (DEIS 

table 4-47, p. 112).

The DEIS provides no clear legal justification for this severe discrepancy. We find no good reason for the 

presumption (implicit in the DEIS) that trust responsibilities to the Columbia River treaty tribes requires this. The 

relevant principle in Secretarial Order 3206 (providing guidance on federal-tribal trust responsibilities and the 

ESA) would appear to be Principle 3(C), the second paragraph of which states

In the event that the Departments determine that conservation restrictions are necessary in order to protect 

listed species, the Departments, in keeping with the trust responsibility and government-to government 

relationships, shall consult with affected tribes and provide written notice to them of the intended 

restriction as far in advance as practicable. If the proposed conservation restriction is directed at a tribal 

activity that could raise the potential issue of direct (directed) take under the Act, then meaningful 

government-to-government consultation shall occur, in order to strive to harmonize the federal trust 

responsibility to tribes, tribal sovereignty and the statutory missions of the Departments. In cases 

involving an activity that could raise the potential issue of an incidental take under the Act, such notice 

shall include an analysis and determination that all of the following conservation standards have been 

met: (i) the restriction is reasonable and necessary for conservation of the species at issue; (ii) the 

conservation purpose of the restriction cannot be achieved by reasonable regulation of non-Indian 

activities; (iii) the measure is the least restrictive alternative available to achieve the required conservation 

purpose; (iv) the restriction does not discriminate against Indian activities, either as stated or applied; and, 

(v) voluntary tribal measures are not adequate to achieve the necessary conservation purpose.

Requiring mark-selective fishery regulations to apply to the Zone 6 tribal fishery -- would clearly appear to meet 

the above requirements. We recommend consideration of Zone 6 tribal fishery regulations with a more permissive 

take limit on listed upriver stocks than applies to the non-treaty commercial and recreational fisheries, but more 

restrictive than the current agreement (for wild Snake B steelhead for example, 5% instead of 2%) where justified 

by the appropriate analysis of the population-specific wild escapements required for rebuilding and recovery. In 
addition, an alternative that includes an escapement-based stop-loss rule, with an exception for a conservative de 

minimum C&S fishery for specific stocks, would also appear to meet the requirements. NMFS would appear to 

have a legal obligation under the ESA to recommend the adoption of such regulations in the renewal of the 

Agreement.

We also note that nowhere in the DEIS or other related documents has NMFS provided any quantitative criteria 

by which levels of harvest pursuant to trust responsibilities are to be calculated or otherwise determined so that 

they can be weighed against non-tribal harvest interests and ESA-recovery requirements. Absent a quantification 

of de minimus levels of harvest necessary to meet trust responsibilities it is impossible for independent observers, 

including the interested public, to determine whether the harvest regimes that NMFS does approve are subjective 

or otherwise arbitrary and capricious. Nor is it possible to make rational and optimal decisions to allocate scarce 

conservation and management resources between competing harvest management and ESA recovery objectives 

and opportunities.

Economic returns to treaty tribal and non-treaty commercial fisheries

We also note that the tribal commercial fisheries appear to secure lower financial returns than non-tribal 

commercial fisheries. Table 3-18 (DEIS p. 64) lists the ex-vessel value of harvest indicator species under status 

quo conditions. The lower Columbia (Zones 1 – 5) commercial fisheries harvested 53039 fish that returned an exvessel value of $2418367 or $45.59 per fish. The non-tribal harvest in the mid-Columbia subregion (Zone 6) 

above Bonneville harvested 3877 fish that returned an ex-vessel value of $148749 or $38.37 per fish. The tribal 

Zone 6 fishery harvested 237785 fish at an ex-vessel value of $7745794 or $32.57 per fish. This appears to 

indicate that the tribal fishery is not receiving an appropriate return on their catch relative to the non-treaty 

commercial fishery. This discrepancy might not unreasonably be interpreted as a failure to meet trust obligations. 

The renewal of the Agreement provides an opportunity to evaluate how this imbalance in return per fish landed 

might be redressed, while better furthering the conservation and recovery of ESA-listed populations. We have 

suggested that one way that this can occur is under a tribal mark-selective fishery whereby commercially caught 

mitigation hatchery fish are marketed as sustainably-caught, ESA-friendly. We recommend that NMFS pursue 

this in the draft 2018-2027 Management Agreement.

 
Hatchery Impacts on listed wild populations

If a more conservation-oriented alternative, such as the integrated one described above is adopted, mitigation 

hatchery programs will have to be re-evaluated and/or re-configured to assure that maximum allowable pHOS 

levels are not exceeded when returns trigger the implementation of stop-loss (no harvest) rules. When harvest is 

allowed, sufficient hatchery fish must be removed (harvested) so that the escapements are composed of wild 

spawners, keeping pHOS levels at or below maximum allowable levels. In other words, hatchery production

levels must be scaled so that management directed at assuring achievement of minimum escapement floors for 

wild populations does not provide justification for high harvest rates in order to comply with pHOS requirements. 

Assumption that environmental conditions experienced in the most recent 10-year period will apply to the next 10 

years

The DEIS alternatives also assume that the average and range of conditions experienced in the past 10 years 

(during the course of the current Agreement) will apply for the next 10 years (over the course of the renewed 

Agreement). This is unlikely and risky for listed stocks and populations, as evidenced by the current crisis in 

returns of upriver steelhead, and wild Snake River B steelhead in particular. The current (2017) disastrous returns 

of sockeye to the Skeena and Fraser rivers in British Columbia also suggest that climatic conditions in the 

northeast and northcentral Pacific Ocean have changed relative to conditions at the beginning of the current 

Agreement, and are becoming more variable and unpredictable. The huge block of warm Ocean water off the 

coasts of Southeast Alaska, British Columbia and Washington, commonly referred to as the “blob” that appeared 

in 2013-14 and returned in 2016 is but one indication that conditions can change rapidly and unpredictably. 

Elements of the climatic regime in the northeast Pacific where most CR salmonids rear appear to have shifted 

since the early years of the current Agreement.

Consequently, model scenarios for any of the alternatives should include a wide range of values for marine 

survival and egg to smolt survival in the several basins of the upper Columbia and Snake River, particularly 

modeling conditions that are as and more adverse than some experienced by CR stocks in the last 5 years.

 

Zone 6 “Conversion Rate”

The so-called Bonneville-to-McNary “conversion rate” refers to the unaccounted loss of salmon and steelhead 

that are detected passing Bonneville Dam but neither detected at McNary Dam nor accounted for in fisheries in 

Zone 6. For several salmon and steelhead stocks this loss is in the neighborhood of 20% of the numbers detected 

at Bonneville. It is unlikely, in our and others opinion, that this magnitude loss can be assigned entirely to 
migration mortality. Rather, it appears more likely that some if not all of this loss is due to unreported catch, 

including illegal (poaching) catch by some one or more of treaty tribal commercial fishers, non-treaty commercial 

fishers, and/or recreational fishers. The paucity of WDFW and ODFW checkers of the recreational fisheries in the 

large area between Bonneville and McNary, and the absence of independent observers/checkers of the tribal 

commercial fishery appear to provide considerable scope for illegal fishing. This issue needs to be explicitly 

addressed in the new agreement. This should include immediate plans to convene a working group of state, tribal 

(CRITFC), federal, and independent fisheries scientists and statisticians to develop a research and monitoring plan 

to address the loss.

Snake River Steelhead

Snake River wild (NOR) B steelhead are returning this year (2017) in record low abundance. In addition to 

harvest impacts permitted under the current abundance-based management agreement, particularly in the Zone 6 

fishery as noted above, hatchery stray rates a concern in all Snake steelhead MPGs, including the major tributaries 

of the Clearwater MPG, the South Fork Salmon and tributaries, and the Middle Fork salmon and tributaries that 

contain major spawning grounds for Snake River B steelhead. This is noted in the Idaho Management Unit 

Recovery Plan appendices to the 2016 Draft Snake Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan, and in NMFS’ 2016 5-

Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. The renewed agreement should better address these threats by (among 

other actions):

• placing a conservative incidental take limit on wild steelhead encountered in this fishery, instead of the 

current total mortality limit on all (hatchery and wild) Snake River B steelhead, and

• requiring the treaty tribal fisheries in Zone 6 to transition to mark-selective fisheries within the period of the 

renewed agreement, and then requiring release of all wild (non-adipose-clipped) steelhead.

We also believe that harvest under a new agreement must provide for minimum population-specific recoverybased spawner escapement goals for Snake River B steelhead (as well as other ESA-listed populations). If 

minimum escapement goals for the aggregate population measured at Lower Granite Dam are chosen, the 

aggregate should be large enough to assure that each major spawning population in the Clearwater and Salmon 

MPGs has a high probability (explicitly quantified in the agreement) of attaining their minimum escapements and 

that all major and minor spawning locations within those major spawning populations are occupied. 
August 21, 2017 

Jeromy Jording 

Sustainable Fisheries Division 

National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region 

510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 103, Lacey, WA 98503-1263 

jeromy.jording@noaa.gov, (360) 753-9576 

ViaEmail 

Re: US v. Oregon DEIS Comments 

Dear Jeromy: 

The Conservation Angler is a wild fish conservation organization based in Washington 

State whose supporters have a deep and abiding passion for the protection, 

conservation and recovery of wild fish and wild rivers across the Pacific Region, 

including the Columbia and Snake River Basin. 

On behalf of these people, The Conservation Angler (TCA) is submitting, via this letter, 

our comments and analysis of the US v. Oregon Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS)(hereinafter “Harvest DEIS”). The Conservation Angler has also joined with other 

organizations in a joint scientific critique of the Harvest DEIS. 

These comments attempt to address primarily the legal and administrative issues with 

the Harvest DEIS. 

PublicParticipationandProcess: 

The Harvest DEIS covers a topic that is highly technical, complicated and complex. For 

that reason, TCA believes that the 45 day public comment timeline was too short, 

though we appreciated the 15 day extension. 
The public would have benefitted from a public meeting or two in order for NOAA to 

explain how it conducted its analysis in the alternatives review and comparison. 

Critically, NOAA Fisheries did not provide some of the cited materials, reports, data, but 

merely contained citations to many papers and other resources that were not readily 

available to the public. 

Compounding that difficulty, NOAA Fisheries’ Harvest DEIS tiers to a 2,000+ page FEIS 

on Columbia River hatchery issues that was incredibly complicated and convoluted as 

the Mitchell Act FEIS evaluated economic issues as well as environmental issues and 

even Endangered Species Act (ESA) issues. 

The Harvest DEIS mentions public outreach to Native American tribes, and to 

commercial and recreational anglers, but does not reference any outreach to 

conservation organizations. 

There appears little if any evidence that the Harvest DEIS considered any of our 

scoping comments which focused on presenting other alternatives than those presented 

in the Notice of Intent (NOI). Indeed the Harvest DEIS on p. 35 notes that several 

alternatives were considered but not analyzed but yet only specifically responds to a 

single alternative - what NOAA describes as a “fixed effort” alternative. NOAA brief 

dismissal of other alternatives weakens its overall Alternatives analysis. 

DEISStructureandContentcontrastedwithNEPAGuidance 

The Purpose and Need and the Proposed Action are out of order in terms of describing 

the federal activity requiring or triggering the need for a NEPA analysis. 

The purpose and need for the NEPA analysis in the Harvest DEIS is to inform NOAA 

and the public of the impacts to the environment created by the Proposed Action. The

Proposed action is drafting an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) for fisheries, presumably 

authorized by the on-going federal court action known as “US v. Oregon,” that will result 

in the direct and indirect take of ESA-listed species of salmon and steelhead, and 

drafting a Biological Opinion that the authorized “take” of ESA-listed species will not 

jeopardize the future survival and recovery of the listed species. 

That is how the “purpose and need” and the “proposed action” should be legally 

described under NEPA guidelines proposed by the Center for Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) and by NOAA’s own guidelines. 
NOAA’s Fisheries is responsible for the stewardship of the nation’s ocean resources 

and their habitat. Stewardship is defined as the responsibility to oversee and protect 

something considered worth caring for and preserving. The historic focus has been on 

the marine environment. The priority for NOAA has been protecting resources and 

understanding the oceans and atmosphere. NOAA’s first order in this effort is to comply 

with mandates to protect and recover species listed as threatened or endangered under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NOAA’s second priority is to ensure, as a 

representative of the United States government, that treaties signed with Native 

American Tribes are honored. Northwest treaty tribes’ right to harvest salmon and 

steelhead is strong, but not absolute - they cannot catch the last of an ESA-listed fish. In 

that way, NOAA Fisheries role is not to “balance” the use or right to use a national or 

international resource, but to ensure those marine resources (in this case, Pacific 

salmon and steelhead) are sustained and protected - for use now, and in perpetuity. 

There can be no balancing when there are zero fish on one side of the scale. 

Alternatives 

There is no Preferred Alternative despite specific language requiring it in NOAA’s own 

regulations. See NAO 216-6 Environmental Review Procedures for implementing 

NEPA, .04 General Regulations for EIS and SEIS, B.3. Preferred Alternative: 

3. It is NOAA and CEQ (40 CFR 1502.14(e)) policy to require identification of the 

preferred alternative(s) in the draft EIS/SEIS, whenever such preferences exist, 

and in the FEIS unless another law prohibits the expression of such a 

preference. When preferred alternatives do not exist, the document must provide 

a range of alternatives or other indication of the alternatives most likely to be 

selected, thus informing the public of the likely final action and its environmental 

consequences. The public is thus able to more effectively focus its comments. 

This is major problem for the Harvest DEIS, but by no means the only problem. 

NEPA requires a reasonable range of alternatives and this section should be the heart 

of the environmental impact statement. The CEQ Regulations implementing NEPA note 

that based on the information and analysis presented in the sections on the Affected 

Environment (Sec. 1502.15) and the Environmental Consequences (Sec. 1502.16), an 

EIS should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in 

comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for 

choice among options by the decisionmaker and the public. 
The CEQ Regulations go on to state that “agencies shall: 

(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, 

and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the 

reasons for their having been eliminated. 

(b) Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the 

proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits. 

(c) Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency. 

(d) Include the alternative of no action. 

(e) Identify the agency's preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more 

exists, in the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless 

another law prohibits the expression of such a preference. 

(f) Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action 

or alternatives.” 

As the regulations state, NEPA requires agencies to “rigorously explore and objectively 

evaluate all reasonable alternatives” to a proposed plan of action that has significant 

environmental effects. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a) (2000). 

Federal Courts have regularly held that the alternatives analysis is “the heart” of an EIS. 

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. United States Dep't of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1155 (9th 

Cir.1997). “The existence of a viable but unexamined alternative renders an 

environmental impact statement inadequate.” Citizens for a Better Henderson v. Hodel, 

768 F.2d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.1985). The range of reasonable alternatives is “dictated by 

the nature and scope of the proposed action, and [must be] sufficient to permit a 

reasoned choice.” Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508, 1520 (9th 

Cir.1992) (internal citation and quotations omitted). The “no action” alternative must also 

be considered in detail. Alaska Wilderness Recreation & Tourism Ass’n v. Morrison, 67 

F.3d 726, 729 -730 (9th 1995). 

CEQ’s guidance, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s NEPA Regulations, 

Fed Reg 18026 (1981), elaborates further on the range of alternatives: 

“Q1b. How many alternatives have to be discussed when there is an infinite 

number of possible alternatives? 

A. For some proposals there may exist a very large or even an infinite number of 

possible reasonable alternatives. For example, a proposal to designate wilderness 

areas within a National Forest could be said to involve an infinite number of alternatives 

from 0 to 100 percent of the forest. When there are potentially a very large number of 
alternatives, only a reasonable number of examples, covering the full spectrum of 

alternatives, must be analyzed and compared in the EIS. An appropriate series of 

alternatives might include dedicating 0, 10, 30, 50, 70, 90, or 100 percent of the Forest 

to wilderness. What constitutes a reasonable range of alternatives depends on the 

nature of the proposal and the facts in each case.” 

It is not unforeseeable nor unreasonable that the legal basis of the Agreements arising 

from U.S. v. Oregon might be overturned or significantly modified by future litigation that 

establishes that the federal ESA can and does constrain salmon and steelhead harvest 

management and hatchery production and therefore the inclusion of such a scenario is 

a viable alternative that NOAA fails to consider. NOAA needed to consider a broader 

spectrum of alternatives and its failure to do so renders the Harvest DEIS inadequate. 

Very specifically, the Harvest DEIS unreasonably fails to include or even adequately 

assess additional alternatives that were identified through public comments. 

SpecificCommentsRegardingtheAlternatives,AnalysisandAssumptions 

Alternative 1 is barely different than Alternative 6 (No action) as both describe little 

change from the current Agreement and both make assumptions that “anticipate” 

certain vague actions that provide little detail to enable reviewers from assessing the 

efficacy of the alternative. does not mean there will be no change. The description of 

the No Action alternative assumes that if an agreement is not signed, and if no ITS or 

Bi-Op is signed, that harvest will change. Where is the evidence that would occur? 

There is little to no substantive difference between Alt 1 and Alt 6 because harvest 

practices and harvest policy could be the same. 

Rigid assumptions are applied to each alternative which rarely reflect reality or history. 

These rigid assumptions are too numerous to address individually but appear to have 

invaded the treatment and evaluation of most every alternative (presumably to foster an 

easier comparative analysis?). 

The No Action Alternative mischaracterizes the effects of Alt 4 (escapement) on harvest 

rates, attributing a harvest rate to all fish returning in excess of escapement goals. This 

assumption ruins Alternative 4 as a viable alternative in the analysis and comparison of 

the entire Harvest DEIS. 

There is no fundamental discussion or presentation or description of the underlying 

science behind the Alternatives and the specific fishery management policies that are 

part of most of the alternatives. 
There is frequent reference to modeling yet no explanation or user guide to the scientific 

validity of the modeling upon which NOAA and other managers rely for forecasting and 

analyzing the effects of harvest on populations. Models used to calculate impacts of 

various harvest schemes should be explained, and their key assumptions and critical 

uncertainties described. 

Incorporation by reference of the US v Oregon Management Agreement as a baseline 

appears as a “precisional” statement, even if it refers to a federal court settlement. The 

fact is that it is an ongoing settlement that can and does change. What does NOAA 

mean by describing it as a baseline? How is that different than a no action or current 

case alternative? If the US v. Oregon Management Agreement is a baseline, then it 

should be, as it exists today, as an alternative to be analyzed fully. 

The Harvest DEIS merely describes the concept of harvest stocks v. indicator stocks - 

without the basis for this delineation, or the scientific literature that supports this 

designation and labeling. 

TCA believes that NOAA begins with a fundamental flaw - managing in aggregate - and 

that this is already a policy choice that was not analyzed 

As presented in Section 1.3.1 and detailed in Section 4.1, harvest policies are 

established for each Harvest Indicator Stock. Harvest Indicator Stocks are called 

“Management Units” in the US v Oregon management agreement and tend to be 

aggregates of fish runs larger than the ESA-listed “units” (ESU or DPS). Abundance 

Indicator Stocks are equivalent to the ESA-listed “units” (DPS or ESU) affected by 

implementing fisheries that adhere to harvest policies specified in the agreement. 

Harvest Indicator Stock - where did this concept arise, who proposed it, was it evaluated 

as a scientifically sound management concept. What are the critical uncertainties for 

using this concept, what are the assumptions behind it. What have critics of this 

management concept said about it? 

Not a single citation to scientific basis for modeling, a single citation for forecasting, and 

none for the scientific basis for abundance based management, indicator stock 

management harvest indicator stock management 

NOAA should be describing the scientific rational and underlying basis for each policy 

concept being employed and evaluated. The same is true for relying on an 
abundance-based management regime 

Finally, since harvest is often provided by hatchery production, it means that the effects, 

impacts, cumulative impacts must be evaluated completely. The Harvest DEIS 

improperly segments its evaluation to Columbia River basin harvest, without evaluating 

the impacts to abundance and stock structure caused by fisheries in Alaska, British 

Columbia and ocean fisheries off Oregon and Washington. These harvest regimes are 

also often driven by and reliant on hatchery production. Tiering to an already completed 

NEPA analysis so interwoven wit the Harvest DEIS is confusing and difficult to 

compare, contrast and not find “predecisional” conclusions already hard-wired. This 

precedent is set by the incorporation by reference of the Mitchell Act FEIS which does 

consider considered Alaskan, foreign and ocean catch (p. 1.4). 

NOAA should have incorporated by reference Fishery Management Plans adopted by 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council on an annual basis. There is much more to be 

understood about the information and scientific analysis contained in these annual 

reports, and could have served as a model for the Harvest DEIS. 

ResourcesAnalyzedorNotanalyzed: 

Gear and timing of fisheries are not considered in the Harvest DEIS when they have a 

direct and meaningful affect on all species and stocks of salmon and steelhead. 

There is no analysis of the non-selective nature of the commercial fishing gear used by 

non-tribal commercial and tribal Treaty commercial fishers. The effect of non-selective 

gear and their effect on stock structure and life history is one of depletion and 

mis-management across the entire nation, and particularly in the Pacific Northwest. 

The Harvest DEIS does not account for delayed mortality as a result of any fishery that 

is required to safely release non-target species. This includes a failure to evaluate the 

impacts of sport C&R fisheries. The Harvest DEIS did not account for sub-lethal effects, 

delayed mortality after release, nor spawning failure from escaping net fisheries or in 

sport catch and release fisheries. 

TCA finds deep concern that Columbia River summer steelhead (the so-called “A-run”) 

is not considered in the Harvest DEIS. 

We share the same concern that Skamania Summer run steelhead are not considered 

despite effects on population by harvests governed by US v. Oregon both below and 

above Bonneville Dam. 
LCR winter steelhead not considered while harvests are also governed by US v. Oregon 

regarding spring chinook and summer chinook fisheries. 

MitchellActFEISandHatcheries 

In general, harvest and hatcheries in the Columbia and Snake Rivers are two ends of 

the same rope. It is virtually impossible to consider one without the other. While NEPA 

envisions that NOAA would tier to the Mitchell Act FEIS, it is as unwieldy as it gets, akin 

to trying to tie two-pound tippet for a tiny dry fly to 100 pound hard monofilament for a 

tarpon fly. Some things just don't go together. 

Tiering to the Mitchell Act FEIS causes two problems. First, it creates complexity for the 

general public trying to come to grips with the technical nature of both the scientific 

language but also the economic analysis. NEPA requires that the language and 

organization of an EIS be understandable for a lay person. The Harvest DEIS is 288 

pages alone. The current 2008-2017 US v. Oregon Management Agreement is 150 

pages, and finally, there is the 2014 Mitchell Act FEIS weighing in at over 2,000 pages. 

Simply trying to determine the scope of the analysis for each of these documents is 

daunting, let alone trying to assess how the scope of each meshes with the other in the 

repetitive efforts to decipher the environmental, economic and ESA impacts of the 

varied alternatives is actually impossible due to the different affected environments each 

document addressed. There is no logical way for the public to understand how these 

three documents relate to each other, particularly given the short period allowed for 

public comment. 

While the Mitchell Act FEIS addresses congressionally authorized hatchery funding that 

is aimed to mitigate for the lost natural production of salmon and steelhead caused by 

the construction of large dams, the weight of credible and sound scientific evidence that 

hatcheries cannot achieve their originally ascribed objectives should carry more weight 

in favor of a complete top-to-bottom review of what was lost to the dam building and 

how those losses can be mitigated so that the old solutions of hatcheries are cast aside 

in favor of a holistic program that fosters the natural productivity of wild salmon and 

steelhead. The current congressionally authorized mitigation programs are doomed to 

eventually failure and it behooves the states and tribes to work together to revised the 

legislative focus from the original solution of hatcheries now that there is clear and 

convincing evidence that they are harmful to the watersheds of Oregon, Washington 

and Idaho. 
Specific comments: 

The analysis of the water quality issues with hatcheries missed the cumulative impacts 

of long term discharge, degradation and build up of non-biodegradable chemicals and 

pollutants from hatchery facilities. 

Iti s reported that 100% of hatchery facilities are in compliance with their NPDES 

permits. We doubt that. 

It was interesting to note that multiple facilities are operating on very old permits that 

have not been reviewed in a timely manner as required by the Clean Water Act. 

There was a general lack of analysis on the connection between wild and hatchery fish 

as hatchery operations are affecting returning wild fish in many direct ways. Releasing 

hatchery smolts increases predation on the out-migrating juveniles, an effect that is 

magnified as the hatchery smolts are often and typically much larger and they prey on 

concurrent migrating wild smolts. Additionally, many hatchery smolts end up 

residualizing and increasing predation on multiple species of salmon and steelhead, as 

well as competing with wild fish for space and food. 

When hatchery adults return, they also tend to attract predators, and they concentrate 

harvest effort, which leads to higher encounter rates and therefore, as a direct result of 

hatchery salmon returns, the higher encounters lead to increased catch and release 

mortality for salmon and steelhead that must be released unharmed, as well as 

increases in sub-lethal effects affecting migration, later mortality from injury, and failure 

to reach natal spawning grounds. 

Despite efforts to search for and review these documents, TCA finds that there is very 

little discussion of the connectivity of hatchery production that leads to harvest - related 

impacts on ESA-listed salmon and steelhead recovery and diminishment impact of 

natural production. 

There does not appear to be any discussion or analysis of the presence, creation and 

impact of non-clipped hatchery fish on harvest alternatives in the Harvest DEIS, though 

they are identified in Mitchell Act FEIS. 

Finally, it is unclear to TCA whether the incorporation by reference to the Mitchell Act 

FEIS opens that NEPA document up for additional review. Even if it does not, the 

findings or results still deserve questions and clarifications. 
The Mitchell Act DEIS analyzed four action alternatives. Alternatives four and five were 

distinct among these because they distinguish between the Interior Columbia 

recovery domain and the Willamette/Lower Columbia recovery domain and because 

they apply different performance metrics in each domain. The analysis provides 

important insights regarding how the "intermediate" and "stronger" performance goals 

would affect each of these domains. Yet the analysis does not provide a rationale for 

applying different metrics to each domain, nor for treating the two domains separately. 

What is missing in the FEIS is an alternative that applies the stronger performance 

metric to each domain. 

Monitoring Evaluation and Reform (Within the Mitchell Act FEIS): 

The hatchery science review group (HSRG) reported to Congress about hatchery 

reform in the Columbia River basin. They recommended the following specific steps: 

1) setting clear goals; 

2) scientific defensibility; and 

3) monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management. 

This last recommendation was addressed in the Mitchell Act DEIS on page 2-14, where 

the document states that each alternative's policy direction includes goals and/or 

principles related to monitoring, evaluation, and reform (MER). MER is foundational to 

successful hatchery reform in the basin, and NOAA must describe what a 

comprehensive, basin-wide plan for MER would look like. It was unclear if the FEIS 

incorporated discussion of the monitoring program, including program development; key 

monitoring parameters; how implementation and effectiveness monitoring would be 

addressed. It left adaptation/reform unaddressed, and certainly did not confirm whether 

it would be implemented or funded. There does not appear to be any mention of the 

MER concept within the Harvest DEIS which casts doubt on whether hatchery or 

harvest operations in the Columbia River will ever receive ongoing or even partial 

review in any sort of comprehensive manner, which will leave critical uncertainties 

unaddressed between now and the next time the US v. Oregon Management 

Agreements are revised. 

FailedAssumptionsandInconvenientTruths 

The Executive Summary of the Harvest DEIS makes a statement at line 11 on p. ix that 

more adults escaping to spawn does not result in more juveniles because “escapement 

capacity is limiting.” This is completely incorrect. This is the common agency opinion 

about habitat capacity and density dependence. It is essentially an MSY-oriented, 

harvest max-oriented opinion lacking clear supporting data. This statement also ignores 

the value of selection for highly competitive animals that is relevant to recovery. That is, 
even if there is data indicating that there is currently a ceiling on parr capacity, for 

example, recovery is likely to be enhanced by assuring high spawning and consequent 

high fry and parr numbers to assure high competition for rearing space. Further, such 

increased density and competition is likely necessary to push juveniles to explore 

marginal rearing habitats. 

More wild fish escaping into “terminal” spawning areas helps expand the creative 

margins and this process is fundamental to increasing diversity. When wild fish escape 

to spawning areas, they do not all simply mate and spawn in the same place. The more 

wild fish escaping to natal rivers means they compete for space and mates - 

fundamental life history traits that are essential for diversity, survival and fitness. They 

also push into unoccupied spawning areas - the so-called “grub steak” habitats that may 

not be productive every single season, but when they are, they are incredibly important 

for productivity and diversity. When “excess” adult salmon or steelhead escape into 

natal rivers, and are pushed into marginal habitats, their mere presence improves the 

quality and capacity of the habitats by moving gravels and also by dying and adding 

nutrients to these areas. They make the “neighborhood” better because they work on 

making their house better. These concepts are well documented in the scientific 

literature, including some of the citations in the Harvest DEIS. 

Another flawed assumption appears in the Mitchell Act FEIS where it states that marine 

derived nutrients from hatchery production are constant and stable across all 

alternatives. While this statement may be made as an assumption to ease the 

comparison of the alternatives, where is the evidence that this is in fact ever true? 

Economics 

TCA did not have adequate time to rully review and evaluate the economic analysis. 

There were a few issues that did rise up and require comment. 

1. The Harvest DEIS declares that it would not consider the lower Columbia as tribes 

do not harvest below Bonneville. This is an inaccurate statement. The Treaty tribes DO 

harvest salmon and steelhead below Bonneville. If the analysis was completed based 

on this statement, then the economic analysis in the Harvest DEIS is flawed. 

2. The economic analysis considers hatcheries as part of a positive economic impact. 

This ignores reality, as the inputs of federal and state funds aimed at operating 

hatcheries come from other sources (federal excise taxes, state general funds) where 

the funds expended on hatchery subsidies and mitigation agreements would have been 

spent elsewhere in the economy. In that sense, these government funds are “costs” 

and not revenue. Mitigation hatcheries would not have been necessary if wild salmon 
and steelhead had not been prevented from reaching the natal streams. Every dollar 

spent on hatchery production is a “cost” or expense that all of us are paying for 

something that was essentially free to society but was lost. All anyone has to do is look 

at watersheds that still produce wild salmon and evaluate the economic benefits wild 

salmon produce for the local and regional economies. These are positive economic 

contributions. Funds spent from other sources to produce hatchery fish which in turn 

spurs spending to raise, release and harvest them are merely subsidies. 

3. The economic study relied upon in the Harvest DEIS was completed in 1991. 

Apparently it has been revised and updated in “2016” dollars. The age of this economic 

analysis may make it helpful in terms of comparing its findings with the current and 

future economic landscape, but if all that was done was update the 1991 dollars to 2016 

dollars, it renders the entire effort meaningless. 

Appendix for economic analysis: 

It states that money is spent only within specific harvest regions. It is highly likely that 

salmon harvesters will spend money in one region and travel to a different harvest 

region and not spend any money. This is a poor and likely invalid assumption. 

There does not appear to be any economic analysis or effort to quantify 

non-consumptive fisheries where anglers fish, spend money and do not harvest fish. 

The following statement creates questions whether an Economic analysis should have 

been conducted at all. The section states “Because dynamic changes in the economy 

over time are not considered in this analysis, results of the assessment are not 

considered valid for measuring effects on the economy over the long term from changes 

in fish abundance or policy.” p. 215 

FailuretoraiseandconsiderthesetopicsintheDEISAreFatalFlaws 

We could not find any discussion of the following topics in the Harvest DEIS which 

means, to the uninformed public, that they were not addressed in the comparative 

analysis of the alternatives. 

Conversion and Interdam Loss: 

NOAA Fisheries Staff and NW Fisheries Science Center staff have become aware and 

knowledgeable of a phenomenon of lost up-stream migrating adult salmon and 

steelhead. This issue is discussed in the 2015 NOAA Five-year ESA Status Review 

and it is estimated that up to a 20% loss of fish occurs between dams (these are fish 
that are unaccounted for). This phenomenon casts doubt on the effectiveness of 

harvest rate data, catch reporting and escapement. 

TCA did a simple calculation on B-run steelhead migration between Bonneville and 

Lower Granite (LGD) dams, counting fish passing Bonneville, and then subtracting the 

number of fish passing LGD. The resulting difference is divided by the total past 

Bonneville to establish a percentage of fish unaccounted for between the two dams. 

The range of unaccounted for fish is as low as 13% and as high as 70% for the B-run 

index (both hatchery and wild), but for wild B-runs, the percentage runs from a low of 

22% to a high of 87%. In fact, the percentage of unaccounted for wild B-runs exceeds 

the percentage of the index B-run in 24 of the past 30 years. The average conversion 

rate for wild B-run steelhead is 55% while the conversion rate for the index is 45%. 

Our rough calculations above would have been greatly more informed had NOAA 

provided us with documents, materials and communication related to the issue of 

“Conversion” or interdam loss as we requested in a Freedom of Information Action 

request (FOIA #DOC-NOAA-2017-001528). However, despite a late and very partial 

disclosure, TCA did not receive the bulk of the documents in time to analyze them and 

assist in our evaluation of the Harvest EIS in relationship with the stunning and 

extensive loss of wild salmon and steelhead between each and every dam. In fact, as 

the day of the comment deadline comes to an end, we have still not received over 80% 

of the relevant documents. The fact that the Harvest DEIS did not address “conversion” 

despite the fact that it relates to harvest governed by the current 2008-2017 

Management Agreement is a serious and game-changing flaw. 

Illegal Harvest

TCA is aware of extensive evidence of regularly occurring illegal harvest of both 

ESA-listed salmon and steelhead, as well as other non-listed salmonids and 

non-salmonids in the Columbia River. Despite regular requests, there has been no data 

released on the extent of illegal harvest, and how or if it is incorporated into forecasting 

and harvest models or catch records. 

Evidence of illegal harvest is present in non-tribal commercial fishing fleet in the lower 

Columbia, the sport fishing fleet throughout the Columbia and Snake River main stem 

and in tributaries, and in the Treaty tribal fisheries (commercial, Ceremonial and 

subsistence fisheries). 
The evidence that has been collected points to an extensive pattern and frequency of 

illegal fishing and harvest, whose effect does not clearly appear to be factored into the 

Harvest DEIS anywhere. 

Enforcement - adequacy of state, tribal and federal efforts

There is little mention of the adequacy of efforts to measure the effectiveness of various 

catch recording activities in the Harvest DEIS, and absolutely no mention of what 

comprises an effective deterrent for illegal fishing by current, let alone future fisheries 

enforcement. 

Five Year ESA Status Review

There is no discussion nor even a citation of the 2015 Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center Five-year Status Review of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. NOAA published 

the Science Center review in 2016, though neither can be found in the DEIS. 

Because neither newest 5-Year review nor the one before that suggested any change to 

the status of these fish, there are likely problems with the existing and current policies 

and management in the US v OR Agreement. 

In fact, in that review, NOAA reported that Snake River-bound steelhead are harvested 

in tribal fisheries (both in platform and boat commercial fishing) annually at a rate from 

15 to 20% over the past decade or more. The current maximum harvest rate for the 

so-called B-run steelhead bound for Idaho (if you are an angler, “B” is for “big”) is 15%, 

and only 13% when the total B-run is predicted to be less than 20,000 fish. 

That report also noted that lower Columbia River gillnetters and sport fishers throughout 

the Columbia and Snake cause mortality to wild B-run steelhead through catch and 

release fisheries in the mainstem and in tributaries where the B-run fish go to seek cold 

water refuge. These fisheries have a 2% ESA impact no matter the run size, but there 

is little monitoring and observation to be able to accurately calculate their impact. 

The status of Columbia and Snake River salmon and steelhead matters in the Harvest 

DEIS, particularly since the review points out harvest as a significant factor. 

RelationshiptoExistingFisheryPrograms 

The Harvest DEIS incorporates by reference the 2014 Mitchell Act FEIS yet it states it 

only affects about one-half of the US v. OR Agreement. 
The Harvest DEIS stated that it will not cover Lower Columbia River fisheries, yet tribal 

fisheries are permitted below Bonneville Dam. 

The Harvest DEIS mentions the Pacific Salmon Treaty, Pacific Fishery Management 

Council ocean salmon management process as well as the North of Falcon process. 

However, it fails to analyze how prosecution of these fisheries, let alone the forecasting 

used to build these fisheries, have ultimate effect on how all of the salmon and 

steelhead returning above Bonneville Dam fare in terms of meeting escapement and 

ESA recovery goals. 

The totality of separate salmon harvest regimes, independently assessed, is nothing 

more than sorting fish into more and more distinct and smaller user buckets as the fish 

approach their natal rivers and streams. This is evident with the multiple in-season 

management adjustments issued by NOAA and PFMC where catch and quotas are 

routinely transferred between aggregate catch areas or user groups. Harvest 

management operated in this manner is upside down and backwards in terms of 

managing a resource dependant on returning enough wild salmon and steelhead 

spawners to their natal rivers. 

Conclusion 

A final comment needs to be made regarding wild steelhead returning to the Columbia 

and Snake Rivers and their tributaries. 

The Conservation Angler believes that fishery management by NOAA, the states of 

Oregon, Washington and Idaho, as well as by the Columbia River Treaty Tribes is 

driving wild steelhead to extinction. The inconvenient truth is that wild steelhead are 

poorly understood because the complexity of their biology, ecology and life history 

create daunting challenges for conducting basic research, as well as establishing and 

maintaining appropriate and adequate monitoring of productivity and abundance. The 

wild steelhead of the Columbia and Snake River Basins confound the managers as they 

try to “balance” access to more abundant and subsidized salmon returns. 

A simple look across the Columbia and Snake basin provides all the evidence needed 

to confirm that the management regimes employed by federal, state and tribal fishery 

authorities are not working for wild steelhead. We do not believe that a single 

alternative being considered in the Harvest DEIS will change this trajectory. We 

challenge NOAA to use every option at its disposal to change the regime and the 

extinction trajectory for this magnificent wild animal. 
The Conservation Angler looks forward to helping shape the development of the 

Harvest DEIS so that it can become a management framework that disrupts the current 

direction. 

Sincerely, 

David A. Moskowitz  

(electro nic signature via email) 

David A. Moskowitz 

Executive Director 

The Conservation Angler * 3241 NE 73rd Avenue * Portland * Oregon * 97213 

971-235-8953 * theconservationangler@gmail.com * www.theconservationangler.com



Kevin Malone 

5426 E Blaisdell RD, 

Port Orchard, WA 98366 

425-753-0011 

1976malone@gmail.com 

ρ/λρ/μκλρ 

Dear Sirs: 

Below you will find a summary of my major comments on the DEIS for the new U.S. v. Oregon 

management agreement for the Years μκλς‐μκμρ. More detailed comments are provided in the 

aƩached PDF file. 

My comments are in general focused on the analysis and inherent assumpƟons presented for 

each alternaƟve and not which alternaƟve should be preferred by NMFS. I would defer to the 

Tribes to determine which alternaƟve best meets their needs and saƟsfies Federal tribal treaty 

rights etc. 

Major Comments 

AssumpƟons 

It would be helpful if a list of the assumpƟons used in the analysis were provided up front in the 

document or in an Appendix.  In the current version of the DEIS you have to search deep into the 

document to find a raƟonale for a previous conclusion or statement. 

Analysis 

Although it is recognized that this is a programmaƟc DEIS the lack of analysis on impacts to ESA 

listed stocks is surprising.  While this may be fine for most conclusions the following statement 

needs substanƟal support: 

Furthermore, any increase in escapement of adult fish to terminal spawning areas does not 

translate into an increase in juvenile salmonids because the capacity limit of the current spawning 

habitat does not allow for increased juvenile producƟon at higher escapement numbers. 
Page 02 

This is a bold statement that is being applied over the enƟre Columbia River. The DEIS provides no 

support for such a conclusion nor is a source cited. Salmon populaƟons are currently being re‐

introduced to relaƟvely vacant habitat in the Cowlitz River, Lewis River, Deschutes River, 

Okanogan River and WillameƩe River. Coho are being reintroduced throughout the Mid‐

Columbia. Also, over the term of this Agreement a possible future acƟon is the reintroducƟon of 

salmon upstream of Chief Joseph Dam. Historically, these systems were large producers of 

salmonids. Lower harvest rates and increased adult escapement is likely to increase producƟon in 

these systems. AddiƟonally, as the DEIS notes, habitat restoraƟon acƟviƟes are on‐going 

throughout the basin and at least Washington State is legally required to remove culverts that 

block salmon access to upstream habitat. Has NMFS concluded that these habitat acƟons will not 

increase the quality and quanƟty of available spawning and juvenile rearing habitat? If yes, this 

conclusion should be clearly stated in the DEIS and supported. 

The ISAB recently reviewed this topic and concluded that density dependence is evident in 

“many” ESA listed populaƟons in the basin1

 . However, they noted the source of this effect could 

be from mulƟple factors including spawning habitat limitaƟons, lack of rearing habitat, food 

supply, predator prey relaƟonships and the release of hatchery juveniles. They also note that 

Okanogan River sockeye do not show signs of density dependence.

Also, even if there are indicaƟons of density dependence in these populaƟons, increased adult 

escapement should sƟll result in a higher number of juveniles on average over Ɵme. This occurs 

because the lowest spawning escapement levels observed would be higher under the no harvest 

alternaƟve resulƟng in higher juvenile abundance when producƟon is below capacity ( if indeed 

that is what is limiƟng). 

If the density assumpƟon is maintained in the DEIS, then the document needs to be made 

consistent in regards to the claimed benefits of increased adult escapement. The values for each 

species at which increased adult producƟon does produce more juveniles needs to be defined. 

Adult escapement levels above these levels would then be considered to produce no benefits.  

   

                                                                 1

 hƩps://www.nwcouncil.org/media/ρλξςςσλ/isabμκλο‐λ.pdf 
Page 03 

Hatchery ProducƟon EvaluaƟon 

The DEIS relies on the Mitchell Act EIS to cover hatchery producƟon effects and this DEIS to cover 

harvest. This leads to conclusions about hatchery effects that seem to make liƩle sense. For 

example, the DEIS assumes that if harvest is turned off under AlternaƟve ο hatchery producƟon 

would conƟnue as described in the Agreement. The analysis then concludes that more returning 

hatchery fish would have large negaƟve effects to wild populaƟons. But why would managers 

conƟnue to spend money producing large numbers of hatchery fish for harvest if there was no 

harvest? AddiƟonally, NMFS would also not allow this to occur due to impacts to ESA listed stocks 

so a likely response by NMFS would be to severely reduce hatchery producƟon to levels that 

protect ESA listed stocks while providing for harvest in marine fisheries (?). Shouldn’t these 

acƟons/responses be stated in the cumulaƟve effects secƟon or foreseeable future acƟviƟes of 

the DEIS?  

CumulaƟve Effects 

The implementaƟon of each alternaƟve results in a different set of cascading effects (feedback) 

which are not clearly presented (or maybe not required in a programmaƟc EIS?). For example, 

alternaƟves which have a large negaƟve effect on wild populaƟons will reduce populaƟon 

abundance resulƟng in a decrease in overall harvest rates (for some alternaƟves) in both marine 

and freshwater fisheries. These negaƟve effects have the potenƟal to reduce populaƟon 

abundance to levels that may require NMFS to change the lisƟng status of populaƟons from 

Threatened to Endangered resulƟng in severe reducƟons in harvest. 

AddiƟonally, if freshwater harvest was terminated, yet hatchery producƟon remained unchanged, 

why wouldn’t regulatory agencies respond by increasing ocean harvest rates or implemenƟng 

selecƟve fisheries to remove the now surplus hatchery fish? This acƟon would result in a transfer 

of benefits to primarily non‐tribal enƟƟes the effects of which should be covered in the Final EIS. 

I did not see any informaƟon provided on how the implementaƟon of each alternaƟve would 

affect ocean fisheries. Is such an analysis needed in a ProgrammaƟc EIS? The negaƟve effects to 

ESA‐listed stocks from some of the alternaƟves would reduce total adult abundance over Ɵme 

which would likely require ocean harvest rates to be reduced? 

It would seem that the λκ‐λμ year Ɵme frame for describing effects of the alternaƟves may be too 

short. For example, implementaƟon of alternaƟve ξ/π would likely severely reduce long term (>λμ 

years) natural origin fish abundance which would result in decreased harvest. Or is it assumed 
Page 04 

that all alternaƟves will be implemented consistent with ESA and NOR abundance will not be 

substanƟally affected?  

AddiƟonally, the enƟre economic analysis shows results by alternaƟve based on minimum, 

average and maximum run sizes esƟmated for the previous λμ years. This gives the impression 

that harvest benefits from, say the implementaƟon of alternaƟves ξ and π, are likely to occur.  

But given the impacts to ESA listed stocks is it likely that these benefits are sustainable over λμ 

years? Past λμ years? 

Again, having a secƟon that details the assumpƟons used in the analysis early in the report would 

help clarify why certain conclusions were reached. 

μο Percent Survival adjustment Factor 

The write‐up on page ρρ states that a μο percent survival adjustment factor is applied at the last 

counƟng locaƟon to account for survival to their final spawning ground. However its’ use is 

confusing in some secƟons of the DEIS. For example, on pg λμμ it states that the aggregate 

abundance of natural origin spawners necessary meet recovery objectives for natural‐origin 

Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon is 25,500 at Lower Granite. And with an average 

survival rate of 75 percent, the river mouth goal (Columbia River?) is 34,000. If it is meant to 

account for survival from the last counting station (Lower Granite) to the spawning grounds why 

isn’t the 34,000 the target value at Lower Granite Dam? 

It would be helpful if tables such as 4‐59 has one additional column that showed fish alive on the 

spawning grounds (i.e. effective spawners). 

   
Page 05 

AlternaƟve ο 

The descripƟon of AlternaƟve ο on page iv does not match the text presented later in the 

document. Here, the alternaƟve is described as curtailing harvest or having extreme harvest 

curtailment. Later (pg vii) it states that fishing will be eliminated under AlternaƟve ο.  The 

economic analysis assumes no harvest. These secƟons should be made consistent in the Final EIS. 

On page vii it is stated the implementaƟon of AlternaƟve ο would result in escapement of larger 

numbers of hatchery‐origin adults, leading to potenƟal negaƟve effects from elevated levels of 

hatchery origin fish spawning naturally.  This may indeed be the case for Oregon and Idaho 

populaƟons but not necessarily for Washington State. Washington State policy calls for meeƟng 

HSRG standards for the proporƟon of hatchery origin fish on the spawning grounds. Therefore, 

the State would take acƟons (increased weir operaƟons, decrease in hatchery producƟon etc.) to 

achieve these targets. Shouldn’t the possibility of this response be covered in the analysis? 

The data in Table ξ‐ος appear to be in error or requires more explanaƟon. Although there is no 

fishing, fish escapement past Rock Island dam for AlternaƟve ο is lower than three of the harvest 

alternaƟves. 

AlternaƟve ξ 

It is unclear why under this alternaƟve the Lower Granite Run size was not set up to meet the 

escapement benchmark? For example, for natural‐origin Snake River fall Chinook the minimum 

escapement goal is ξ,κκκ adults measured at Lower Granite Dam (?). However, alternaƟve ξ 

shows that ν,κκκ adults was used for all run‐sizes (Table ξ‐πλ). The text on page ρς states that 

the escapement benchmark is ξ,κκκ and was calculated as ν,κκκ/κ.ρο (ξ,κκκ). Seems like the 

ν,κκκ at Lower Granite Dam in this table should be replaced with ξ,κκκ adults? 

SecƟon ξ Figures 

The figures in secƟon ξ show that total salmon producƟon by stock/populaƟon is the same under 

each alternaƟve.  This seems to be because the analysis assumes that the same number of adults 

return to the mouth of the Columbia River for each alternaƟve. This starƟng number is then 

apporƟoned to escapement past fisheries and certain points. Thus, the analysis is meant to show 

a relaƟve comparison of outcomes between alternaƟves under an assumed minimum, maximum 

and average run size and not differences in the range of adult producƟon that would be expected 

for each alternaƟve; this should be stated in the headings of the figures or as a footnote. 

   
Page 06 

IdenƟfying Natural‐Origin and Hatchery‐Origin 

It would be helpful if the figure and table headings clearly idenƟfied numbers that referred to 

natural‐origin only fish or are based on a combinaƟon of natural‐origin and hatchery‐origin fish. 

Summary Table 

Having a single table where all perƟnent informaƟon for each populaƟon is summarized would 

also be helpful. The reviewer has to sort through a lot of secƟons to find data needed to 

understand the analysis. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin Malone 

λσρπMalone@gmail.com