THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Title of 

Environmental 

Review: 

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.

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 draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) 

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 DEIS 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.

Public Comment: Comments on this DEIS must be received no later than 45 days after the Federal 

Register Notice that the DEIS is available for public comment

Please email comments to: usvornepa@noaa.gov or mail comments to the contact 

address above. 

More information is available at:

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/nepa/nepa_documents.html
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

i

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2 What is US v. Oregon?

3 United States v. Oregon (US v Oregon) is the on-going Federal court proceeding that enforces and 

4 implements the reserved fishing rights of the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, Yakama, and 

5 Shoshone-Bannock tribes. Fisheries in the Columbia River have been managed subject to provisions of 

6 US v Oregon under the continuing jurisdiction of the Federal court. 

7 What is the Management Agreement?

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

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

10 December 31, 2017; negotiations on a new management agreement are ongoing. The Columbia River 

11 treaty tribes, the states of Washington, Idaho and Oregon, and the National Marine Fisheries Service

12 (NMFS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are 

13 signatories of the management agreement.

14 What are the objectives of the Management Agreement?

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

16 that the parties have agreed should govern the amount of harvest. Second, the management agreement 

17 incorporates hatchery programs that provide harvest and that are important to the conservation of salmon 

18 or steelhead runs above Bonneville Dam.

19 What fisheries are included in the Agreement and in this document?

20 Treaty Indian fisheries and non-treaty fisheries are considered in the Management Agreement and in this 

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

22 These fisheries include both commercial as well as ceremonial and subsistence (C&S) fisheries. Non23 treaty fisheries are those that do not have a treaty guaranteeing a fishing right. These include all state 

24 fisheries and certain Indian fisheries operated by tribes that are not party to US v Oregon. Non-treaty 

25 fisheries consist of both commercial and recreational fisheries. 

26 What proposed Federal action does this EIS analyzes?

27 The Proposed Action is for the Federal parties to sign the management agreement, as negotiated by the 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

ii

1 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 2 of listed species taken 

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

4 endangered or threatened under the ESA.

5 What is the Purpose and Need?

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

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

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

9 conserve ESA-listed and non-listed species.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20 agencies on this EIS. 

21 What is a harvest policy?

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

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

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

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

 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 DEIS June 2017

iii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 What alternatives are analyzed in this EIS? 

11 This EIS analyzes six alternatives for setting harvest policies:

12 Alternative 1—Extension of current agreement for the next 10 years consistent with the terms of 

13 the 2008–2017 agreement. The new agreement would use a blend of harvest policies, including 

14 a blend of abundance-based management, escapement-based management, and harvest rate 

15 management. The blend depends on the specific salmon or steelhead stock. This alternative 

16 recognize that the stocks have varying conservation requirements, with some providing 

17 abundant opportunity for harvest, and others requiring more protection from harvest encounters 

18 at this time. 

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

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

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

22 is high. 

23 Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate. This alternative uses a fixed harvest rate management 

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

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

26 in a defined period of time. 

27 Alternative 4—Escapement-based Management. This alternative uses an escapement-based 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

iv

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

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

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

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

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

6 stocks.

7 Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishery curtailment. Under this alternative, the sovereign parties 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 fishing harvest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28 What environmental resources are analyzed in this EIS?

29 Resources that may be affected by the Proposed Action and that are analyzed in the EIS are fish, marine-
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

v

1 derived nutrients, wildlife, economics, cultural resources, and environmental justice. These resources 

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

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

4 43187). This NOI announced a 30-day public comment period (July 1, 2016 to August 1, 2016) to gather 

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

6 Why are other resources not analyzed in this EIS?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 Historic Preservation Act).

16 What fish stock are included in the analyses?

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

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

19 are known as Abundance Indicator Stocks. Harvest Indicator Stock are the “Management Units” of the US 

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

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

22 summer Chinook salmon, Upriver Sockeye salmon, Upriver fall Chinook salmon, and Snake River B-run 

23 steelhead. The Abundance Indicator Stocks (ESA-listed) that are analyzed in the EIS are the Natural24 Origin Upriver spring/summer Chinook salmon and natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon (part of 

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

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

27 of the Upriver fall Chinook salmon Harvest Indicator Stock) and natural-origin B-run (part of the Snake 

28 River B-run steelhead Harvest Indicator Stock). The Upriver summer Chinook salmon Harvest Indicator 

29 Stock does not include any Abundance Indicator Stock components.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

vi

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 fish that are not harvested are able to escape past the 

17 fisheries and potentially return to the spawning grounds to spawn (e.g., if a harvest rate was 40%, then the 

18 subsequent escapement rate would be roughly 60% of any particular run size). Each alternative analyzed 

19 in this EIS only differs in the calculation of these two rates, however escapement estimates are presented 

20 in total numbers (e.g., if a harvest rate was 40% on a run size of 10,000, then 4,000 fish died from harvest 

21 (10,000 * 0.4 = 4,000), and the resulting escapement is 6,000 (10,000 - harvest of 4,000 = 6,000)). 

22 Therefore, the impacts of each alternative analyzed are the harvest rates and escapement totals. These will 

23 vary based on the alternative and the fluctuating projected fish run sizes. The sections that follow (4.1.1.1 

24 through 4.1.1.5) describe the impacts of the alternatives on each indicator stock. Section 4.2 compares 

25 these impacts of each alternative relative to baseline conditions and the other alternatives for each 

26 indicator stock.

27 The effects of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 on Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon, Snake 

28 River spring/summer Chinook salmon, Snake River fall Chinook salmon, and B-run steelhead would not 

29 impact the current baseline conditions. The effects of Alternative 3 on these same resources is practically 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

vii

1 the same as those of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, but generally provides a slight positive impact to 

2 spawning escapement. Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 have the greatest effects (largest harvest) on all 

3 affected salmonid species, especially for Snake River Fall Chinook salmon. Snake River spring/summer 

4 Chinook salmon, Upper Columbia River Chinook salmon, Snake River sockeye salmon and Group B 

5 steelhead. Only for Upper Columbia River summer/fall Chinook salmon the effects of Alternative 4 or 

6 Alternative 6 are lower than for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. This results in a high negative impact to 

7 spawning escapement for these two alternatives across all stocks. Alternative 5 has the lowest harvest 

8 impacts on all salmonid species because it involves no fishing, and therefore provides a positive impact to 

9 spawning escapement across all stocks.

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

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

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

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

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

15 salmon because of the depleted nature of the stock.

16 ESA-Listed Non-Salmonids

17 There is a potential for incidental take of ESA-listed green sturgeon as bycatch in fisheries directed at 

18 white sturgeon. White sturgeon is discussed in the next section. The total past and expected annual take of 

19 green sturgeon associated with US v Oregon fisheries was very low (0 to 14 fish annually) and policies 

20 adopted in 2014 by the states further restrict the retention of white sturgeon. Therefore, the effect on 

21 green sturgeon would not change across any of the alternatives. The fisheries would have no discernable 

22 effect on bycatch of bull trout or eulachon during salmon or steelhead fisheries under any of the 

23 alternatives. 

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

25 The US v Oregon agreement has not and would not specify conservation specific needs for any white 

26 sturgeon, American shad, Pacific lamprey and walleye. Instead, fisheries for these species are mentioned 

27 in the agreement because very small levels of salmon or steelhead bycatch might occur in fisheries 

28 targeting these species. The direct effects of fishing on these species are independent of each alternative.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

viii

1 Water Quality and Quantity — Hatchery Effects and Marine-derived nutrients

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

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

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

5 disinfection. Since none of the alternatives moving forward into the future would alter hatchery 

6 production, the negative impacts associated with hatchery effluent as it relates to water quality would be 

7 constant across all alternatives.

8 Anadromous species such as salmon and steelhead are important components of the freshwater 

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

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

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

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

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

14 Wildlife

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

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

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

18 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would have no impact change relative to baseline levels of adults 

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

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

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

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

23 most adult salmonids as prey since they would not be harvested en route to the spawning grounds, thereby 

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

25 Implementation of the Mitchell Act EIS Preferred Alternative, would not be expected to change the 

26 current availability of juvenile salmonid prey base for seabirds as hatchery production is not affected by 

27 the alternatives and the resulting adult returns would be well within annual variability of total salmon and 

28 steelhead returns, so would not have a discernable effect on the availability of adult salmon and steelhead 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

ix

1 prey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 not be harvested. 

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

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

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

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

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

14 Economics

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

16 activity directed on the five harvest indicator stocks. Under the existing conditions, there is a moderate 

17 positive effect on the value to tribal and non-tribal commercial fishers, non-tribal recreational fishers, 

18 employment, and personal income contribution to the regional and local economy. Harvest and primary 

19 processing of salmon caught in tribal and non-tribal commercial fisheries is estimated to generate 

20 $16.2 million in personal income and 419 Full-time Equivalent (FTE) jobs. Recreational fishing activities 

21 targeting salmon and steelhead would generate an estimated $27.9 million in personal income and 672 

22 jobs.

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

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

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

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

27 yield a high negative economic effect. 

28 Cultural resources
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

x

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 would be largely curtailed. 

9 Are there any Environmental Justice effects?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17 disproportionate. 

18 What are the cumulative impacts of the alternatives?

19 Some of the alternatives would demonstrate positive effects on biological resources. For example, 

20 Alternative 5 (Voluntary Curtailed Fishing) would result in positive effects on the fish species, prey for 

21 birds, and marine-derived nutrients. However, when considered together with the negative effects of past, 

22 present, and foreseeable future activities in the project area, these positive effects are largely eroded. 

23 These non-harvest activities they may have largely negative biological effects (development, habitat 

24 destruction, hydropower, and climate change), or largely positive effects (habitat restoration), or a mix of 

25 positive and negative effects (hatcheries). Yet cumulatively, the negative effects would prevail. 

26 By comparison, the adverse effects resulting from the past, present, and foreseeable future activities in the 

27 project area would be greater when combined with the effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. The cumulative 

28 negative effects resulting from alternatives 4 and 6, with their high harvest rates, would be the greatest.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

xi

1 The adverse effects from other projects in the area result in less fish. Therefore, the cumulative effects of 

2 Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 on economics (commercial, recreational, and regional or local economic 

3 impacts), when combined with the effects of other actions, all decrease. As there is no economic impact 

4 of Alternative 5 on the fisheries, there is no effect based on cumulative impacts. The negative cumulative 

5 effects on cultural resources (C&S) increase proportionally to the cumulative decrease in fish stock that 

6 results from other actions in the project area. The cumulative disproportionate adverse effects on cultural 

7 resources (Alternatives 4, 5, and 6) as well as economics (Alternative 4 and Alternative 6) as it pertains to 

8 the Indian tribes does not change when effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

9 are considered. These effects remain disproportionate.

10 What about hatcheries?

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

12 harvest requires the federal agencies to be informed of their effects to the environment. NMFS has 

13 completed an EIS on Columbia River Hatchery Operations (Final EIS to Inform Columbia River Basin 

14 Hatchery Operations and the Funding of Mitchell Act Hatchery Programs (NMFS 2014). The Mitchell 

15 Act EIS analyzed the impacts of Basin-wide, alternative hatchery policies and the resulting production. 

16 NMFS will use the Mitchell Act EIS, and the analysis contained therein, to inform the hatchery related 

17 effects on the harvest management alternatives. 

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

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

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

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

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

23 production of hatchery fish for harvest above Bonneville Dam and to identify hatchery programs that are 

24 important to the conservation of salmon or steelhead runs above Bonneville Dam. 

25 Hatcheries augment fisheries by increasing certain stock abundances, including both ESA-listed and non26 listed stocks. Certain fisheries would be able to continue without hatchery production, because these 

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

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

29 Therefore, while this EIS stands separate from the Mitchell Act EIS, it incorporates data, analyses, and 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

xii

1 conclusions from the Mitchell Act EIS as appropriate.

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

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

4 public’s input to this EIS, the ongoing negotiations between the parties to the US v. Oregon, and the 

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

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

7 and ESA processes, the decision makers will select the most appropriate harvest framework. 

8 What is the timeframe for a decision?

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

10 this Draft EIS. Thereafter, NMFS will review all of the comments, adjust the analyses and EIS if needed, 

11 and publish a Final EIS. NMFS will complete a “Record of Decision” (ROD) that captures the outcome 

12 of both the NEPA and ESA processes 30 days after publication of the ROD.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

13

1 Table ES – 1. Summary of Alternatives

Alternative

Meets 

Purpose

& Need

Effects Compared to Baseline 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 River Summer/Fall Chinook salmon for which the fishing effort is lower than the baseline resulting in a positive effect compared to the baseline.

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 DEIS June 2017

xiv

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 Executive Summary i

3 Table of Contents xiv

4 Acronyms xxii

5 Glossary of Key Terms xxiv

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

7 1.1. Background 1

8 1.2. Description of the Proposed Action 3

9 1.3. Project and Analysis Areas 3

10 1.3.1. Fisheries 5

11 1.3.1.1. Treaty Indian Fishery location and jurisdiction 9

12 1.3.1.2. Non-Treaty Fishery location and jurisdiction 11

13 1.3.1.3. Mainstem Non-Treaty Commercial Fisheries 11

14 1.3.1.3.1. Select Area Fisheries Evaluation (SAFE) Commercial Fisheries 12

15 1.3.1.3.2. Columbia River Mainstem and Lower Snake River Recreational Non-treaty 

16 Fisheries 14

17 1.3.1.3.3. Non-treaty Tribal Fisheries Included in Non-Treaty Catch 14

18 1.3.1.3.4. Treaty Indian Tributary Fisheries 14

19 1.3.1.4. Fisheries with harvest policy set outside the agreement 15

20 1.3.1.4.1. Non-salmonid species 16

21 1.3.1.4.2. Lower Columbia River (LCR) Stocks 16

22 1.3.2. Hatcheries 17

23 1.4. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 18

24 1.5. Scoping: Notice of Intent 19

25 1.5.1. Written Comments 19
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

xv

1 1.6. Other Applicable Laws, Plans, and Policies 19

2 1.6.1. US v Oregon 19

3 1.6.2. Endangered Species Act (ESA) 22

4 1.6.2.1. Definition of “species” under the ESA 22

5 1.6.3. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 23

6 1.6.4. Executive Order 12898 24

7 1.6.5. Secretarial Order 3206 24

8 1.6.6. The Federal Trust Responsibility 25

9 1.6.7. Recovery Plans for Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead 26

10 1.7. Other Permits and Consultations 26

11 1.8. Related Documents Incorporated by Reference 27

12 2. Alternatives 28

13 2.1. Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 29

14 2.1.1. Alternative 1—Extension of current agreement 30

15 2.1.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management 31

16 2.1.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate 32

17 2.1.4. Alternative 4—Escapement-based Management 33

18 2.1.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishery curtailment 33

19 2.1.6. Alternative 6—No Action—Uncoordinated Harvest 34

20 2.1.7. Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail 35

21 Fixed Effort Management Alternative 35

22 3. Affected Environment 37

23 3.1. Introduction 37

24 3.2. Fish 38

25 3.2.1. Salmonids 38
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

xvi

1 3.2.1.1. Chinook Salmon 43

2 3.2.1.2. Coho salmon 45

3 3.2.1.3. Sockeye salmon 47

4 3.2.1.4. Steelhead 49

5 3.2.2. Other ESA-Listed Fish Species 52

6 3.2.3. Other Non-Salmonids (non ESA-listed Fish Species) 52

7 3.3. Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients 55

8 3.4. Wildlife 56

9 3.4.1. Seabirds, Raptors, and other Piscivorous Birds 56

10 3.4.2. Marine Mammals 57

11 3.5. Economics 58

12 3.5.1. Affected Fisheries 60

13 3.5.1.1. Commercial (Tribal and Non-tribal) Fisheries 60

14 3.5.1.2. Recreational Fisheries 65

15 3.5.1.3. Contribution of Affected Fisheries to Regional Economic Conditions 68

16 3.6. Cultural Resources - Ceremonial and Subsistence (C&S) Fisheries 70

17 3.7. Environmental Justice 72

18 3.7.1. Low Income and Minority Populations 72

19 3.7.2. American Indian Tribes 72

20 4. Environmental Consequences 74

21 4.1. Introduction 74

22 4.1.1. Description of Modeled Metrics for Harvest Indicator Stocks and Abundance Indicator 

23 Stocks 74

24 4.1.1.1. Upriver Spring Chinook Salmon 81

25 4.1.1.1.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement 83
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

xvii

1 4.1.1.1.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management 84

2 4.1.1.1.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate 85

3 4.1.1.1.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management 86

4 4.1.1.1.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment 89

5 4.1.1.1.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated Harvest 90

6 4.1.1.2. Upriver Summer Chinook Salmon 90

7 4.1.1.2.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement 92

8 4.1.1.2.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management 95

9 4.1.1.2.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate 97

10 4.1.1.2.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management 97

11 4.1.1.2.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment 97

12 4.1.1.2.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated harvest 100

13 4.1.1.3. Upriver Sockeye Salmon 100

14 4.1.1.3.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement 101

15 4.1.1.3.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management 101

16 4.1.1.3.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate 103

17 4.1.1.3.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management 104

18 4.1.1.3.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment 105

19 4.1.1.3.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated harvest 105

20 4.1.1.4. Upriver Fall Chinook Salmon 106

21 4.1.1.4.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement 107

22 4.1.1.4.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management 107

23 4.1.1.4.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate 108

24 4.1.1.4.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management 109

25 4.1.1.4.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment 111
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

xviii

1 4.1.1.4.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated harvest 111

2 4.1.1.5. Snake River Steelhead 112

3 4.1.1.5.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement 113

4 4.1.1.5.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management 113

5 4.1.1.5.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate 113

6 4.1.1.5.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management 114

7 4.1.1.5.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment 117

8 4.1.1.5.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated harvest 117

9 4.2. Fish 118

10 4.2.1. Salmonids 118

11 4.2.2. ESA-Listed Fish Species (non-salmonids) 138

12 4.2.3. Other Non-Salmonids (non ESA-listed Fish Species) 139

13 4.3. Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients 139

14 4.4. Wildlife 142

15 4.4.1. Seabirds, Raptors, and Other Piscivorous Birds 142

16 4.4.2. Marine Mammals 143

17 4.5. Economics 144

18 4.5.1. Alternative 1 – Extension of Current Agreement 145

19 4.5.1.1. Commercial Fisheries 146

20 4.5.1.2. Recreational Fisheries 147

21 4.5.1.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity 148

22 4.5.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management Alternative 148

23 4.5.2.1. Commercial Fisheries 148

24 4.5.2.2. Recreational Fisheries 150

25 4.5.2.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity 150
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

xix

1 4.5.3. Alternative 3 – Fixed Harvest Rate 151

2 4.5.3.1. Commercial Fisheries 151

3 4.5.3.2. Recreational Fisheries 153

4 4.5.3.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity 153

5 4.5.4. Alternative 4 – Escapement-based Management 154

6 4.5.4.1. Commercial Fisheries 154

7 4.5.4.2. Recreational Fisheries 156

8 4.5.4.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity 156

9 4.5.5. Alternative 5 - Fishing curtailment 156

10 4.5.5.1. Commercial Fisheries 157

11 4.5.5.2. Recreational Fisheries 158

12 4.5.5.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity 158

13 4.5.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated Harvest 159

14 4.6. Cultural Resources—Ceremonial & Subsistence (C&S) Fisheries 159

15 4.7. Environmental Justice 161

16 4.7.1. Cultural Resources - Ceremonial & Subsistence (C&S) 162

17 4.7.2. Economics 162

18 Indian Tribes 162

19 Counties 165

20 4.7.3. Public Participation 166

21 5. Cumulative Impacts 167

22 5.1. Introduction 167

23 5.2. Future Foreseeable Actions 169

24 5.2.1. Climate Change 169

25 5.2.2. Development Projects 177
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

xx

1 5.2.3. Habitat Restoration and Protection of Salmonids 178

2 5.3. Effects from Future Actions 179

3 5.3.1. Fish 179

4 5.3.1.1. Salmonids 180

5 5.3.1.2. ESA-Listed Fish Species (non-salmonids) 182

6 5.3.1.3. Other Non-Salmonids (non ESA-listed Fish Species) 182

7 5.3.2. Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients 183

8 5.3.3. Wildlife 184

9 5.3.3.1. Seabirds, Raptors, and other Piscivorous Birds 185

10 5.3.3.2. Marine Mammals 185

11 5.3.4. Economics 186

12 5.3.4.1. Commercial Fisheries 187

13 5.3.4.2. Recreational Fisheries 188

14 5.3.4.3. Regional and Local Economic Impacts 188

15 5.3.5. Cultural Resources 189

16 5.3.6. Environmental Justice 190

17 5.3.6.1. Cultural Resources—C&S 190

18 5.3.6.2. Economics 191

19 6. Lists 192

20 6.1. List of Preparers 192

21 6.2. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Contacted 193

22 6.3. Distribution List for DEIS 193

23 7. References 195

24 Indexes 203

25 Appendices 206
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

xxi

1 Appendix A 206

2 Appendix B 238

3

4
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

xxii

1 ACRONYMS

2 BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

3 BPH Bonneville Pool Hatchery

4 BOR Bureau of Reclamation

5 BUB Bonneville Upriver Bright

6 C&S Ceremonial and Subsistence fisheries

7 CEQ Council for Environmental Quality

8 CFR Code of Federal Regulations

9 CRFMP Columbia River Fish Management Plan

10 DAO Departmental Administrative Order

11 DOC Department of Commerce

12 DPS Distinct Population Segment

13 EFH Essential Fish Habitat

14 EIS Environmental Impact Statement

15 EJ Environmental Justice

16 EO Executive Order

17 EPA Environmental Protection Agency

18 ESA Endangered Species Act

19 ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit (a term used by NMFS)

20 FR Federal Register

21 FTE Full-time Equivalent Job

22 HR Harvest Rate

23 LCR Lower Columbia River

24 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

25 MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

26 MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

27 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

28 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

29 NOI Notice of Intent

30 ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

31 PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Council

32 PUB Pool Upriver Bright

33 PUD Public Utility District

34 RIS Rock Island Dam

35 RM River mile

36 ROD Record of Decision

37 SAFE Select Area Fisheries Evaluation Commercial Fisheries

38 SMU Species Management Unit. A term used by ODFW

39 SRKW Southern Resident Killer Whale

40 SR Snake River
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

xxiii

1 SST Sea Surface Temperature

2 TAC U.S. v Oregon Technical Advisory Committee

3 UCR Upper Columbia River

4 URB Upriver Bright

5 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

6 USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

7 UWR Upper Willamette River

8 WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

xxiv

1 GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS

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

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

4 2000).

5 ● Abundance Indicator Stock: See stock.

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

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

8 differentiated from natural-origin fish.

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

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

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

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

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

14 species, potentially causing unobserved injury and mortality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

21 no longer necessary.

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

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

24 species at the time it is designated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

34 to include all vertebrates.

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

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

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

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

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

40 all or a significant portion of its range.

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

42 spawn.

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

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

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

46 Segments of Pacific salmon (but not steelhead) under the ESA. An ESU is a population or group 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

xxv

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

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

3 See also Distinct Population Segment (pertaining to steelhead).

4 ● Fishery: Harvest under a specific jurisdiction in a specific geographical area during a specific 

5 period of time.

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

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

8 ● Harvest Indicator Stock: See stock

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

10 defined period of time. 

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

12 during a period of time.

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

14 fisheries using any of a variety of gear types.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

27 environment.

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

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

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

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

32 al. 2000).

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

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

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

36 species.

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

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

39 recover the listed species.

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

41 recreation).

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

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

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

45 their natal areas.

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

47 trout.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

xxvi

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

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

3 the ESA. 

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

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

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

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

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

9 or ESU) affected by US v Oregon fisheries.

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

11 more Abundance Indicator Stocks. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 same place, e.g. Rogue River watershed or Umpqua River watershed.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

1

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 to 

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

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

7 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. In his 1969 decision, Judge Robert C. Belloni of 

8 the Federal District Court for the District of Oregon ruled that state regulatory power over Indian fishing 

9 is limited because treaties between the United States and the tribes in 1855 reserved the tribes' exclusive 

10 rights to fish in waters running through their reservations and at “all usual and accustomed places, in 

11 common with the citizens of the United States [or citizens of the territory].” Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. 

12 Supp. 899 (D. Oregon 1969). The court further held that the state is limited in its power to regulate treaty 

13 Indian fisheries. Among other things, the court held that the state may only regulate when reasonable and 

14 necessary for conservation, provided: reasonable regulation of non-Indian activities is insufficient to meet 

15 the conservation purpose, the regulations are the least restrictive possible, the regulations do not 

16 discriminate against Indians, and voluntary tribal measures are not adequate.

17 In 1974, Judge George Boldt considered identical treaty language in United States v. Washington. Judge 

18 Boldt held that the "in common with the citizens of the United States [or citizens of the territory]" 

19 language reserved 50 percent of all the harvestable fish destined for the tribes' traditional fishing places. 

20 Later that same year, Judge Belloni reached the same holding, the Columbia River treaty tribes’ were 

21 entitled to 50 percent of the harvestable runs destined to reach the tribes’ usual and accustomed fishing 

22 grounds and stations.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

2

1 Fisheries in the Columbia River have subsequently been managed subject to provisions of US v Oregon

2 under the continuing jurisdiction of the Federal court. The Columbia River Fish Management Plan 

3 provided a framework for management from 1988 through 1998, although certain provisions were 

4 modified during that time to address concerns related to the increasing number of ESA-listed species. 

5 After 1998, fisheries were managed through a series of short term agreements, the duration of which 

6 ranged from several months to five years. The 2008-2017 US v Oregon Management Agreement, which 

7 provides the current framework for managing fisheries and hatchery programs in much of the Columbia 

8 River Basin, expires December 31, 2017; negotiations on a new management agreement are ongoing. The 

9 parties to US v Oregon (hereafter, the Parties) negotiating the agreement include: the States of Oregon, 

10 Washington, and Idaho; the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of 

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

12 the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (collectively, the Columbia River Treaty 

13 Tribes); and the United States (as represented by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the U.S. 

14 Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)).

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

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

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

18 NMFS and FWS have prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National 

19 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to inform the decision to sign the new management agreement and 

20 issuance of an ITS under ESA. The BIA, also party to the agreement, is a cooperating agency on this EIS. 

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

22 non-treaty fisheries and a list of hatchery programs with stipulated production levels in the Columbia 

23 River Basin. The management agreement provides a framework to keep healthy stocks healthy and 

24 rebuild weak stocks, and fairly share the harvest of upper river runs between treaty Indian and non-treaty 

25 fisheries. While the agreement would include a hatchery production component, the hatchery operations 

26 aspect is not solely dependent on the US v Oregon agreement and may occur regardless of the outcome of 

27 the US v Oregon agreement. The harvest policies analyzed in this EIS are independent of site specific 

28 production levels of the hatcheries. Separate processes and actions occur outside the US v Oregon

29 agreement that review and analyze the hatchery programs at site specific levels. However, a review of the 

30 impacts from a comprehensive level of the total hatchery production referenced in the agreement is 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

3

1 necessary to evaluate the impacts of including all of the hatchery programs collectively in the agreement. 

2 NMFS has completed an EIS and issued a Record of Decision on Columbia River Hatchery Operations 

3 (Final EIS to Inform Columbia River Basin Hatchery Operations and the Funding of Mitchell Act 

4 Hatchery Programs (NMFS 2014); hereafter, the Mitchell Act EIS). Applicable information from the 

5 Mitchell Act EIS analyzed the impacts of Basin-wide, alternative hatchery policies and the resulting 

6 Basin-wide production. The Mitchell Act EIS analysis is therefore incorporated by reference herein. In 

7 the analysis that follows, we reference applicable sections of the MA EIS and summarize the relevant 

8 conclusions.

9 1.2. Description of the Proposed Action

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

11 the parties to US v Oregon, and for NMFS and FWS to issue an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) 

exempting take2 12 of listed species pursuant to the implementation of the management agreement. This 

13 new management agreement would take effect after the current management agreement expires at the end 

14 of 2017. The management agreement accomplishes two primary objectives. First, it memorializes the 

15 harvest policies that the parties have agreed should govern the amount of harvest. Second, the 

16 management agreement incorporates hatchery programs, developed individually at site specific locations 

17 that provide harvest and are important to the conservation of salmon or steelhead runs above Bonneville 

18 Dam.

19 1.3. Project and Analysis Areas

20 The project area is the geographic area where the Proposed Action would take place. It includes the 

21 Columbia River mainstem, the primary segment of the river as contrasted to tributary rivers that drain into 

22 it, from its mouth upstream to Wanapum Dam (river mile 415) and to the Idaho – Washington state 

23 boundary just upstream of Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River mainstem (Snake River river mile 

24 (RM) 107) (Figure 1-1). These mainstem Columbia and Snake River areas are where the Columbia River 

25 treaty tribes and other US v Oregon parties regulate fishing activities detailed in the US v Oregon

26 Management Agreement in order to fairly share harvestable salmon and steelhead. Fishing activities, 

27 which are further detailed in Subsection 1.3.1, occur to varying degrees across the project area. These 

 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 DEIS June 2017

4

1 activities are generally grouped by seasonal time frame, management jurisdiction and geography into 

2 separate “fisheries.”

3

4 Figure 1-1. Project Area. (The states of Washington and Oregon have each adopted for statistical data5 gathering, management of fisheries, and jurisdictional purposes, boundaries of areas where 

6 fisheries operate. Commercial fishery boundaries are referred to as “zones”. Columbia 

7 River treaty tribes, and other US v Oregon parties have, in general, adopted the Oregon 

8 boundary terminology and therefore we present the Oregon Department of Fish and 

9 Wildlife (ODFW) commercial fishery management zones here for general reference, as 

10 these geographical boundaries and terminology are used throughout this analysis.)

11 The analysis area is the geographic extent that is being evaluated for potential impacts under a particular 

12 resource and alternative. For some resources, the analysis area may be larger than the project area, since 

13 some of the effects of the alternatives may occur outside the project area. The Mitchell Act EIS utilized a 

14 larger project area because many of the hatchery facilities that it analyzed exist outside the geographic 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

5

1 areas where the fisheries specified in the US v Oregon management agreement occur. As described in 

2 Subsection 1.3.2, hatchery activities, including the release of hatchery fish, also take place outside areas 

3 where these fisheries occur. This EIS examines the area where these fisheries and their effects occur. 

4 1.3.1. Fisheries

5 Treaty Indian fisheries and non-treaty fisheries are considered in this EIS. Non-treaty fisheries are those 

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

7 fisheries operated by tribes that are not party to US v Oregon. Non-treaty fisheries consist of both 

8 commercial and recreational fisheries. Treaty Indian fisheries are guaranteed by one or more treaties. 

9 These fisheries include both commercial as well as ceremonial and subsistence (C&S) fisheries. 

10 Fisheries target particular groups of fish, referred to as “stocks”. The US v Oregon agreement establishes 

11 harvest management policies for fisheries in the project area directed at Upriver salmon and steelhead 

12 stocks. Stocks targeted specifically for harvest are known as Harvest Indicator Stocks. Fisheries may also 

13 incidentally catch ESA-listed species, which are known as Abundance Indicator Stocks. Harvest Indicator 

14 Stocks and Abundance Indicator Stocks are described in more detail in Subsection 3.2.1. 

15 Historically, fisheries governed by the harvest policies have been managed within a winter/spring, 

16 summer, and fall season time frame, each referred to as a management period. These management periods 

17 are approximate; some fisheries are longer in duration and occur during more than one management 

18 period (See Table 1-1). 

19 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
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

6

1 The winter/spring season extends from January 1 to June 15 (Table 1-2). During this management period 

2 fisheries in the mainstem Columbia River primarily target spring Chinook salmon stocks returning to the 

3 upper Columbia, the Willamette River, and lower Columbia River tributaries. 

4 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

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 – below BON

Spring Chinook 

salmon

Mouth of Columbia (Buoy 

10) upstream to Bonneville 

Dam

Recreational spring 

Chinook – BON -

HWY 395 Bridge

Spring Chinook 

salmon

Bonneville Dam upstream 

to Highway 395 Bridge 

near Pasco, WA

Recreational spring 

Chinook – Snake River

(WA waters 

Downstream of LGR)

Spring Chinook 

salmon

Mouth of the Snake River 

upstream to Lower Granite 

Dam

Recreational spring 

Chinook – 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 Buoy 10 to McNary Dam

Permit Gillnet Spring Chinook 

salmon Project area
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

7

McNary - HWY 395 

Bridge

Spring Chinook 

salmon

McNary Dam upstream to 

Highway 395 Bridge near 

Pasco, WA

1 The summer season extends from June 16 to July 31 (Table 1-3). During this management period, 

2 fisheries target primarily Upper Columbia River (UCR) summer Chinook salmon, which is not ESA3 listed, and Upriver Columbia sockeye salmon, which contains ESA-listed Snake River salmon as a 

4 subcomponent. These stocks constrain the summer season fisheries. Summer season fisheries are 

5 constrained primarily by the available opportunity for UCR summer Chinook salmon which includes fish 

6 returning to the Okanogan and Wenatchee rivers, and by specific harvest limits for Snake River (SR) 

7 sockeye salmon. 

8 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

Mouth of Columbia (Buoy 10) 

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 + 

Summer Chinook and 

sockeye salmon Buoy 10 to McNary Dam
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

8

downstream of 

BON)

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

1 Fall season fisheries begin on August 1 and extend to the end of the calendar year (Table 1-4). During the 

2 fall management period fisheries target primarily harvestable hatchery and natural-origin fall Chinook and 

3 coho salmon, and steelhead. Fall season fisheries are constrained by specific ESA related harvest rate 

4 limits for listed SR fall Chinook salmon, and both A-run and B-run components of the listed UCR and SR 

5 steelhead DPSs (A-run and B-run steelhead are stock designations that refer to components of the summer 

6 run steelhead DPSs, that have particular life history characteristics). 

7 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
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

9

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 

Deshcutes 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 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

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 the regulation of the Columbia River Treaty Tribes. 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. Treaty Indian fisheries generally occur in the mainstem Columbia 

11 River between Bonneville Dam and McNary Dam, although some fishing does occur both above and 

12 below Bonneville Dam. Impacts associated with these fisheries are accounted for wherever they occur. 

13 Reservoirs of water behind each dam are designated separately (upstream of Bonneville Dam is 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

10

1 Bonneville Reservoir, Zone 6/61; upstream of The Dalles Dam is Lake Celilo, Zone 6/62; and, upstream 

2 of John Day Dam is Lake Umatilla, Zone 6/63). However, they are commonly known collectively as 

3 “Zone 6” (Figure 1-2).

4

5 Figure 1.-2. Location of mainstem treaty Indian fisheries downstream of McNary Dam, 

6 collectively known as Zone 6.

7 Fisheries implemented in the reservoir upstream of McNary Dam, known as Lake Wallula, up to the 

8 mouth of the Snake River are managed under the same mainstem harvest limits as the rest of the 

9 mainstem.

10 The tribes also manage a set of tributary fisheries discussed in Subsection 1.3.1.2.5. These fisheries target 

11 spring Chinook, fall Chinook, and coho salmon, or steelhead depending on the status of the stocks 

12 returning to each tributary. These fisheries are discussed further in Subsection 1.3.1.2.5.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

11

1 1.3.1.2. Non-Treaty Fishery location and jurisdiction

2 Non-treaty fisheries considered in a new US v Oregon agreement would be managed under the 

3 jurisdiction of the states of Oregon and Washington. Generally, these include mainstem Columbia River

4 commercial and recreational salmonid fisheries between Buoy 10 at the mouth of the Columbia River and 

5 Bonneville Dam (commonly known as Zones 1-5, described in more detail below in Subsection 

6 1.3.1.2.1), designated off channel Select Area Fishery Enhancement fisheries (SAFE fisheries, described 

7 in more detail below in Subsection 1.3.1.2.2), mainstem recreational fisheries between Bonneville Dam 

8 and McNary Dam (commonly known as Zone 6), recreational fisheries between McNary Dam and 

9 Highway 395 Bridge in Pasco, Washington, recreational and Wanapum tribal spring Chinook salmon 

10 fisheries from McNary Dam to Priest Rapids Dam, and recreational fisheries in the Snake River upstream 

11 to the Washington/Idaho state boundary. Catch also occurs in a set of “dip-in” fisheries. These dip-in 

12 fisheries are located at mouths and lower reaches of certain tributaries in Zone 6 where migrating fish 

13 may hold prior to continuing their upstream migration. The catch of upriver stocks in these dip-in 

14 fisheries are included in the catch accounting for upriver stocks. Dip-in fishing areas include Drano Lake 

15 at the mouth of the Little White Salmon River, the lower Wind River, the lower Deschutes River 

16 (upstream to Shearers Falls), and the John Day River Arm of John Day Reservoir.

17 1.3.1.3. Mainstem Non-Treaty Commercial Fisheries

18 Commercial fisheries below Bonneville Dam occur in the lower Columbia River in commercial catch 

19 Zones 1-5 (Figure 1-3). The majority of commercial harvest occurs in Zones 4 and 5 (Figure 1-3). 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

12

1

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

3 1.3.1.3.1. Select Area Fisheries Evaluation (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.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

13

1 ● Tongue Point Basin is just east of the city of Astoria in Columbia River waters bounded 

2 by the Oregon shore and Mott and Lois islands. The fishing area includes the South 

3 Channel from the mouth of the John Day River upstream to its confluence with the Prairie

4 Channel. 

5 ● Blind Slough is located near Brownsmead, Oregon and comprises the lower reaches of Gnat 

6 Creek. The fishing area also includes Knappa Slough from the mouth of Blind Slough to 

7 the east end of Minaker Island. 

8 ● Deep River is located on the Washington side in the waters of Grays Bay and Deep River.

9 ● Steamboat Slough is located on the northern side of Price Island near the town of 

10 Skamokawa, Washington.

11 Figure 1-4. Location of SAFE fishery areas near the Columbia River mouth.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

14

1 1.3.1.3.2. Columbia River Mainstem and Lower Snake River Recreational Non-treaty 

2 Fisheries

3 The states of Washington and Oregon individually set regulations concerning recreational fisheries in the 

4 mainstem Columbia River. These fisheries occur in the area from Buoy 10 upstream to Priest Rapids 

5 Dam, during the winter/spring, and fall management periods and upstream to Chief Joseph Dam in the 

6 summer management period. Fish targeted include hatchery spring Chinook, summer Chinook, fall 

7 Chinook, and hatchery coho salmon and hatchery steelhead. Sockeye salmon fishing may occur if run 

8 sizes permit. 

9 1.3.1.3.3. Non-treaty Tribal Fisheries Included in Non-Treaty Catch

10 The Wanapum Tribe is a federally recognized tribe, but do not have treaty fishing rights, nor are they a 

11 party to US v Oregon or the new US v Oregon agreement. Catch from Wanapum fisheries are accounted 

12 for as part of the non-treaty fisheries under the U.S. v. Oregon Agreement. A Washington State statute 

13 (RCW 77.12.453; WAC 220-32-055) authorizes the Director of the Washington Department of Fish and 

14 Wildlife to issue permits for subsistence fishing to Wanapum tribal members. Seasons have been 

15 authorized annually to allow subsistence fishing for spring Chinook, sockeye, and fall Chinook salmon. 

16 The tribe is required to provide catch estimates, and Grant County Public Utility District (PUD) has 

17 historically acted as a liaison between the tribe and state fishery managers.

18 Additionally, the Colville Tribe is a federally recognized tribe that does not have treaty fishing rights and 

19 is not party to US v Oregon or the new US v Oregon agreement. The Colville Tribe fishes for spring 

20 Chinook, summer Chinook, sockeye salmon, and steelhead using a variety of gears in both mark selective 

21 and full retention fisheries. Their catch of UCR summer Chinook salmon are counted as part of the total 

22 allowed non-treaty UCR summer harvest under the U.S. v. Oregon Agreement.

23 1.3.1.3.4. Treaty Indian Tributary Fisheries

24 The US v Oregon agreement includes certain treaty Indian tributary fisheries (Table 1-5). Harvest policies 

25 and management frameworks for these fisheries that may be specific to that tributary population are not 

26 described in the agreement. These policies and management frameworks are instead developed 

27 cooperatively by the States and Indian tribal management entities with primary responsibility in each 

28 tributary. However, fish caught in these tributary fisheries are components of both the Harvest and 

29 Abundance Indicator stocks. For example spring Chinook salmon returning to the Klickitat River are part 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

15

1 of the Upriver spring Chinook Harvest Indicator stock (see Subsection 4.1 for more). So, fish returning to 

2 the tributaries are part of the larger indicator stock aggregates. They are caught in mainstem fisheries, and 

3 subject to the stock specific harvest policies that constrain the mainstem fisheries. Salmon or steelhead 

4 caught during the operation of these tributary fisheries are included in calculations of total fishery 

5 abundance used in this EIS. But the additional catch on individual populations in tributary fisheries is 

6 managed for and accounted for separately as we describe above. For these reasons, the analysis does not 

7 include a detailed review of the effects of each alternative on the tributary fisheries. 

8 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

9 1.3.1.4. Fisheries with harvest policy set outside the agreement

10 Harvest policies for non-salmonid species and lower Columbia River stocks are not specified in the US v 

11 Oregon agreement and are discussed below.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

16

1 1.3.1.4.1. Non-salmonid species

2 Harvest policies for non-salmonid species are not specified in the existing US v Oregon agreement, nor 

3 would they be in a new management agreement. These fisheries are managed independently by the states 

4 and tribes. However, these fisheries are referenced in the agreement because there is some potential for 

5 incidental take of ESA-listed salmonids in those non-salmonid fisheries. All salmon or steelhead caught 

6 in these fisheries as bycatch are included in harvest sharing and fishery management calculations. A list 

7 of these fisheries is provided at the end of this section in Table 1-6. 

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

9 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

10 1.3.1.4.2. Lower Columbia River (LCR) Stocks

11 The US v Oregon agreement sets harvest policies and provides associated management frameworks for 

12 upriver salmon and steelhead stocks returning to areas above Bonneville Dam. The agreement does not 

13 set policies or provide management frameworks for the lower river stocks that return to areas and are 

14 harvested below Bonneville Dam. These include Lower Columbia River (LCR) Chinook, coho, chum 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

17

1 salmon or steelhead, and Upper Willamette River spring Chinook or steelhead. Each of these lower river 

2 stocks are an ESA -listed species that is managed subject to the terms of applicable biological opinions 

3 and NEPA. 

4 For example, LCR fall Chinook (a subcomponent of LCR Chinook) and LCR coho salmon are managed 

5 using frameworks that apply to all ocean and inriver fisheries below Bonneville Dam (NMFS 2012, 

6 2015).

7 While the action considered in this EIS focuses on harvest policies used for the management of upriver 

8 stocks, and while the harvest of some of these upriver stocks occur in the lower Columbia River, they 

9 occur in the same geographical area as the harvest of the LCR stocks. This is from the mouth of the 

10 Columbia River up to Bonneville Dam. Fisheries in this area are more consistently constrained for 

11 harvesting LCR stocks but harvest policies for these stocks are not set in the US v Oregon agreement and 

12 therefore not analyzed in this EIS because they are separate actions and have been analyzed under 

13 separate NEPA and ESA authorizations. The impacts of catch of upriver stocks in these fisheries are 

14 included in this EIS.

15 1.3.2. Hatcheries

16 As mentioned in Subsection 1.1, Background, the existing 2008-2017 US v Oregon agreement 

17 incorporates hatchery programs that produce fish. The agreement describes the number of fish expected to 

18 be released, life-history of release, release location, hatchery rearing facilities, purpose of the program, 

19 entity(s) that manages the program(s), and the responsible funding entity(s).

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

21 framework, the hatcheries are included in the Agreement both as a measure to formalize the parties’ 

22 expectations for production of hatchery fish for harvest above Bonneville Dam and to identify hatchery 

23 programs that are important to the conservation of salmon or steelhead runs above Bonneville Dam. 

24 The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to Inform Columbia River Basin Hatchery Operations 

25 and the Funding of Mitchell Act Hatchery Programs (The Mitchell Act EIS; NMFS 2014), provides a 

26 detailed analysis of all of the hatchery programs in the Columbia River Basin, many of which are not 

27 included in the Agreement. 

28 The Mitchell Act EIS was developed by NMFS to assess one major source of Federal support for 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

18

1 hatchery operations, Mitchell Act grants, and to guide NMFS’ policy with regard to distributing Mitchell 

2 Act hatchery funding throughout the Columbia River Basin. The Mitchell Act EIS process developed and 

3 analyzed six alternatives, including a preferred alternative, which offered a range of program operation 

4 objectives that focused on balancing: 

5 ● The biological and ecological risks of artificial production;

6 ● The benefits of the conservation of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead; and

7 ● The harvest benefits to Treaty and non-treaty fisheries in the Columbia River Basin and in ocean 

8 fisheries. 

9 The hatcheries augment fisheries by increasing certain stock abundances, including both ESA-listed and 

10 non-listed stocks. Certain fisheries would be able to continue without hatchery production, because these 

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

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

13 NMFS finalized the EIS in September of 2014 and issued a Record of Decision (ROD), for the Mitchell 

14 Act EIS in January of 2017. 

15 (http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/hatcheries/mitchell_act/ma_programs.html).

16 While the purpose and need for the Mitchell Act EIS was different than for this action, the analysis of the 

17 effects of Columbia River basin hatchery production, including analysis of the relevant resources in this 

18 EIS, can substantially inform NMFS of the likely impacts of the hatchery production referenced in this 

19 management agreement. Thus, as described herein, the Mitchell Act EIS analysis of hatchery effects will 

20 be incorporated by reference into this DEIS.

21 1.4. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

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

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

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

25 conserve ESA-listed and non-listed species.

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

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

28 support the fishing rights reserved in their treaties as defined by the Federal courts. Thus, the Services 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

19

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

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

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

4 1.5. Scoping: Notice of Intent

5 Public scoping was officially initiated with the Notice of Intent to prepare a draft EIS (NOI) which was 

6 published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 43187). This NOI announced a 30-day 

7 public comment period (July 1, 2016 to August 1, 2016) to gather information on the scope of the issues 

8 and the range of alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS. 

9 1.5.1. Written Comments

10 Fifteen comment letters and emails were received during the public scoping period announced in the NOI, 

11 including four letters from governmental agencies, seven letters from non-governmental organizations 

12 and businesses, and four letters and emails from individual citizens. The letters all originated in 

13 Washington and Oregon, except for one from Idaho and one from Montana.

14 Issues raised in public comments responding to the NOI fell into four main categories: 

15 ● Concern for ESA-listed species and including recovery plans in the analysis

16 ● Incorporation of hatchery and hydroelectric impacts in the analysis

17 ● Ecosystem impacts such as marine derived nutrients and climate change

18 ● Environmental justice, economics, and tribal rights 

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.”
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

20

1 By the late 1800s, state officials sought to regulate tribal members fishing at their usual and accustomed 

2 fishing places. Litigation regarding the validity of state regulation occurred in both Federal and state 

3 courts throughout much of the early to mid-twentieth century. In 1969, a Federal district court ruled in 

4 Sohappy v. Smith/United States v. Oregon that the Columbia River Treaty Tribes had an absolute right to 

5 an equitable share of the upriver Columbia River fish runs and issued a declaratory judgement outlining 

6 the parameters of state regulation. Since that time, the United States District Court for the District of 

7 Oregon has retained continuing jurisdiction.

8 The Federal District Court, as upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, further defined the 

9 “equitable share” as the right to take up to 50 percent of the harvestable fish that are destined to pass 

10 through the tribes’ usual and accustomed fishing grounds. The treaty right is subject to regulation by the 

11 states only to the extent necessary for conservation, using the least restrictive means and without 

12 discriminating against the Indians. See Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194, 207 (1975).

13 Over the years, the Federal District Court has urged the state and tribal parties to US v Oregon to make 

14 agreements on allocation and management of upriver salmon runs. The parties have reached several 

15 agreements to meet this goal. In reaching agreement, the parties have used the 50 percent treaty share as a 

16 measure of the Treaty right for a fair allocation of fish. This has served as a starting point for negotiating 

17 allocation agreements. The parties can agree, however, to deviations from the 50 percent division in 

18 order to accommodate complex management concerns in the Columbia River. See, for example, United 

19 States v. Oregon, 718 F.2d 299, 302 (9th Cir. 1983); United States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 585 (9th 

20 Cir. 1990).

21 In 1977, the parties developed a management plan which was approved by the court that set conservation 

22 goals for each fish species, established fishing regulations and provided for the establishment of future 

23 management techniques. In 1988, the Columbia River Fish Management Plan (CRFMP) was agreed to by 

24 the parties and adopted by District Court Order as a partial settlement of US v Oregon. The court noted 

25 that the CRFMP was a delicate, but effective structure for allocating and planning harvest activities. The 

26 purpose of the CRFMP, after 20 years of legal tests and negotiations, as defined upon adoption by the 

27 court in 1988 and agreed to by the Parties, was to: 

28 “provide a framework within which the Parties may exercise their sovereign powers in a 

29 coordinated and systematic manner in order to protect, rebuild, and enhance upper 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

21

1 Columbia River fish runs while providing harvests for both treaty Indian and non-Indian 

2 fisheries. 

3 In order to achieve the goals of the CRFMP, the Parties intend to use habitat protection 

4 authorities, enhancement efforts, artificial production techniques, and harvest 

5 management to ensure that Columbia River fish runs continue to provide a broad range of 

6 benefits in perpetuity.” (US v Oregon 2008) 

7 Fisheries in the Columbia River Basin were managed subject to provisions of the CRFMP from 1988 

8 through 1998. Following 1998, fisheries were managed subject to provisions of a series of short term 

9 agreements among the Parties, the durations of which ranged from several months, covering a single 

10 fishing season, to five years. 

11 In a 1995 court settlement, the Parties agreed to discuss the possibility of amending the CRFMP and, in 

12 1996, negotiated three-year (1996 through 1998) management agreements for upper Columbia fall 

13 Chinook and upper Columbia spring Chinook, summer Chinook, and sockeye salmon. These management 

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

15 measures and harvest allocations. Annual agreements were implemented for fall Chinook and coho

16 salmon, and summer steelhead during the period 1999 to 2003. A 5-year agreement for harvest was 

17 reached for spring Chinook, summer Chinook, and sockeye salmon for the period 2001 through 2005.

18 In 2005, the Parties negotiated a 3-year (2005 through 2007) Interim Management Agreement (2005 

19 Agreement). Unlike some previous agreements, the 2005 Agreement was a year-long agreement, applying 

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

21 provisions were the result of ongoing negotiations in US v Oregon and the evolution and development of 

22 fishery management in response to ESA-listings of Pacific salmon species. The 2005 Agreement 

23 expanded the use of abundance-based harvest schedules and served as the model for the current 2008 

24 Agreement. Negotiations for these agreements have been under the continuous supervision of the Federal 

25 court with jurisdiction over US v Oregon.

26 Management provision of the current agreement, implemented in 2008, are, in most respects, similar to 

27 those in the 2005 Agreement, and further expanded the application of abundance-based harvest rate 

28 schedules to fall Chinook salmon and steelhead fisheries. The use of abundance-based harvest rate 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

22

1 schedules allows harvest rates to rise and fall in response to overall stock status, which the fixed harvest 

2 rate that was previously used for managing these stocks does not.

3 1.6.2. Endangered Species Act (ESA)

4 Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies ensure that any action authorized, funded, or 

5 carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species 

6 or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. In addition, 

7 Section 7(a)(3) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies consult with the Services on any action 

8 authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency that may affect a species listed under the ESA or their 

9 designated critical habitat. When a consultation results in a biological opinion that concludes that the 

10 action is likely to affect an ESA-listed species, but not cause jeopardy (i.e., appreciably reduce the 

11 likelihood of survival and recovery of ESA-listed species), the Services issue an incidental take statement 

12 that details the amount and extent of anticipated incidental take (e.g., death, injury, harm, or harassment) 

13 that will be caused by the Proposed Action and any additional terms or conditions that must be met. 

14 Incidental Take Statements provide an exemption from ESA Section 9 prohibitions on such take. 

15 Columbia River fisheries likely to be implemented as a result of reaching a new management agreement 

16 would affect fish species that are listed under the ESA. The Parties recognize that the Services have an 

17 obligation to consult under Section 7 of the ESA on the fishery proposals that are to be contained in the 

18 new management agreement prior to signing. Therefore, NMFS, which is the lead agency responsible for 

19 administering the ESA as it relates to anadromous fish species (e.g., ESA-listed salmon, steelhead, green 

20 sturgeon, and eulachon) and marine mammals, and FWS, which is the lead agency responsible for 

21 administering the ESA as it relates to non-anadromous fish species, terrestrial species, birds, and plants, 

22 will use the information developed in this EIS to inform their consultations. The Services will be able to 

23 sign the new management agreement after completing their ESA analyses.

24 The Mitchell Act EIS, incorporated herein by reference, provides additional information on the Services’ 

25 roles under the ESA (NMFS 2014) (Section 1.1.2). 

26 1.6.2.1. Definition of “species” under the ESA

27 The ESA allows listing of distinct population segments (DPS) of vertebrates, as well as named species 

28 and subspecies. However, the Act provides no specific guidance for determining what constitutes a DPS, 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

23

1 and the resulting ambiguity led to the use of a variety of approaches for considering vertebrate 

2 populations. To clarify the issue for Pacific salmon, NMFS published a policy describing how the agency 

3 would apply the definition of "species" in the ESA to anadromous salmonid species (56 Fed. Reg. 58612, 

4 November 20, 1991). NMFS’ policy stipulated that a salmon population (or group of populations) would 

5 be considered “distinct” for purposes of the ESA if it represents an evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) 

6 of the biological species. An ESU is defined as a population that 1) is substantially reproductively isolated 

7 from conspecific populations and 2) represents an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the 

8 species (Waples 1991). 

9 In 1996, the Services adopted a joint policy for recognizing DPS under the ESA (61 Fed. Reg. 4722, 

10 February 7, 1996). This policy recognized NMFS’ use of ESU as consistent with the intent of the ESA; 

11 therefore, for Pacific salmon (i.e., Chinook, chum, coho, sockeye, and pink salmon), the term ESU 

12 remains in use. For other species, including steelhead, the term DPS is used, with the following two 

13 criteria: 1) the group must be discrete from other populations, i.e., markedly separated from other 

14 populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral 

15 factors, and 2) it must be significant to its taxon. As a result of this policy, the reader will see both terms, 

16 ESU and DPS, used in this EIS, as appropriate.

17 1.6.3. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)

18 The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 (16 USC 1361) as amended, establishes a national 

19 policy designated to protect and conserve wild marine mammals and their habitats. This policy was 

20 established so as not to diminish such species or populations beyond the point at which they cease to be a 

21 significant functioning element in the ecosystem, nor to diminish such species below their optimum 

22 sustainable population. All marine mammals are protected under the MMPA.

23 The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the take of marine mammals in United States waters and 

24 by United States citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal 

25 products into the United States. The term “take,” as defined by the MMPA, means to “harass, hunt, 

26 capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.” The MMPA further 

27 defines harassment as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a 

28 marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal 

29 or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing a disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

24

1 limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering but which does not have the 

2 potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.”

3 NMFS is responsible for reviewing Federal actions for compliance with the MMPA. Fisheries can 

4 indirectly affect marine mammals by altering the availability of prey, such as salmon and steelhead.

5 1.6.4. Executive Order 12898

6 The objectives of Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

7 and Low-income Populations, include developing Federal agency implementation strategies, identifying 

8 minority and low-income populations where proposed Federal actions could have disproportionately high 

9 and adverse human health and environmental effects, and encouraging the participation of minority and 

10 low-income populations in the NEPA process.

11 1.6.5. Secretarial Order 3206

12 Secretarial Order 3206 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities and the 

13 ESA) issued by the Secretaries of the Departments of Interior and Commerce, clarifies the responsibilities 

14 of the agencies, bureaus, and offices of the Departments when actions taken under the ESA and its 

15 implementing regulations affect, or may affect, Indian lands, tribal trust resources, or the exercise of 

16 American Indian tribal rights as they are defined in the Order. The Secretarial Order acknowledges the 

17 trust responsibility and treaty obligations of the United States toward tribes and tribal members, as well as 

18 its government-to-government relationship when corresponding with tribes. Under the Order, the 

19 Services:

20 will carry out their responsibilities under the [ESA] in a manner that harmonizes the 

21 Federal trust responsibility to tribes, tribal sovereignty, and statutory missions of the 

22 [Services], and that strives to ensure that Indian tribes do not bear a disproportionate 

23 burden for the conservation of listed species, so as to avoid or minimize the potential for 

24 conflict and confrontation (Secretarial Order 3206).

25 In the event that the Services determine that conservation restrictions directed at a tribal activity are 

26 necessary to protect ESA-listed species, specifically where the activity could result in incidental take 

27 under the ESA, the Services shall provide the affected tribe(s) written notice, including an analysis and 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

25

1 determination that (i) the restriction is reasonable and necessary for conservation of the species; (ii) the 

2 conservation purpose of the restriction cannot be achieved by reasonable regulation of non-Indian 

3 activities; (iii) the measure is the least restrictive alternative available to achieve the required conservation 

4 purpose; (iv) the restriction does not discriminate against Indian activities, either as stated or applied; and 

5 (v) voluntary tribal measures are not adequate to achieve the necessary conservation purpose. 

6 More specifically, the Services shall, among other things, do the following: 

7 ● Work directly with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis to promote healthy 

8 ecosystems (Section 5, Principle 1).

9 ● Recognize that Indian lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands 

10 (Section 5, Principle 2).

11 ● Assist Indian tribes in developing and expanding tribal programs so that healthy ecosystems 

12 are promoted and conservation restrictions are unnecessary (Section 5, Principle 3).

13 ● Be sensitive to Indian culture, religion, and spirituality (Section 5, Principle 4).

14 Additionally, the U.S. Department of Commerce has issued a Departmental Administrative Order (DAO) 

15 addressing Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (DAO 218-8, April 26, 2012; 

16 http://www.osec.doc.gov/opog/dmp/daos/dao218_8.html), which implements relevant Executive Orders, 

17 Presidential Memoranda, and Office of Management and Budget Guidance. The DAO describes actions 

18 to be “followed by all Department of Commerce operating units ... and outlines the principles governing 

19 Departmental interactions with Indian tribal governments.” The DAO affirms that the “Department works 

20 with Tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning ... tribal trust resources, 

21 tribal treaty, and other rights.”

22 1.6.6. The Federal Trust Responsibility

23 The United States government has a trust or special relationship with Indian tribes. The unique and 

24 distinctive political relationship between the United States and Indian Tribes is defined by statutes, 

25 executive orders, judicial decisions, and agreements, and differentiates tribes from other entities that deal 

26 with, or are affected by the Federal government. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination 

27 with Indian Tribal Governments, states that the United States has recognized Indian tribes as domestic 

28 dependent nations under its protection. The Federal government has enacted numerous statutes and 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

26

1 promulgated numerous regulations that establish and define a trust relationship with Indian tribes.

2 The relationship has been compared to one existing under common law trust, with the United States as 

3 trustee, the Indian tribes or individuals as beneficiaries, and the property and natural resources of the 

4 United States as the trust corpus (Newton et al. 2005). The trust responsibility has been interpreted to 

5 require Federal agencies to carry out their activities in a manner that is protective of Indian treaty rights. 

6 This policy is also reflected in the March 30, 1995, document, Department of Commerce –American 

7 Indian and Alaska Native Policy (U. S. Department of Commerce 1995). 

8 1.6.7. Recovery Plans for Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead

9 Federal recovery plans have been developed for the following ESA-listed Columbia River salmon and 

10 steelhead species:

11 ● Upper Columbia Spring Chinook salmon and Steelhead (72 Fed. Reg. 57303, October 9, 2007)

12 ● Snake River Sockeye salmon (80 Fed. Reg. 3265, June 8, 2015)

13 ● Snake River fall Chinook salmon (80 Fed. Reg. 67386, November 2, 2015, proposed plan)

14 ● Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon and Steelhead (81 Fed. Reg. 74770, October 27, 

15 2016, proposed plan)

16 ● Middle Columbia River steelhead (74 Fed. Reg. 50165, September 30, 2009)

17 ● Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon and Steelhead (76 Fed. Reg. 52317, August 22, 2011)

18 ● Lower Columbia River Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, and 

19 Columbia River chum salmon (78 Fed. Reg. 41911, July 12, 2013)

20 Broad partnerships of Federal, state, local, and tribal governments and community organizations 

21 collaborated in the development of these recovery plans. The comprehensive recovery plans include 

22 conservation goals and proposed habitat, hatchery, and harvest actions needed to achieve the conservation 

23 goals for each watershed within the geographic boundaries listed species. 

24 1.7. Other Permits and Consultations 

25 This action will require the following permits or consultations:

26 ● Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

27 Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

27

1 1.8. Related Documents Incorporated by Reference

2 This EIS should be reviewed in conjunction with the current US v Oregon Management Agreement for 

3 2008 through 2017 and the associated Biological Opinion, which contain more detailed information and 

4 explanations of fishery programs affecting Columbia River resources. Links to online sources of 

5 information used in the DEIS are active at the time of publication; however, NMFS cannot guarantee that 

6 they will remain active over time. 

7 Final Environmental Impact Statement to Inform Columbia River Basin Hatchery Operations and 

8 the Funding of Mitchell Act Hatchery Programs (NMFS 2014). The Mitchell Act EIS 

9 provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the effects of all Columbia River Basin hatchery 

10 programs throughout the basin. This document is publicly available via this link: 

11 http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/nepa/3_state_nepa_documents.html

12 2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement (US v Oregon 2008).This is the existing 

13 agreement; it provides a baseline for describing and analyzing the alternatives being analyzed in 

14 this EIS. This document is publicly available via this link: 

15 http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/salmon_steelhead/united_states_v_oregon.html
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

28

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 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

29

1 decisions and underlying harvest management measures and strategies provide an infinite array of 

2 choices. But they are all choices designed to describe how fisheries will be implemented consistent within 

3 boundaries the harvest policy sets for levels of allowable catch. This is fundamental to this analysis. 

4 These conservation boundaries, defined through a chosen harvest policy, provide the framework to 

5 determine effects to stocks of fish, which then allows us to analyze effects to the environment in general.

6 A harvest policy choice may lead to zero available harvest on certain stocks of fish, and therefore the 

7 infinite array of choices for underlying management measures and strategies to implement fisheries (e.g., 

8 commercial or recreational choices, gear type choices, fishery location choices, limiting effort to high or 

9 low participation levels, etc.) are entirely immaterial under circumstances where harvest is zero. 

10 Therefore, in this EIS we focus on the harvest policy alternatives and their effects on the environment.

11 The choice between policies depends on the circumstances for each fishery application. Some policies 

12 depend on the availability of specific kinds of information. For example, abundance based management 

13 requires the availability of pre-season or in season abundance estimates; an effort based policy does not. 

14 Policy choices for a fishery directed at a single stock near the spawning grounds may be different than a 

15 fishery directed at a mix of many stocks in the ocean or mainstem Columbia River. Harvest policies for 

16 healthy and abundant stocks may be different than for a depressed stock that needs rebuilding. The 

17 purpose of this EIS is to analyze various harvest policy alternatives that could provide a coordinated and 

18 systematic framework among the sovereign parties to the US v Oregon case, and to guide more specific 

19 harvest measures in the management agreement.

20 2.1. Alternatives Analyzed in Detail

21 As presented in Section 1.3.1 and detailed in Section 4.1, harvest policies are established for each Harvest 

22 Indicator Stock. Harvest Indicator Stocks are called “Management Units” in the US v Oregon

23 management agreement and tend to be aggregates of fish runs larger than the ESA-listed “units” (ESU or 

24 DPS). Abundance Indicator Stocks are equivalent to the ESA-listed “units” (DPS or ESU) affected by 

25 implementing fisheries that adhere to harvest policies specified in the agreement. Harvest Indicator Stocks 

26 may include one or more Abundance Indicator Stocks. The numbers presented in the sections that follow 

27 are based on actual observed rates of fishing and should be viewed as approximations and examples of an 

28 approach. They are not recommendations for the specific biological criteria that should be used for 

29 implementing harvest policies and the related management frameworks. Nonetheless, they are used here 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

30

1 to evaluate the relative effects of each alternative.

2 Where forecasts of fish abundance are necessary to implement an alternative, the Parties rely on the 

3 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) established by the US v Oregon agreement, to develop, analyze, 

4 and review data pertinent to the harvest management framework (e.g., annual forecasts, abundance 

5 estimates, catch estimates, etc.). Members are required to be qualified fisheries scientists familiar with 

6 harvest management of Columbia River fish runs.

7 The US v Oregon agreement also establishes a regulatory coordination committee with a designee from 

8 each party to provide enforcement regulations. The Parties agree that the Columbia River Treaty Tribes 

9 bear primary responsibility for enforcing agreed-upon regulations applicable to Treaty fisheries subject to 

10 the agreement and that the States bear the similar responsibility for the non-treaty fisheries.

11 2.1.1. Alternative 1—Extension of current agreement

12 Under this alternative, the Federal parties would sign a new agreement, wherein the policy is to continue 

13 to manage fisheries in the Columbia River for the next 10 years consistent with the terms of the 2008–

14 2017 agreement, and the NMFS and FWS would issue an ITS exempting take of listed species associated 

15 with implementing the terms of a new agreement pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. As described in the 

16 previous section, the choice of harvest policies depend on the stock and fishery. Also, as described in 

17 Section 1.6.1 the harvest policies in the 2008-2017 agreement have been under consideration and 

18 refinement since 1988. We anticipate a new agreement would use a blend of harvest policies, including 

19 applications of abundance-based management, escapement-based management, and harvest rate 

20 management. While these management approaches are summarized in this section, Sections 2.1.2 through 

21 2.1.4 and Section 4.1 provide additional background and examples.

22 This blend of harvest policies under this alternative applies to each harvest indicator stock as summarized 

23 below: 

24 ● Upriver Spring Chinook salmon – The natural-origin Upriver spring/summer Chinook and 

25 natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon abundance indicators are both part of the Upriver 

26 Spring Chinook salmon harvest indicator. Abundance-based management for Upriver Spring 

27 Chinook salmon ensures fisheries are restricted when fish returns are low, but offers greater 

28 harvest levels when abundance is high. Upriver Fall Chinook salmon and B-Run Steelhead are 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

31

1 also managed under an abundance-based framework.

2 ● Upriver summer Chinook salmon – As this harvest indicator stock has no ESA-listed 

3 subcomponents, separate forecasts for the component populations are not used. Within this 

4 context, therefore, an aggregate escapement goal is most appropriate for this stock. Coupled with 

5 the escapement goal is an abundance based framework for harvest sharing purposes. 

6 ● Upriver Sockeye salmon – The abundance indicator is Snake River Sockeye, an ESA-listed ESU. 

7 Snake River Sockeye salmon is a subcomponent of the Upriver Sockeye salmon harvest indicator. 

8 Regardless of any increases in Upriver Sockeye salmon, Snake River Sockeye salmon require a 

9 strong conservation focus. Therefore, a fixed harvest rate policy is more appropriate for this stock 

10 until the abundance levels for Snake River sockeye salmon increase.

11 These policies recognize that upriver stocks have varying conservation requirements, with some 

12 providing abundant opportunity for harvest, and others requiring more protection from harvest encounters 

13 at this time. The resulting fisheries are implemented using a complex set of harvest measures and near 

14 continuous pre-season, in-season, and postseason monitoring and analysis to ensure that the goals of this 

15 policy are being achieved.

16 2.1.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management

17 Under this alternative, the Federal parties would sign a new agreement with the other parties, and 

18 salmonid fisheries in the Columbia River affecting upriver stocks would all be managed using abundance19 based management frameworks, and the NMFS and FWS would issue an ITS exempting take of listed 

20 species associated with implementing the terms of a new agreement pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. 

21 Abundance based management establishes harvest levels based on the status of the fish stock(s) affected 

22 by the fishery. The purpose is to provide more protection when the abundance of a given stock is low and 

23 the conservation need greatest, and more harvest opportunity when abundance is high. This is done by 

24 setting catch limit tiers, for example, allowing a high catch tier when stock abundance is high, and a mid25 level catch tier when stock abundance is average, and a low catch limit tier when stock abundance is low. 

26 This model provides a management framework that recognizes the inherent year-to-year variability of 

27 salmonid stocks. Abundance based management plans provide the basis for managing many fisheries. For 

28 example, ocean fisheries for Chinook salmon off Alaska and Canada are managed year-to-year under the 

29 Pacific Salmon Treaty using measures of the overall abundance of Chinook salmon in each fishery. This 

30 type of policy tends not to be very aggressive towards a stock as it requires that a large number of fish 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

32

1 return before allowing a large level of harvest to occur. In the current US v Oregon agreement, 

2 abundance-based frameworks are used to manage Upriver spring Chinook salmon, Upriver fall Chinook

3 salmon, and B-run steelhead. Abundance-based management requires the availability of preseason 

4 forecasts and/or updated in-season run size information. Catch needs to be actively monitored in-season 

5 so that fisheries can be adjusted to meet the year-specific harvest rate target. This alternative would be 

6 responsive to inter-annual variations in the abundance of Columbia River salmonid stocks.

7 2.1.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate

8 Under this alternative, the Federal parties would sign a new agreement with the other parties, and 

9 salmonid fisheries in the Columbia River affecting upriver stocks would be managed under fixed harvest 

10 rate management frameworks that would apply a fixed harvest rate to each fishery regardless of 

11 abundance, and the NMFS and FWS would issue an ITS exempting take of listed species associated with 

12 implementing the terms of a new agreement pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. Harvest rate refers to the 

13 ratio of fishery related mortality for a group of fish over its abundance in a defined period of time. For 

14 example, if a fixed harvest rate was set at 25 percent and a stock’s estimated total run size in a given year 

15 consisted of 100,000 fish, then up to 25,000 could be harvested in that year. In the following year, if the 

16 stock’s run size went to 200,000 fish then up to 50,000 could be harvested. Similarly, if the total run size 

17 fell to 50,000, then only 12,500 would be available.

18 Fixed harvest rate policies require the availability of preseason forecasts and/or updated in-season run size 

19 information. Catch needs to be actively monitored in-season so that fisheries can be adjusted to meet the 

20 fixed harvest rate target. This approach sometimes used for managing weak stocks by setting a low fixed 

21 harvest rate designed to protect the stock while providing access to more abundant co-mingled healthy 

22 stocks. Fixed harvest rate policies are also used sometimes to manage healthy stocks when there is a good 

23 understanding about the productivity of the stock and the rate of harvest that can be sustained over the 

24 long term. The allowable catch under a fixed harvest rate policy will vary from year-to-year with 

25 abundance, but tends to be more stable than under either the abundance-based or escapement-based 

26 harvest policy alternatives.

27 Under the current agreement, Upriver sockeye salmon is an example of a weak stock managed using what 

28 is in effect a fixed harvest rate of 8 percent. 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

33

1 2.1.4. Alternative 4—Escapement-based Management

2 Under this alternative, the Federal parties would sign a new agreement with the other parties, and 

3 salmonid fisheries in the Columbia River affecting upriver stocks would be managed under escapement4 based management frameworks, and the NMFS and FWS would issue an ITS exempting take of listed 

5 species associated with implementing the terms of a new agreement pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. 

6 Escapement refers to the number of fish surviving (escaping from) a given fishery at the end of the fishing 

7 season and reaching a specified location where the fish can be enumerated. In some applications, 

8 escapement goals are population specific and designed to provide a specific number of fish to the 

9 spawning ground. If fisheries are going to be actively managed for an escapement goal, it requires a 

10 population specific forecast and the ability to track the catch through the fisheries that affect the 

11 population. In other cases, escapement goals are stock specific where the stocks are an aggregate of two 

12 or more populations. Stock based management goals are often used when we don’t have separate 

13 forecasts for the component populations and can track the stock, but not the populations, through the 

14 fisheries. B-run steelhead and upriver spring Chinook salmon are stocks in this context. 

15 Escapement-based management is responsive to inter-annual variations in salmon abundance and allows 

16 fishery managers to set appropriate spawning goals for conservation. Escapement-based management can 

17 result in more year-to-year variability in harvest opportunity. The resulting harvest rates can be quite high 

18 when the run size is large relative to an escapement goal. Conversely, when the run size is low relative to 

19 an escapement goal, harvest opportunity can be very low or even reduced to zero. In cases where the 

20 projected run size is below the escapement goal, escapement goal harvest policies are sometimes coupled

21 with a de minimis level of harvest opportunity to meet minimal needs for tribal fisheries and limited 

22 access to other harvestable stocks.

23 2.1.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishery curtailment

24 Under this alternative, the Federal parties would sign a management agreement in which the sovereign 

25 parties voluntarily curtail harvest activities for an extended period of time, and the NMFS and FWS 

26 would issue an ITS exempting take of listed species associated with implementing the terms of a new 

27 agreement pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. This alternative may include some very limited treaty fishing 

28 opportunity to meet base ceremonial needs of the tribes. The circumstances in which the parties may 

29 adopt a voluntary extreme harvest curtailment policy would likely be where they determine that in the 

30 context of other mortality factors acting on the stocks across their life-cycle (e.g. prior fishery 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

34

1 interceptions; critically low emigration; extreme environmental impacts in ocean or spawning/rearing 

2 areas), that adding adult harvest mortality would further reduce escapement levels to the point that 

3 continued viability of upriver stocks is at imminent risk. This alternative expresses a conservation policy 

4 that even harvest actions with measures designed to target stocks with harvestable surplus must be 

5 curtailed to avoid unintentional encounters with critically weak stocks that may be interspersed with 

6 strong stocks. This voluntary extreme conservation harvest curtailment alternative does not meet the 

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

8 by Treaty and it provides no opportunity for non-treaty harvest.

9 NEPA requires that an EIS provide a benchmark that enables decision makers to compare the magnitude 

10 of environmental effects of the alternatives. This benchmark is often found in the “no action” alternative. 

11 For this EIS, “Alternative 5 – Voluntary Fishery curtailment” provides this benchmark in that it 

12 represents the alternative with the lowest fishing harvest, even though, in this case, it does not meet the 

13 purpose and need for the Proposed Action as described in Subsection 1.4. 

14 2.1.6. Alternative 6—No Action—Uncoordinated Harvest

15 Under this alternative, the existing agreement would expire without the Services signing a new agreement 

16 with the other parties. The Services, in this case, would not issue an ITS. This could occur if the state and 

17 tribal parties failed to reach a new agreement to coordinate their harvest activities in which the Services 

18 could join. Alternatively, this alternative may be adopted if the state and tribal parties did reach an 

19 agreement, but the Services did not concur and were unable to sign. In either case, it is uncertain what 

20 would transpire. Under this alternative, it is anticipated that the state and tribal parties would implement 

21 harvest independently according to their own uncoordinated interpretation of the prior rulings of the 

22 District Court of Oregon in US v Oregon since 1969, and the interpretation of their own legal authorities 

23 and harvest objectives for their constituent harvest groups. The result could be uncoordinated harvest as 

24 the sovereign managers implement fisheries absent a broad underlying agreement. 

25 As noted above, the Services may choose not to sign if the state and tribal parties do reach a management 

26 agreement but it does not meet the requirements of Federal parties to act in accord with other legal 

27 requirements such as the ESA or the Federal trust responsibility.

28 Under the most foreseeable circumstances under which the Federal parties would not sign a new 

29 management agreement, actual harvest is tremendously uncertain. Theoretically, state and or tribal parties 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

35

1 may decide that in the absence of support of the Federal parties, they would choose to curtail harvest 

2 entirely. See Alternative 5 for the analysis of that result. It is more likely, however, that the parties could 

3 each choose to implement harvest activities as they interpret the District Court’s rulings in US v Oregon, 

4 with the result that the level of harvest would be very high, constrained primarily by the fishing effort that 

5 could be deployed. In this latter case it is reasonable to expect that the harvest rate on each upriver stock 

6 would meet and likely exceed the highest historic harvest rates observed. 

7 Our assumption under this alternative is that the state and tribal parties would revert to the escapement8 based management policies that were once implemented in the past. For purposes of analysis of this no 

9 action-uncoordinated harvest alternative, and to contrast the likely result from the other alternatives, it is 

10 assumed that actual harvest rates would be similar to the annual highest harvest rates observed in 

11 Alternative 4. Every fish that exceeds a static number of fish set as the escapement goal will be 

12 considered harvestable. This approach does not associate harvest with annual run size variations that 

13 stocks may exhibit. For example, an escapement goal of 3,000 fish allows for a harvest of 97,000 fish on 

14 a run size of 100,000 or a harvest of 27,000 fish on a run size of 30,000. No additional fish escape 

15 fisheries when run sizes fluctuate; instead harvest is maximized on the most abundant stock aggregate. 

16 NEPA requires a ‘No Action Alternative’ in the full range of analyzed alternatives even though, in this 

17 case, it does not meet the purpose and need for the Proposed Action as described in Section 1.4.

18 2.1.7. Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail

19 The following additional alternatives were identified during scoping and were considered, but not 

20 analyzed in detail. 

21 Fixed Effort Management Alternative

22 Under this alternative, the Services would sign a new agreement with the other parties, and salmonid 

23 fisheries in the Columbia River that affect upriver stocks would be managed under fixed effort 

24 management frameworks. Fixed effort management would establish a constant metric of effort for each 

25 fishery. This could be number of fishing days, number of angler days, fishing hours for a net fishery, etc. 

26 Fixed effort management is useful when there is no preseason forecast of abundance. A fixed effort 

27 fishery is relatively simple to implement requiring only that effort and catch be measured. This alternative 

28 would not be actively responsive to changes in abundance. For fisheries managed under the US v Oregon

29 agreement, there are preseason forecasts for all of the stocks of interest. The fixed effort strategy is 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

36

1 designed to catch a constant fraction of the return and is therefore an indirect way of achieving a fixed 

2 harvest rate. The effects are therefore likely to be very similar to the fixed harvest rate alternative. For 

3 these reasons, this alternative was not analyzed in further detail.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

37

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, baseline 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.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

38

1 As described in Section 1, Subsection 1.1 and Subsection 1.3.2, NMFS is utilizing the existing Mitchell 

2 Act EIS (NMFS 2014), and the analysis contained therein, to inform the hatchery related effects on the 

3 harvest management alternatives. As such, under each resource discussed in this Chapter, NMFS has 

4 included in this section, a summary of the hatchery effects, as analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS to the 

5 resources contained in this draft EIS. These include: Fish, Water Quality, Wildlife, and Environmental 

6 Justice. This information, presented in this section, includes the expected baseline hatchery effects, 

7 relative to the reference period used in the Mitchell Act EIS, which was the Columbia River basin-wide 

8 hatchery production in the year 2010, which included the hatchery production levels established within 

9 the previous (2008-2017) US v Oregon management agreement.

10 3.2. Fish

11 This section describes baseline conditions for fish species that may be affected by the proposed action, 

12 either through harvest or because of a predator/prey relationship with species that would be harvested. 

13 Further information on fish in the Columbia River Basin is presented in Section 3.2 of the Mitchell Act 

14 EIS, which is incorporated herein by reference. 

15 3.2.1. Salmonids

16 This section provides information on salmonid species (i.e., fish taxonomically classified in the family 

17 Salmonidae) affected by the Proposed Action. 

18 Table 3-1 summarizes all ESA-listed salmonids in the project area.

19 Several ESA-listed salmonids are inadvertently affected by fisheries under US v Oregon, but they do not 

20 drive fishery management targeting upriver stocks, and are not addressed in the agreement (refer to 

21 Subsection 1.3.1.3.2, Lower Columbia River (LCR) Stocks).
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

39

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

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

2 Salmonids in the Columbia River Basin that would be affected by the Proposed Action include four 

3 species of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus sp.), and steelhead. These species are:

4 ● Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

5 ● Sockeye salmon (O. nerka)

6 ● Steelhead (O. mykiss)

7 ● Coho salmon (O. kisutch)

8 As a group, salmonids are diverse in their biology, exhibiting a range of life history and reproductive 

9 strategies, which has given rise to a unique lexicon used in salmon management. Terms that are used in 

10 this EIS to describe each species include descriptors of the migratory patterns of salmonids and the 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

40

1 reproductive types. There are two basic migratory patterns, or life history types, of salmonids: 

2 anadromous and nonanadromous. Anadromous fish hatch from eggs in freshwater, then migrate to the 

3 ocean, while undergoing the physiological process of smoltification, to grow and mature, and then return 

4 to freshwater as adults to spawn. Nonanadromous fish remain in freshwater throughout their life cycle. 

5 Pacific salmon (e.g., Chinook salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, and steelhead) are largely 

6 anadromous, although there are nonanadromous forms (e.g., nonanadromous sockeye are called kokanee, 

7 and nonanadromous steelhead are called rainbow or redband trout). Reproductively, salmonids are either 

8 semelparous—reproducing once before dying, or iteroparous—capable of reproducing multiple times. 

9 Most Pacific salmon are semelparous; however, steelhead are iteroparous. Additional life history terms 

10 are applied to individual species, and will be introduced in that context.

11 In Subsection 1.6.2.1, we introduced the terms ESU and DPS, which comprise one or more populations as 

12 a “species” under the ESA. A population of fish is a group of the same biological species that spawns in a 

13 particular lake or stream (or portion thereof) at a particular season and which, to a substantial degree, does 

14 not interbreed with fish from any other group spawning in a different place or in the same place at a 

15 different season (McElhany et al. 2000). In fishery management, the term stock is commonly used to 

16 describe one or more populations that are managed collectively and are exposed to similar fishery 

17 pressure; in some cases, a stock may correspond to a single population. The ESA terms ESU and DPS 

18 comprise one or more populations, but may not be exactly identical to a stock, as the key feature of an 

19 ESU or DPS is reproductive isolation from other conspecific groups. Salmon fisheries affected by the 

20 Proposed Action generally manage for large stock groupings, as stocks, and their component populations, 

21 overlap temporally and spatially during their upstream migrations. 

22 In Subsection 1.3.1, we introduced the concept that fisheries target particular groups of fish, referred to as 

23 “stocks”. The US v Oregon agreement establishes harvest management policies for fisheries in the project 

24 area directed at upriver salmon and steelhead stocks. Here we will more thoroughly explain what Harvest 

25 Indicator Stocks and Abundance Indicator Stocks are so that baseline conditions for affected salmonid 

26 resources are described in the management units used by past US v Oregon management agreements. In 

27 order to compare the relative baseline effect of past harvest on the resources listed in this Chapter, we 

28 must also establish specific defined metrics to use as common currency. These defined metrics are used to 

29 provide a quantitative assessment of past harvest effects to establish the baseline for resources impacted 

30 by the proposed action. The modeled outputs for these defined metrics may change under the six 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

41

1 alternatives for each of the Harvest Indicator Stocks and Abundance Indicator Stocks relative to baseline 

2 conditions. Changes will be presented later in Chapter 4 where we will detail how the defined metrics 

3 conceptually equally apply quantitative outcomes across each alternative. These defined metrics are listed 

4 in Table 3-2.

5 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

6 Harvest Indicator Stocks are the “Management Units” of the US v Oregon Fisheries and tend to be 

7 aggregate of fish runs larger than the ESA-listed “units” (ESU or DPS). Each Harvest Indicator Stock is 

8 currently managed under a given harvest policy, such as abundance-based management, fixed harvest rate 

9 management, or fixed escapement goal management, or a combination of these. The current harvest 

10 policy type (under the 2008-2017 management agreement) for each Harvest Indicator Stock is shown in 

11 Table 3-3.

12 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

UCR summer Chinook salmon Mixed-Abundance Based Management 

/Escapement Goal

Upriver Sockeye salmon Fixed harvest rate

Upriver fall Chinook salmon Abundance Based Management

Snake River B-run steelhead Abundance Based Management

13 Abundance Indicator Stocks are equivalent to the ESA-listed “units” (DPS or ESU) affected by US v 

14 Oregon fisheries. Harvest Indicator Stocks may include one or more Abundance Indicator Stocks. For 

15 example, natural-origin Upriver spring/summer Chinook salmon and natural-origin UCR spring Chinook 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

42

1 salmon are part of the Upriver spring Chinook salmon Harvest Indicator Stock. Snake River sockeye

2 salmon is part of the Upriver sockeye salmon Harvest Indicator Stock. Natural-origin Snake River Fall 

3 Chinook salmon is part of the Upriver fall Chinook salmon Harvest Indicator Stock, and natural-origin B4 run is part of the Snake River B-run steelhead Harvest Indicator Stock. Table 3-4 lists the Abundance 

5 Indicator Stocks along with the location where escapement counts occur and the current harvest rate 

6 limits.

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

Abundance Indicator Stocks Location Current HR 

Limits 1

Natural-origin Upriver spring/summer 

Chinook Lower Granite Dam 5.5 - 17%

Natural-origin UCR spring Chinook Priest Rapids Dam 5.5 - 17%

Snake River sockeye Lower Granite Dam 6 - 8%

Natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook Lower Granite Dam 21.5 - 45%

Natural-origin Group B-run steelhead Lower Granite Dam 21.5 - 45%

1 8 These harvest rate limits are imposed by the current Management Agreement and associated Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008). 

9 Observed harvest rates, meaning those recorded as actually happening, are reported in Section 3 relative to these limits. Harvest 

10 Rate limits are the total allowable amount of a species or stock that may be taken during a period of time.

11 The following baseline descriptions for defined metrics for the Harvest Indicator Stocks and Abundance

12 Indicator Stocks include estimates of escapement past fisheries, the number of fish harvested, and harvest 

13 rates (proportion of the total “Stock” that was harvested or killed by fisheries).

14 Hatchery Effects to Salmon and Steelhead

15 As described in detail in Section 3.2.3.1, General Risks and Benefits of Hatchery programs to Salmon and 

16 Steelhead Species, in the Mitchell Act EIS (NMFS 2014), hatchery salmon and steelhead programs can 

17 have beneficial effects to these species but also pose risks. Those beneficial effects include potential 

18 increases to abundance by increasing populations and helping maintain at-risk populations threatened by 

19 extirpation, to productivity by providing nutrients and improving spawning gravel conditions, and to 

20 spatial structure by expanding spatial distribution. Additionally, hatcheries can pose risks to natural-origin 

21 salmon and steelhead populations in the form of effects to abundance and productivity through 

22 competition, predation, disease and harvest. Interbreeding of hatchery and natural-origin fish can 

23 negatively affect genetic diversity and productivity, by interfering with the natural forces that strengthen 

24 the population genetics and by introducing maladaptive genetic changes. The presence of hatchery fish 

25 can lead to impacts to natural-origin populations from competition for resources such as food and 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

43

1 spawning sites, and to predation by hatchery fish on natural-origin fish. Finally, hatchery facilities have 

2 impacts that result from the operation of weirs and other structures that can disrupt migrations, water 

3 intakes that risk entrainment and impingement, removal of water from the stream, discharge of effluent 

4 into streams, and impacts to river flows that interfere with migration and spawning.

5 3.2.1.1. Chinook Salmon

6 Chinook salmon are the largest of the Pacific salmon and are known by many names, most commonly 

7 king salmon or Chinook salmon. We use the name Chinook salmon in this EIS. Chinook salmon have an 

8 anadromous life history (although, nonanadromous males and landlocked populations do occur) and are 

9 semelparous. Age at maturity is highly variable among populations, but most Chinook salmon on the 

10 West Coast spawn at 3, 4, or 5 years of age. Chinook salmon are classified into two races: stream-type 

11 and ocean-type. These races have several ecological differences, but the most basic difference is how long 

12 the juveniles spend in the freshwater habitat prior to migrating to the ocean; stream-type outmigrate as 

13 yearlings, whereas ocean-type outmigrate much younger and may spend substantial time in the estuarine 

14 environment. In the Columbia River Basin, Chinook salmon occurring west of the Cascade Crest are 

15 ocean-type (Myers et al. 1998). Chinook salmon occurring east of the Cascade Crest include both stream16 type and ocean-type races, with stream-type limited to the Snake River Basin (Myers et al. 1998).

17 Chinook salmon stocks are often described as seasonal “runs.” In the Columbia River Basin, there are 

18 spring-run, summer-run, and fall-run Chinook salmon stocks. The run refers to the time of year they 

19 return to freshwater to start their spawning migration, but does not mean that all Chinook salmon of a 

20 seasonal run are closely related; for example, lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon and Snake River

21 fall Chinook salmon are not closely related, despite both being “fall-run” Chinook salmon. Some fall-run 

22 Chinook salmon below Bonneville Dam are called “tules” and are distinguished by their dark skin 

23 coloration and advanced state of maturation at the time of freshwater entry (Myers et al. 1998). Other 

24 Chinook salmon stocks that return to freshwater in an immature condition are called “brights,” these 

25 include a late fall run of Chinook salmon from the Lewis and Sandy River, as well as Chinook salmon 

26 from higher in the Columbia River Basin that are termed upriver brights (Myers et al. 1998). 

27 NMFS has identified eight Chinook salmon ESUs in the Columbia River Basin (Myers et al. 1998):

28 ● Upper Columbia River spring-run—ESA-listed (See Table 3-1)

29 ● Snake River spring/summer-run—ESA-listed (See Table 3-1)
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

44

1 ● Middle Columbia River spring-run

2 ● Upper Columbia River summer/fall-run

3 ● Deschutes River summer/fall-run

4 ● Snake River fall-run—ESA-listed (See Table 3-1)

5 ● Upper Willamette River—ESA-listed (See Table 3-1)

6 ● Lower Columbia River—ESA-listed (See Table 3-1)

7 Upper Willamette and LCR Chinook salmon are lower river stocks and not subject of the US v Oregon

8 agreement (refer back to Subsection 1.3.1.3.2, Lower Columbia River (LCR) Stocks). All of the others 

9 are upriver stocks that are the subject of the US v Oregon agreement. The Upper Columbia River spring10 run stock is the known limiting stock during winter/spring fisheries, which limits all catch during this 

11 season (Subsection 4.1.1 provides further details on the limiting stock concept).

12 Baseline conditions for the Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon, Snake River spring/summer 

13 Chinook salmon, Upper Columbia River summer Chinook salmon, and Snake River fall Chinook salmon 

14 are presented in the following tables. These baseline conditions represent the observed minimum, 

15 maximum and average values for the river mouth runsize, total harvest rate, escapement past fisheries, 

16 and escapement to a counting point such as Rock Island Dam or Lower Granite Dam over the last 12 

17 years (2005 to 2016). Total harvest rate is the ratio of fish taken in all US v Oregon fisheries divided by 

18 rivermouth runsize. The difference between escapement past fisheries and escapement to a specific 

19 counting point represent fish loses due to natural mortality or turnout to mainstem tributaries, and 

20 mortality associated with hydro operations, illegal fishing, and habitat degradation. The baseline 

21 summarizes information from 2005 to 2016. The current management framework was in place during that 

22 time.

23 Table 3-5. Baseline conditions for Upper Columbia River spring Chinook 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

24
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

45

1 Table 3-6. Baseline conditions for 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

2 Table 3-7. Baseline conditions for Upper Columbia River summer Chinook salmon.

UCR 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

3 Table 3-8. Baseline conditions for Snake River fall Chinook salmon 

Snake River fall 

Chinook River 

Mouth

Total Harvest 

Rate

Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Average Loss 

to Granite

Expected 

Granite Run

Size

min. 5,808 25.9% 4,305 1,077 3,228

max. 40,916 43.9% 22,960 5,744 17,216

ave. 19,804 41.0% 11,334 2,836 8,499

4 3.2.1.2. Coho salmon

5 Coho salmon are also commonly known as silver salmon; we use the name coho in this EIS. Coho are 

6 anadromous, with a fixed life history, and semelparous. Coho south of Alaska are three years old at 

7 maturity, spending half of that time in the freshwater environment prior to smolting (Weitkamp et al. 

8 1995). Historically, coho salmon distribution likely extended to the upper Columbia River and the Snake 

9 River Basin (Weitkamp et al. 1995); however, at present, natural populations are limited to the lower 

10 Columbia River, from Hood River westward (Weitkamp et al. 1995). 

11 Coho stocks exhibit early- or late- run timing. Early coho salmon spawn in the upper reaches of larger 

12 rivers in the lower Columbia River. Late coho salmon generally spawn in smaller rivers or the lower 

13 reaches of larger rivers. Late-run fish also undertake oceanic migrations to the north of the Columbia 

14 River, extending as far as northern British Columbia and southeast Alaska. As a result, late coho salmon 

15 are known as “Type N” coho. LCR coho, a lower river stock (refer to Subsection 1.3.1.3.2, Lower 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

46

1 Columbia River (LCR) Stocks), are the only ESA-listed ESU of coho in the Columbia Basin (Table 3-1). 

2 Coho found upstream of The Dalles Dam are not ESA-listed.

3 Although coho salmon in the upper Columbia River and its tributaries were extirpated, reintroduction 

4 programs conducted in the Clearwater, Wenatchee, Methow, and Yakima River Basins are resulting in 

5 coho returning to those rivers. Reintroduction programs are having some success. The number of adult 

6 coho salmon crossing Bonneville Dam in the last ten years (2007-2016) has averaged 119,674 

7 (www.fpc.org fish passage query). In additional to the reintroduction programs, there are also coho 

8 salmon harvest programs, as identified in table B7 of the US v Oregon management agreement. 

9 Harvest policy for the management of upriver coho has not been set in the prior US v Oregon agreements 

10 except to specify limitations to insure 50/50, treaty/non-treaty sharing of the catch. This is expected to 

11 continue under a new US v Oregon agreement as the success of reintroduction programs in the previously 

12 mentioned basins are evaluated and possibly expanded to other areas. Apart from the 50/50 sharing 

13 provisions, fisheries for upriver coho salmon are not actively managed, but are instead limited by the 

14 incidental catch of other species, particularly steelhead and fall Chinook salmon. 

15 While the coho salmon hatchery production above Bonneville Dam does not affect a defined ESU or 

16 ESUs of coho salmon, it still has benefits to the rebuilding natural coho salmon populations (listed and 

17 unlisted) as well as benefits and risks to other salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs. As described above, 

18 these programs can provide benefits to the abundance, productivity, and spatial structure of coho salmon, 

19 as well as providing benefits to other species of salmonids through marine derived nutrients from the 

20 adult carcasses, cleaning and transport of spawning gravels, and as a prey base for other salmonids. They 

21 also, however present risks to these other species in the form of ecological interactions, including 

22 competition for scarce resources and direct and/or indirect predation. Additionally, the hatchery facilities 

23 where these programs are reared and released pose risks associated with delaying or blocking migration 

24 of adult and juvenile fish, as well as risks from water withdrawal and effluent discharge. As explained in 

25 Subsection 1.3.2 and Subsection 3.1, above, NMFS is incorporating the analysis of effects from the 

26 Mitchell Act EIS to disclose the likely impacts from the hatchery programs referenced in the management 

27 agreement. This description of effects from the Mitchell Act EIS summarizes the past effects of ongoing 

28 hatchery operations, which are a part of the affected environment. The effects of continued hatchery 

29 production associated with a new US v Oregon management agreement are discussed in Section 4.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

47

1 3.2.1.3. Sockeye salmon

2 Sockeye salmon are also called blueback and red salmon, we use the name sockeye salmon in this EIS. 

3 The Columbia River Basin is the southern extent of the species on the West Coast (Gustafson et al. 1997). 

4 Sockeye salmon have anadromous and nonanadromous life history types; this EIS will only discuss the 

5 anadromous form, as no nonanadromous sockeye salmon populations are affected by the Proposed 

6 Action. There are three anadromous forms of sockeye salmon: lake-type, river-type, and sea-type 

7 (Gustafson et al. 1997). Sockeye salmon in the Columbia River Basin are lake-type, they spawn in either 

8 inlet or outlet streams of lakes or in lakes themselves, juveniles rear in the lake for one to three years 

9 before smolting and migrating to the marine environment for 1 to 4 years, adults generally return to their 

10 natal lake system to spawn. 

11 NMFS’ status reviews for sockeye salmon (Waples et al 1991; Gustafson et al. 1997) identified the 

12 following extant ESUs sockeye salmon in the Columbia River Basin:

13 ● Non-ESA-listed Sockeye salmon ESUs

14 ○ Okanogan River ESU. Okanogan sockeye salmon are currently the most abundant 

15 sockeye salmon stock in the Columbia River Basin, estimated return in 2014 was 523,700 

16 fish (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/salmon/sockeye/columbia_river.html). Most Okanogan 

17 sockeye salmon rear in Osoyoos Lake, which spans the U.S./Canada border; production 

18 of Okanogan sockeye salmon occurs largely in British Columbia.

19 ○ Lake Wenatchee ESU. For the 10-year period 2003 to 2012, Lake Wenatchee sockeye 

20 salmon returns averaged 27,000 fish, and estimated return in 2014 was 118,500 

21 (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/salmon/sockeye/columbia_river.html). These sockeye 

22 salmon spawn and rear in and above Lake Wenatchee, a natural lake on the Wenatchee 

23 River in Washington State.

24 ● ESA-listed Sockeye salmon ESUs (See Table 3-1)

25 ○ Snake River ESU. ESA-listed Endangered. These sockeye salmon utilize Redfish Lake in 

26 Idaho; the lake is in the Salmon River Subbasin of the Snake River. This ESU includes 

27 naturally spawned anadromous and residual sockeye salmon originating from the Snake 

28 River Basin, and also sockeye salmon from one artificial propagation program: Redfish 

29 Lake Captive Broodstock Program.

30
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

48

1 Baseline information for Upriver sockeye salmon and Snake River sockeye salmon is provided in tables 

2 3-9 and 3-10. The baseline conditions represent the minimum, maximum and average values for the river 

3 mouth runsize, total harvest rate observed, escapement past fisheries, and escapement past fisheries from 

4 2005 to 2016 when the current management framework was in place.

5 Table 3-9. Baseline 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

6

7 Table 3-10. Baseline 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

8 Some sockeye salmon reintroduction programs have been established in areas where the species has been 

9 extirpated. A reintroduction program began in 2007 to restore sockeye salmon to the Deschutes River in 

10 Oregon (ODFW News Release http://www.dfw.state.or.us/news/2012/September/092812d.asp), where 

11 sockeye salmon historically reared in Suttle Lake. In Washington, the Yakama Nation initiated a 

12 reintroduction program in 2009 for the Cle Elum River (a tributary to the Yakima River); sockeye salmon 

13 historically reared in Cle Elum Lake (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/salmon/sockeye/columbia_river.html).

14 The sockeye salmon hatchery program contained in the agreement is a conservation program associated 

15 with the endangered, Snake River sockeye salmon ESU. This program is operated for the conservation of 

16 this species, which has incurred abundance and spatial structure benefits from the program. Additionally, 

17 and early in the development of the program, the hatchery program acted as protection from extinction, 

18 conserving valuable genetic diversity and artificially boosting the productivity of the captive population. 

19 As explained in Subsection 1.3.2 and Subsection 3.1, above, NMFS is incorporating the analysis of 

20 effects from the Mitchell Act EIS to disclose the likely impacts from the hatchery programs referenced in 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

49

1 the agreement. This description of effects from the Mitchell Act EIS summarizes the past effects of 

2 ongoing hatchery operations, which are a part of the affected environment. The effects of continued 

3 hatchery production associated with a new US v Oregon management agreement are discussed in Section

4 4.

5 3.2.1.4. Steelhead

6 The name steelhead has a complex history; we use the name steelhead in this EIS to refer to anadromous 

7 populations of the biological species Oncorhynchus mykiss. Steelhead are anadromous, although 

8 individual fish may residualize and remain nonanadromous, and have the capacity for iteroparity. 

9 Iteroparous steelhead are predominately female (Busby et al. 1996); males tend to be semelparous. 

10 Juvenile steelhead can spend between one and seven years in fresh water prior to smolting, and then 

11 spend up to three years in the ocean before their first spawning migration (Busby et al. 1996). Most 

12 steelhead in the Columbia River Basin spend two years in freshwater and two years in the ocean; some 

13 populations east of the Cascade Crest have only one ocean year (Busby et al. 1996).

14 Steelhead have two reproductive ecotypes: ocean-maturing and stream-maturing (Busby et al. 1996). On 

15 the West Coast, these correspond to winter steelhead and summer steelhead, respectively. Ocean16 maturing winter steelhead enter fresh water in a sexually mature condition and spawn shortly thereafter; 

17 stream-maturing summer steelhead enter fresh water in a sexually immature condition, and can spend 

18 several months in fresh water prior to spawning (Busby et al. 1996). Both of these ecotypes occur in the 

19 Columbia River Basin.

20 Steelhead, and their nonanadromous kin, have two major genetic groupings that are significant enough to 

21 be considered subspecies by some authors: coastal steelhead and rainbow trout (O. m. irideus), and 

22 inland steelhead and redband trout (O. m. gairdneri). Both subspecies occur in the Columbia River Basin. 

23 The coastal grouping occurs as far upstream as the Hood River in Oregon and the Wind River in 

24 Washington. The inland grouping occurs upstream of those rivers. Coastal steelhead can be winter or 

25 summer steelhead; inland steelhead are almost exclusively summer steelhead, i.e., stream-maturing 

26 (Busby et al. 1996).

27 Inland steelhead of the Columbia River Basin, especially in the Snake River, are commonly referred to as 

28 either A-run or B-run. These designations are based on the observation of a bimodal migration of adult 

29 steelhead at Bonneville Dam (Columbia River river kilometer (RKm) 235) and differences in age (1-
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

50

1 versus 2-ocean) and adult size observed among Snake River steelhead (Busby et al. 1996). A-run 

2 steelhead have generally spent one year in the ocean and are smaller than their B-run counterparts, which 

3 spend two years in the ocean. Under the US v Oregon agreement, B-run index steelhead are defined as 

4 any steelhead measuring at least 78 cm fork length and passing Bonneville Dam between July 1 and 

5 October 31. A-run steelhead are believed to occur throughout the steelhead-bearing streams of the Snake 

6 River Basin; additionally, inland Columbia River steelhead outside of the Snake River Basin are also 

7 considered A-run. B-run steelhead are thought to be produced only in the Clearwater, Middle Fork 

8 Salmon, and South Fork Salmon Rivers. (Busby et al. 1996).

9 NMFS has identified six DPSs for steelhead in the Columbia River Basin (Busby et al. 1996); all but one 

10 are ESA-listed:

11 ● Non-ESA-listed steelhead DPSs

12 ● Southwest Washington. Not ESA-listed. Includes populations in the Columbia River

13 below the Cowlitz River in Washington and below the Willamette River in Oregon.

14 ● ESA-listed steelhead DPSs (See Table 3-1)

15 ● Lower Columbia River. ESA-listed threatened, includes naturally spawned steelhead 

16 originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from rivers between the 

17 Cowlitz and Wind Rivers (inclusive) and the Willamette and Hood Rivers (inclusive); 

18 excludes such fish originating from the upper Willamette River basin above Willamette 

19 Falls. This DPS includes steelhead from seven artificial propagation programs.

20 ● Upper Willamette River. ESA-listed threatened, includes naturally spawned anadromous 

21 winter-run steelhead originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from 

22 the Willamette River and its tributaries upstream of Willamette Falls to and including the 

23 Calapooia River.

24 ● Mid-Columbia River. ESA-listed threatened, includes naturally spawned steelhead 

25 originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from the Columbia River and 

26 its tributaries upstream of the Wind and Hood Rivers (exclusive) to and including the 

27 Yakima River; excludes such fish originating from the Snake River Basin. This DPS does 

28 include steelhead from seven artificial propagation programs.

29 ● Upper Columbia River. ESA-listed threatened, includes naturally spawned steelhead 

30 originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from the Columbia River and 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

51

1 its tributaries upstream of the Yakima River to the U.S.-Canada border. Also, steelhead 

2 from six artificial propagation programs.

3 ● Snake River Basin. ESA-listed threatened, includes naturally spawned anadromous 

4 steelhead originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from the Snake 

5 River basin, and also steelhead from six artificial propagation programs.

6 Baseline information for Snake River B-run steelhead and natural-origin B-run steelhead is provided in 

7 Table 3-11. The baseline conditions represent the minimum, maximum and average values for the river 

8 mouth runsize, total harvest rate observed, escapement past fisheries, and escapement to Lower Granite 

9 Dam. The baseline summarizes information from 2005 to 2016 when the current management framework 

10 was in place.

11 Table 3-11. Baseline conditions for natural-origin B-run steelhead

B-run 

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

12 Hatchery production of steelhead in the Snake River basin encompasses both harvest programs and 

13 conservation programs. As described above, conservation programs can benefit the natural populations of 

14 ESA-listed steelhead by increasing the abundance and spatial structure of the extant natural populations. 

15 The programs can also benefit the species by conserving much of the genetic diversity of the natural 

16 populations, by providing marine-derived nutrients, and by improving spawning gravel conditions. 

17 However, as also described above, both the conservation and the harvest programs can present risks to 

18 these natural populations, including: risks to population productivity and genetic diversity through 

19 interbreeding with wild fish at elevated levels; risks from direct and indirect competition and predation; 

20 and physical and ecological risks from the operation of the hatchery facilities where these steelhead 

21 programs are reared and released. As explained in Subsection 1.3.2 and Subsection 3.1, above, NMFS is 

22 incorporating the analysis of effects from the Mitchell Act EIS to disclose the likely impacts from the 

23 hatchery programs referenced in the Agreement. This description of effects summarizes the past effects of 

24 ongoing hatchery operations, which are a part of the affected environment. The effects of continued 

25 hatchery production associated with a new US v Oregon management agreement are discussed in Section
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

52

1 4.

2 3.2.2. Other ESA-Listed Fish Species 

3 Other ESA-listed fish species that may be affected by the Proposed Action are listed in the table below. 

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

5 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

6 3.2.3. Other Non-Salmonids (non ESA-listed Fish Species)

7 Non-salmonid (non-ESA-listed Fish species) mentioned in the agreement are listed in Table 1.3.1.3-1 and 

8 include:

9 ● White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus)

10 White sturgeon are the largest North American sturgeon. They live in rivers from central California to 

11 southern Alaska and migrate among them via the Pacific Ocean. In the Columbia River they historically 

12 ranged from the ocean up into Idaho, Montana, and Canada. White sturgeon can live for over 100 years, 

13 can be 20 feet long, and can weigh over 1,500 pounds. Their skeleton is largely cartilage and they have 

14 thick skin and bony plates, called scutes, instead of scales. Sturgeon appeared in the fossil record 200 

15 million years ago and have survived to the present relatively unchanged. Female sturgeon spawn at 20-25 

16 years of age (males at about 12 years old), and can produce 300,000-4,000,000 eggs. Of these, less than 

17 0.1% will survive the first year (Wydoski and Whitney 1979).

18 There are no historic estimates of white sturgeon abundance before the non-Native Americans began to 

19 settle in the Pacific Northwest and the Columbia River hydrosystem was developed. Historically, white 

20 sturgeon ranged freely up and down the Columbia and Snake Rivers (Bajkov 1951) and undertook 

21 extensive seasonal migrations among riverine habitats to take advantage of scattered and seasonally 

22 favorable resources.

23 Construction of dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers from 1931 to 1968 segregated groups of white 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

53

1 sturgeon into a series of functionally discrete populations (North et al. 1993). Development of the 

2 Columbia River Basin hydrosystem created impoundments (reservoirs) throughout the basin, restricting 

3 movements of white sturgeon and two of their principal food sources (eulachon and lamprey). 

4 Development has also degraded or destroyed white sturgeon spawning and rearing habitat. As a result, 

5 many impounded white sturgeon populations are not as productive as they were before non-Native

6 American settlement of the region and development of the hydrosystem. In some upper Columbia River 

7 Basin reaches, isolated populations may face extirpation or extinction (Beamesderfer et al. 1995, North et 

8 al. 1993, Parsley and Beckman 1994, Parsley et al. 1993).

9 ● American Shad (Alosa sapidissima)

10 American shad routinely average large numbers of returns to the Columbia River, and in some years the 

11 number counted at Bonneville Dam is as high as 4-5 million (5.3 million in 2004, and 4.2 million in 2005, 

12 for example). The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated as many 10 million to 20 million adult shad may 

13 enter the Columbia annually — 4,000 metric tons (adults average 2-3 pounds). Shad have migrated past 

14 Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, McNary, and Priest Rapids dams on the Columbia and the four lower 

15 Snake River dams, according to the Survey.

16 Unlike salmon and steelhead, shad are not native to the Columbia. They were introduced to the Pacific 

17 Coast from the Atlantic coast, first planted 10,000 in the Sacramento River in 1871. Five years later shad 

18 were being captured in the Columbia River and in 1880 the shad invasion was confirmed by fish scientist 

19 David Starr Jordan, who sent a specimen to the Smithsonian Institution where it is preserved to this day.

20 Like salmon and steelhead, shad are anadromous. Biologically part of the herring family of fish, they 

21 spawn in the mainstem Columbia River primarily above Bonneville Dam between May and July and also 

22 in the Willamette River of Oregon. Shad go to the ocean as adults, returning to spawn when they are three 

23 to five years of age. The run peaks in June. Unlike salmon and steelhead, shad spawn in open water rather 

24 than laying eggs on gravel. Also unlike salmon, shad can make the round trip to the ocean several times 

25 and spawn additional generations.

26 Shad spawn prolifically, produce large numbers of smolts, and return as adults in such volume that they 

27 are fished both commercially and for sport. There is no daily limit on Columbia River shad in either 

28 Washington or Oregon. Shad are caught in the lower Snake River, but that is about as far inland as they 

29 go. The bulk of the annual run spawns downstream from McNary Dam. 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

54

1 ● Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus)

2 Lampreys, jawless fishes of the family Petromyzontidae, are among the oldest existing vertebrates, having 

3 changed little since emerging about 530 million years ago (Dawkins 2004). The Pacific lamprey 

4 Entosphenus tridentatus (formerly Lampetra tridentata) is an anadromous species native to the north 

5 Pacific Rim (Scott and Crossman 1973) including the Columbia River Basin. Pacific lamprey are an 

6 important food source for marine mammal, avian, and fish predators, and may act as a predation buffer 

7 for Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus species juveniles. Moreover, they are a source of marine-derived 

8 nutrients in the upper tributaries of the Columbia and Snake rivers (Close et al. 1995). Pacific lamprey 

9 may also be a key indicator of ecological health of the Columbia River Basin. Importantly, Pacific 

10 lamprey serve a role in the culture of many Native American tribes (Close et al. 2002).

11 Despite their persistence through time, lamprey are now believed to be declining throughout much of their 

12 distribution (e.g., see Renaud 1997). Pacific lamprey along the west coast of North America have recently 

13 experienced declines and regional extirpations (Beamish and Northcote 1989; Kostow 2002; Moser and 

14 Close 2003). These declines parallel those of Pacific salmonids, perhaps because the two groups share 

15 widely sympatric distributions (Scott and Crossman 1973; Simpson and Wallace 1978; Moyle 2002) and 

16 similar anadromous life histories (McDowall 2001; Quinn and Myers 2004). Causes for the decline in the 

17 Columbia River Basin may include construction and operation of dams for hydropower, flood control, 

18 and irrigation, habitat degradation, poor water quality, proliferation of exotic species, and direct 

19 eradication actions.

20 Numerous management and research actions have been recommended to help restore Pacific lamprey in 

21 the Columbia River Basin (Nez Perce, Umatilla, Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes 2008; Columbia 

22 Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority 2008). These actions include improving adult and juvenile passage at 

23 known and suspected obstacles, restoring degraded habitat and water quality, and implementing 

24 reintroduction methods.

25 ● Walleye (Sander vitreus)

26 Walleye are an exotic species introduced into Lake Roosevelt in the upper Columbia River during the 

27 1940s and 1950s. Walleye are not native to Washington fish, and exactly how they originally entered the 

28 state is unknown. The first verification of a walleye in Washington was in 1962, from Banks Lake in 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

55

1 eastern Washington. Soon afterwards, populations began to show up in Lake Roosevelt (connected to 

2 Banks Lake through a huge pipe and pump). Since then they have spread from these original sites to the 

3 remainder of the mainstem Columbia River, from near the mouth to the Canadian border and throughout 

4 reservoirs in the Columbia River Basin.

5 Walleye continued to advance to other waters in the Columbia River Basin by using canals as frontier 

6 highways. They have established populations in Lake Billy Clapp, Moses Lake, Potholes Reservoir, Long 

7 Lake, Crescent Lake, Soda Lake and Scooteney Reservoir. They have thrived in reservoir environments 

8 and are a primary gamefish species. Young walleye are typically found in littoral (nearshore) areas 

9 associated with woody debris. Adults are most commonly found in pelagic (open water) areas during 

10 daylight hours and near the mouths of embayments and tributaries at night. where they come to feed 

11 (Peone et al. 1990).

12 Hatchery Effects to Other Fish Species

13 Hatchery salmon and steelhead may act to enhance, artificially, existing pathways of prey, predator, and 

14 competition between the hatchery-reared species and other species, including: bull trout, eulachon, shad, 

15 lamprey, and walleye. 

16 Bull trout feed primarily on fish (referred to as piscivorous) as subadults and adults, they can be 

17 substantial predators of young salmon and steelhead. Eulachon are important in the food chain as a prey 

18 species of salmon and steelhead. Newly hatched and juvenile eulachon are food for a variety of larger 

19 marine fish species, including salmon and steelhead. Shad are a non-indigenous species of anadromous 

20 fish, in the Columbia River, that provide both a prey-base for some juvenile salmonids (Chinook salmon) 

21 but also may compete with salmon and steelhead for prey in the freshwater environment. Lamprey prey 

22 on a variety of fish and marine mammals (whales), including salmon, which are an important food source 

23 for lamprey. Walleye, a non-indigenous warm water fish is known to prey on seaward migrating salmon 

24 and steelhead juveniles.

25 3.3. Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients

26 As detailed in the Mitchell Act EIS (Subsection 3.6.3.1, Water Quality Parameters) and incorporated 

27 herein, by reference, hatchery facilities can have impacts to in-stream water quality, where they operate. 

28 Hatcheries can produce effluent (discharged water that has been used in the facility) with elevated 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

56

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

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

3 disinfection. Effluent from hatchery facilities rearing 20,000 lbs or more of fish, is regulated under the 

4 federal Clean Water Act (CWA), through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

5 permits, and issued by the states or directly by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Hatcheries 

6 that are in compliance with their NPDES permits (where required), and thus water quality standards, are 

7 considered not to cause or to contribute to a violation of water quality standards. However, the amount 

8 effluent being discharged into receiving waters from hatcheries do contribute to the total pollutant loads 

9 of those receiving waters and downstream waters. The baseline condition of water quality, with regard to 

10 the effects of hatchery production in the Columbia River basin, and including facilities that rear and 

11 release programs included in the proposed action, is consistent with current federal and state regulations. 

12 Anadromous species such as salmon and steelhead are important components of the freshwater 

13 ecosystem, particularly for their role in transporting nutrients upstream from the marine ecosystem, and 

14 possibly as watershed engineers that structure streambed habitats and alter sediment composition during 

15 spawning.

16 Hatchery produced salmon and steelhead currently provide a significant number of the returning adults to 

17 the Columbia River basin, contributing substantially to the total contribution of marine-derived nutrients. 

18 This EIS incorporates by reference Subsection 3.5.6.5 of the Mitchell Act EIS (NMFS 2014) which 

19 provides a comprehensive discussion of the role of salmon and steelhead in transporting marine-derived 

20 nutrients.

21 3.4. Wildlife

22 Fisheries have the potential to affect wildlife through interactions from changes in the availability of fish 

23 as prey. Wildlife that are most likely to be affected by fishing activities are seabirds and marine 

24 mammals. Both of these groups are protected under Federal laws, such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

25 (MBTA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)

26 3.4.1. Seabirds, Raptors, and other Piscivorous Birds

27 Numerous seabird species, as well as raptors, are protected under the MBTA, including several that are 

28 present within the project area. These seabirds include Caspian terns, Double-crested cormorants, and 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

57

1 several species of gulls. Guillemots, murres, and puffins also prey on juvenile salmon, primarily in the 

2 ocean. . These birds feed on out-migrating juvenile salmon. 

3 Predation on juvenile salmon occurs in the Columbia River, as salmon smolts migrate downstream and 

4 into marine waters. Two man‐made islands, East Sand Island and Rice Island were created using dredge 

5 spoils from the Columbia River. The islands have since become occupied by colonies of Caspian terns 

6 and double‐crested cormorants. In 2010 and 2011, an estimated 19.2 million and 20.5 million 

7 (respectively) juvenile salmon were consumed by the double‐crested cormorant colony on East Sand 

8 Island. These numbers are approximately equal to 18 percent of the entire Columbia River out‐migrating 

9 salmon for those years (BRNW 2011). Caspian Terns nesting on East Sand Island and Rice Island also 

10 consume outmigrating salmonids: 8.1 million salmon smolts in 1997 and 12.4 million in 1998. The U.S. 

11 Army Corps of Engineers has implemented culling actions in 2015 and 2016 on double-crested 

12 cormorants in the Columbia River Estuary under MBTA depredation permit issued by the USFWS to 

13 reduce predation impacts on ESA-listed salmonids.

14 Raptors (bald eagles, turkey vultures, osprey), corvids (crows, ravens), and numerous species of gulls 

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

16 Hatchery produced salmon and steelhead make up the majority of the current, total Columbia River basin 

17 production. As such, avian species that rely on juvenile or adult salmon of steelhead, from the Columbia 

18 River are affected by the level of hatchery production of these species. Baseline conditions for Caspian 

19 terns and bald eagles result from the recent levels of hatchery production, within the Columbia River 

20 basin, as analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS (NMFS 2014). 

21 3.4.2. Marine Mammals

22 Fisheries in the lower Columbia River can occur in the presence of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) and 

23 California sea lions (Zalophus californianus). In compliance with the MMPA, NMFS publishes an annual 

24 list of fisheries that classifies fisheries by the level of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals 

25 that occurs incidental to each fishery. NMFS has determined that salmon troll fisheries and Columbia 

26 River net fisheries for salmon and eulachon have little to no known impact on marine mammals (82 Fed. 

27 Reg. 3655, January 12, 2017). 

28 California sea lions have a substantial effect on salmon and steelhead migrating up the Columbia River, 

29 through predation below Bonneville Dam. After non-lethal methods to remove or discourage sea lion 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

58

1 predation were unsuccessful, NMFS authorized, under MMPA Section 120, the states of Washington, 

2 Oregon and Idaho to lethally remove individually identifiable California Sea Lions in the vicinity of 

3 Bonneville Dam that are having a negative impact on the recovery of salmon and steelhead listed under 

4 the ESA.

5 The Southern Resident Killer Whale DPS (SRKW) is ESA-listed as endangered. SRKW pods have been 

6 sighted off of the West Coast as far south as Monterey, California (SRKW recovery plan, January 2008). 

7 These whales are known to prey upon salmon in the ocean; therefore, SRKW may be affected by the 

8 Proposed Action. 

9 NMFS’ recovery plan for SRKW (2008) singles out decline of Columbia River salmon as possibly the 

10 single greatest change in food availability for SRKW since the late 1800s. Returns during the 1990s 

11 averaged only 550,000 adult salmonids crossing Bonneville Dam, representing a decline of 90 percent or 

12 more from historical levels. With so many fish present back in the 1800s, salmonids returning to the 

13 Columbia River may have been an important part of the diet of SRKW. More recently returning adults 

14 crossing Bonneville Dam has increased, as the 10-year average (2007-2016) of all salmonids crossing 

15 Bonneville Dam is now 1.8 million. 

16 As described in the Mitchell Act EIS, hatchery produced salmon and steelhead currently provide the 

17 majority of the total fish produced from the Columbia River basin. As such, the baseline condition of 

18 marine mammal species that rely on salmon or steelhead, from the Columbia River, are affected by the 

19 level of overall hatchery production of these species, including the programs referenced in the US v 

20 Oregon Agreement. Baseline conditions for SRKW, resulting, in part, from recent levels hatchery 

21 Chinook salmon production from the Columbia River basin are described in Section 3.5.3.1.1, of the 

22 Mitchell Act EIS, and incorporated herein by reference. Baseline conditions for marine mammals 

23 resulting from implementation of the Mitchell Act EIS preferred alternative would likely result in a small 

24 increase in overall Chinook salmon (NMFS 2014).

25 3.5. Economics

26 Economic issues addressed in this section include harvest effects related to management strategies, 

27 economic values of fish predicted to be caught in commercial tribal and non-tribal) fisheries, and the 

28 contribution of commercial and recreational fishing activity on local and regional economies in the 

29 Columbia River basin. Additional economic information related to tribal harvests is provided in Section 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

59

1 3.6, Cultural Resources - Ceremonial and Subsistence Harvest. 

2 This economic analysis focuses on commercial and recreational fishing targeting five harvest indicator 

3 stocks that collectively account for more than 80 percent of the total catch of salmon and steelhead in the 

4 mainstem Columbia River. In addition to supporting tribal commercial and non-tribal recreational 

5 fisheries in the mainstem, these stocks also support ceremonial and subsistence tribal fishing. 

6 This section describes baseline conditions for harvest and related economic values for affected 

7 commercial (tribal and non-tribal) and recreational fisheries on the mainstem Columbia River (including 

8 the mainstem Snake River), and the contribution of these fisheries to affected regional economies. For 

9 this economic analysis, indicators of economic conditions evaluated include direct and indirect 

10 employment, ex-vessel values for commercial fisheries, trip-related expenditures by recreational fishers, 

11 and regional economic impacts (jobs and personal income) associated with fishing-related activities.

12 The analysis area for economics includes the project area (Subsection 1.2, Description of Project Area) 

13 and areas outside the project area in which economic activity generated by fishing activities occurs. This 

14 analysis area consists of four subregions of the Columbia River Basin that are used to characterize effects 

15 on commercial harvest and recreational fishing effort:

16 ● Lower Columbia River subregion, where catch assumed to contribute to economic activity in 

17 eight counties (Columbia, Clatsop, and Multnomah Counties in Oregon, and Pacific, Wahkiakum, 

18 Clark, Cowlitz, and Skamania in Washington) that border ODFW mainstem fishing zones 1 

19 through 5 downstream of Bonneville Dam;

20 ● Mid-Columbia River subregion, where catch assumed to contribute to economic activity in eight 

21 counties (Hood River, Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, and Crook Counties in Oregon, and 

22 Benton and Klickitat Counties in Washington) that border ODFW fishing zone 6 between 

23 Bonneville Dam and McNary Dam; 

24 ● Upper Columbia River subregion, where catch assumed to contribute to economic activity in four 

25 counties (Benton, Kittatas, Franklin and Grant Counties in Washington) that are upstream of 

26 McNary Dam; and 

27 ● Lower Snake River subregion, where catch assumed to contribute to economic activity in five 

28 counties (Walla Walla, Columbus, Garfield, Whitman, and Franklin Counties in Washington) that 

29 are upstream of the confluence with the mainstem Columbia River.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

60

1 The counties that comprise these four subregions are identified in Figure 1-1.

2 Communities and ports in the Lower Columbia River subregion that are affected by the commercial, 

3 recreational, and tribal ceremonial and subsistence fisheries in the project area include the ports, cities, 

4 and communities of Portland, Oregon and Cathlamet, Longview and Vancouver, Washington. Rural 

5 communities in the other three subregions that are near to the mainstem are also affected by commercial 

6 (both treaty and non-treaty) and recreational fishing activities for salmon and steelhead activities.

7 It should be noted that values presented in this section are not rounded to aid the reader in finding 

8 corresponding numbers between tables and text. The use of unrounded numbers, however, should not be 

9 interpreted as suggestive of unusually high levels of precision in the estimates. All numbers presented 

10 represent a reasonable estimate of the underlying values. More detailed information on methods and 

11 analyses applied in analyzing the economic resource is presented in Appendix A, Economic Methods. 

12 3.5.1. Affected Fisheries 

13 This subsection provides a description of commercial and recreational harvests of fish produced by 

14 salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River basin including numbers of salmon and steelhead harvested 

15 and recreational effort. For historical context, harvest data from 2005 through 2016 are presented in 

16 Subsection 3.2.1, representing the period in which average conditions are developed for this analysis.

17 3.5.1.1. Commercial (Tribal and Non-tribal) Fisheries 

18 The Columbia River mainstem salmon and steelhead fishery is currently divided into a non-tribal 

19 commercial fishery, which is located downstream of Bonneville Dam, and a tribal commercial fishery, 

20 which is located upstream of Bonneville Dam. The tribal commercial fishery is also called the Zone 6 

21 fishery. The upstream boundary of the Zone 6 fishery is McNary Dam. 

22 As described in Subsection 1.3.1, Fisheries, commercial fishing in the Columbia River Basin also occurs 

23 in terminal areas, such as SAFE areas and the lower Columbia River; however, as discussed in that same 

24 section the harvesting of lower Columbia River stocks in these areas is managed separately from the US v 

25 Oregon agreement and would not be affected by the harvest policies evaluated in this document. In 

26 addition to commercial salmon harvesters, processors provide Columbia River basin salmon supply 

27 products to a growing market for wild-caught fish. 

28 For tribal and non-tribal commercial harvests in the Columbia River basin, more salmon are harvested 

29 from the lower and mid-Columbia River subregions than from the other two subregions. Within the lower 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

61

1 Columbia River subregion, the harvest is primarily from non-tribal commercial fisheries. Between 2002 

2 and 2009, the annual harvest in the mainstem of the Lower Columbia River was 56,238 fish (NMFS

3 2014). Coho and Chinook salmon account for most of the non-tribal commercial fishing harvest because 

4 steelhead are not commercially harvested by non-tribal commercial fishers. 

5 In the tribal commercial fisheries above Bonneville Dam (Zone 6), the harvest of Chinook salmon 

6 dominates the catch in the mainstem between Bonneville Dam and McNary Dam. The tribal commercial 

7 fisheries in the upper Columbia River and lower Snake River subregions are mostly Chinook salmon 

8 fisheries, although small numbers of steelhead are also caught in the Lower Snake River subregion.

9 As described in Subsection 3.1, average estimates of salmon and steelhead harvest between 2005 and 

10 2016 were used to characterize baseline harvest conditions for this analysis. Indicator harvest stock11 specific estimates for tribal and non-tribal fisheries are presented in the following tables. Minimum, 

12 maximum, and mean conditions are used to characterize the following status quo conditions. 

13 Table 3-13 identifies average annual harvest conditions over 2005 and 2016 for Upriver Spring Chinook 

14 salmon, including average minimum values, average maximums, and average mean values of harvest, as 

15 measured by number of fish. As shown, all of the tribal commercial harvest is caught in the Zone 6, 

16 whereas all of the non-tribal commercial harvest is caught in Zones 1 through 5. Tribal harvest for 

17 ceremonial and subsistence needs averaged 10,340 spring Chinook salmon annually over the 12-year 

18 period (Table 3-13).

19 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 173 173 6,191

max 23,472 23,472 10,548

AVERAGE 7,528 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 1,448 4

max 7,743 7,743 21

AVERAGE 4,067 4,067 11

20 Table 3-14 identifies average annual harvest conditions between 2005 and 2016 for Upriver Summer 

21 Chinook salmon, including average minimum values, average maximums, and average mean values of 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

62

1 harvest (number of fish). Similar to Upriver Spring Chinook salmon, all of the tribal commercial harvest 

2 is caught in Zone 6, whereas the non-tribal commercial harvest is caught in both Zones 1 through 5 and 

3 above Zone 6. Tribal harvest for ceremonial and subsistence needs averaged 1,952 fall Chinook salmon

4 annually over the 12-year period. 

5 Table 3-14 Commercial harvest of upriver Summer Chinook 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 3,600 3,600 400

max 37,800 37,800 4,200

AVERAGE 17,569 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 688 688 792

max 7,221 7,221 8,317

AVERAGE 3,356 3,356 3,866

6 Table 3-15 below identifies average annual harvest conditions between 2005 and 2016 for Upriver Fall 

7 Chinook salmon, including average minimum values, average maximums, and average mean values of 

8 harvest (number of fish). Similar to Upriver Spring Chinook salmon, all of the tribal commercial harvest 

9 is caught in the Zone 6, whereas all of the non-tribal commercial harvest is caught in Zones 1 through 5. 

10 Tribal harvest for ceremonial and subsistence needs averaged 8,078 Fall Chinook salmon annually over 

11 the 12-year period.

12 Table 3-15 Commercial harvest of upriver Fall Chinook 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 42,849 42,849 1,848

max 393,700 393,700 16,980

AVERAGE 187,303 187,303 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 3,657

max 96,614 96,614

AVERAGE 44,870 44,870
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

63

1 Table 3-16 below identifies average annual harvest conditions between 2005 and 2016 for Upper 

2 Columbia River (UCR) sockeye salmon, including average minimum values, average maximums, and 

3 average mean values of harvest (number of fish). Similar to Upriver Spring Chinook salmon, all of the 

4 tribal commercial harvest is caught in Zone 6, whereas all of the non-tribal commercial harvest is caught 

5 in Zones 1-5. Tribal harvest for ceremonial and subsistence needs averaged 2,902 sockeye salmon 

6 annually over the 12-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 caught in Zone 6, whereas all of the non-tribal commercial harvest is caught in 

11 Zones 1-5. Tribal harvest for ceremonial and subsistence needs averaged 471 steelhead annually over the 

12 12-year period.

13 Table 3-16. Commercial harvest of Upper Columbia River 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 1,148 1,148 203

max 38,556 38,556 6,804

AVERAGE 16,440 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 50

max 1,194 1,194

AVERAGE 512 512

14 Table 3-17. Commercial harvest of Snake River Steelhead 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 1,455 1,455 77

max 17,950 17,950 945

AVERAGE 8,945 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 56 56

max 458 458
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

64

AVERAGE 235 235

1 In terms of economic value, the average annual harvest value (known as the ex-vessel value, which is the 

2 price received for the product ‘at the dock’) of salmon caught in the non-tribal commercial fisheries in the 

3 Lower Columbia River subregion was $2,418,367 (Table 3-18). In the Mid-Columbia River, the harvest 

4 value of salmon and steelhead caught by tribal commercial fishers was $7,745,794, and the value to non5 tribal fishers was $148,749. No harvest value is estimated for the upper Columbia River and Lower 

6 Snake River subregions because there was no commercial harvest of the harvest indicator stocks.

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

8 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) 53,039 22.3

Ex-vessel harvest value $2,418,367 31.2

Tribal

Harvest (number of fish) 0 0

Ex-vessel harvest value $0 0

Total

Harvest (number of fish) 53,039 18.0

Ex-vessel harvest value $2,418,367 23.4

Mid-Columbia River Subregion

Non-Tribal

Harvest (number of fish) 3,877 6.8

Ex-vessel harvest value $148,749 5.8

Tribal

Harvest (number of fish) 237,785 100.0

Ex-vessel harvest value $7,745,794 100.0

Total

Harvest (number of fish) 241,662

Ex-vessel harvest value $7,894,543

ALL SUBREGIONS

Non-Tribal

Harvest (number of fish) 56,916

Ex-vessel harvest value $2,567,116

Tribal

Harvest (number of fish) 237,785

Ex-vessel harvest value $7,745,794

Total

Harvest (number of fish) 294,701
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

65

Ex-vessel harvest value $10,312,910

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 $10,312,910, with tribal fisheries accounting for 75 percent ($7,745,794) of this value, and 

5 non-tribal fisheries accounting for 25 percent ($2,567,116) 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 2014), 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 

22 Klickitat, White Salmon, and Little White Salmon tributaries in Washington, the Deschutes in Oregon, 

23 and other tributaries account for approximately 60 percent of the salmon and steelhead harvest (NMFS 

24 2003). The Snake River and its main tributaries, the Clearwater and Salmon, account for 35 percent of the 

25 Upriver steelhead harvest from the Columbia River system (NMFS 2003). 

26 Similar to status quo conditions for commercial harvest of salmon and steelhead, average estimates 

27 between 2005 and 2016 were used to characterize baseline harvest conditions. Indicator harvest stock28 specific estimates are presented in the following tables for affected recreational fisheries. Minimum, 

 3 The term ex-vessel value refers to the price (income) that fishermen receive for the fish “at the dock.”
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

66

1 maximum, and mean conditions are used to characterize status quo conditions. 

2 Table 3-19 identifies average annual catch conditions between 2005 and 2016 for upriver Spring Chinook 

3 salmon, including average minimum values, average maximums, and average mean values. As shown, 

4 most (78 percent) of the catch occurs in Zone 1 through 5.

5 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. 3,877 714 321 4,912

max. 20,726 3,817 1,713 26,256

ave. 10,886 2,005 900 13,791

6 Table 3-20 identifies average annual catch conditions between 2005 and 2016 for Upriver Summer 

7 Chinook salmon, including average minimum values, average maximums, and average mean values. Of 

8 the total sport catch, about half is caught by non-treaty tribal fishers (this catch is not part of the tribal 

9 allocation) and half by non-tribal recreational fishers. Most (about 92 percent) of the catch by non-tribal 

10 recreational fishers is caught in Zones 1 through 5. 

11 Table 3-20 Recreational catch of Upriver Summer 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. 752 103 36 820 1,711

max. 7,901 1,085 377 8,614 17,977

ave. 3,672 504 175 4,003 8,354

12 Table 3-21 identifies average annual catch conditions between the 2005 through 2016 for upriver fall 

13 Chinook salmon, including average minimum values, average maximums, and average mean values. As 

14 shown, most (about 82 percent) of the catch occurs in the Zone 1-5, and is only caught by non-tribal 

15 fishers.

16 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 3,386

max 73,317 12,595 3,542 89,453

ave. 34,050 5,849 1,645 41,544
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

67

1 Table 3-22 identifies average catch conditions over the 2005 through 2016 for upriver spring Chinook 

2 salmon, including average minimum values, average maximums, and average mean values.

3 Table 3-22 Recreational catch of Upper Columbia River 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 220 220

max 5,286 5,286

ave. 2,266 2,266

4 Table 3-23 identifies average annual catch conditions between 2005 and 2016 for Snake River steelhead, 

5 including average minimum values, average maximums, and average mean values. As shown, most 

6 (about 89 percent) of the catch occurs in Zone 6 and is caught by non-treaty tribal fishers.

7 Table 3-23 Recreational catch of Snake River 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 1,494

max 1,327 10,992 12,319

ave. 680 5,631 6,310

8 Based on estimates of angler effort per fish caught (refer to Appendix A, Economic Methods), the total 

9 number of angler trips made to catch the five harvest indicator stocks in the mainstem of the Columbia 

10 River is estimated at 895,961 (Table 3-24). Similar to catch estimates, most of the angler trips occurred 

11 in the Lower and Mid-Columbia River Subregions. There is no recreational catch or angler trips in the 

12 Upper Columbia River Subregion. Trip-related expenditures are estimated to total $111,821,173, based on 

13 average expenditures per angler trip (refer to Appendix A, Economics Methods for details). 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

68

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

2 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 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

69

1 administration and management decisions take place (sometimes referred to as headquarter costs); refer to 

2 the Mitchell Act FEIS (NMFS 2014) (Subsection 4.3) for a discussion of hatchery-related economic 

3 effects.

4 Economic activity generated by commercial and recreational fishing is concentrated within certain sectors 

5 of the regional economy. In addition to the fish harvesting sector, commercial fisheries affect seafood 

6 product preparation and packing, including the canning and curing of seafood and preparation of fresh or 

7 frozen fish or seafood. Wholesaling, retailing and restaurant sectors may also be affected, although 

8 income and employment in those sectors is not included in the subregional and regional totals. 

9 Recreational fisheries contribute to local economies through the purchase of fishing-related goods and 

10 supplies, and by the retention of local services, such as outfitter and guiding services. Sectors particularly 

11 affected by recreational fishing activities include food services, eating and drinking establishments, 

12 lodging, recreation services, and fueling stations. Expenditures on fishing-related goods and services by 

13 fishermen contribute to both local and non-local businesses.

14 The commercial and recreational fisheries that target salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin 

15 generate economic activity characterized by employment (jobs) and personal income. Commercial

16 harvest and recreational fishing (trips) and associated employment and personal income are distributed 

17 among the four subregions constituting the analysis area (Table 3-25). 

18 Commercial harvest of salmon and steelhead by tribal and non-tribal fishers in the Columbia River region 

19 under status quo conditions generated an estimated 419 jobs and $16.2 million in personal income. More 

20 than three-quarters of jobs and income from commercial harvests landed in the Mid-Columbia River 

21 Subregion with the remainder in the Lower Columbia River Subregion (Table 3-25). Recreational fishing 

22 activities targeting salmon and steelhead generate an estimated 672 jobs and $27.9 million in personal 

23 income in the Columbia River region (Table 3-25). More than two-thirds of jobs and income generated 

24 by recreational fishing occur in the Lower Columbia River Subregion, with most of the remainder 

25 occurring in the Mid-Columbia River Subregion and a small amount (1.4 percent of income and 2 percent 

26 of jobs) in the Lower Snake River Subregion (Table 3-25).
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

70

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

2 salmon and steelhead under status quo conditions, by Columbia River 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%

3 Notes: 

4 1. All dollar values are expressed in 2015 dollars. Jobs are expressed in full-time equivalents.

5 2. Estimates for commercial and recreational effects are not combined because the effects for commercial fisheries are measured 

6 at the harvesting/processing level, whereas the effects of recreational fisheries are measured at the retail level.

7 Source: Estimated by TCW Economics using coefficients from the IMPLAN input-output model, and based on harvest estimates 

8 provided by the NMFS (personal communication with Enrique Patiño, March 17, 2017.

9 3.6. Cultural Resources - Ceremonial and Subsistence (C&S) Fisheries

10 Salmon and steelhead play a significant role in the Ceremonial and Subsistence cultural practices among 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

71

1 Indian tribes in the project area. This important cultural resource may be affected by the alternatives 

2 analyzed in this EIS. Salmon and steelhead have always been and will continue to be a core symbol and 

3 foundation of tribal identity, health, individual identity, culture, spirituality, religion, emotional well4 being, and economy. 

5 Salmon evoke sharing, gifts from nature, responsibility to the resource, and connection to the land and 

6 water. They represent the ability of Indian cultures to endure; they facilitate the transmission of tribal 

7 fishing culture to younger members, who are taught from an early age to fish and to understand their 

8 responsibility to the salmon and its habitat. The struggle to affirm and maintain the right to fish has made 

9 salmon an even more evocative symbol of tribal identity.

10 Salmon remain central in what is known as the first foods. The salmon was the first food to appear in 

11 early spring. First salmon ceremonies focus on thanking the fish for returning and assuring the entire 

12 community of a successful harvest. These ceremonies also draw attention to the responsibility Indian 

13 people have for providing a clean, welcoming, habitat for the returning fish. Family bands gathered along 

14 the Columbia River at their favorite or traditional fishing sites to catch and dry enough salmon to use for 

15 the year ahead. 

16 The tribes strive to keep at least some subsistence fisheries open the entire year and regard subsistence 

17 fishing as an extremely important way for tribal people to provide food for themselves. Even during 

18 commercial fisheries, a certain portion of the catch is normally retained for subsistence use. While not all 

19 tribal members currently participate in fisheries, those who fish typically share fish with family and 

20 friends. Sharing and informal distribution of fish help to bind the community in a system of relationships 

21 and obligations. Tribal subsistence harvest can also be used for trade or barter among tribes.

22 This EIS incorporates by reference Subsection 3.4 of the Mitchell Act EIS, which details the importance 

23 of salmon to tribes, the ceremonial and subsistence harvests, and the role that salmon plays in the cultural 

24 viability of tribes in the area. It also details how hatchery-produced salmon and steelhead contribute to 

25 C&S harvest. As detailed in the Mitchell Act EIS, C&S harvests generally do not vary a great deal from 

26 year to year because fish are taken to meet the need. Subsistence fish are, in practice, the priority fish 

27 taken by a tribe. Tribes whose fisheries are depleted are helped by buying salmon from other tribes or 

28 receiving donations of fish. Tribes make an effort to keep salmon on hand or send out special boats for 

29 occasions that include: winter ceremonials, first salmon ceremony, naming ceremonies, and funerals. 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

72

1 Some of these occasions require the use of traditional foods, including salmon, for both Indian and non2 Indian guests, hosts, and those who cook and serve.

3 3.7. Environmental Justice

4 The Environmental Justice analysis area includes counties and communities that may be affected by the 

5 alternatives analyzed in this EIS. The analysis area encompasses all Indian tribes that were identified in 

6 the Mitchell Act EIS. It also encompasses all counties and communities in the states of Washington, 

7 Oregon, and Idaho that are associated with the Columbia River watershed as defined in Subection 1.3. 

8 Coastal counties and communities identified in the Mitchell Act EIS outside of the project area are not 

9 included in the Environmental Justice analysis area.

10 3.7.1. Low Income and Minority Populations

11 Section 3.4.3 of the Mitchell Act EIS defined the low income and minority thresholds for counties. This 

12 EIS incorporates the same methodology as Section 3.4.3 of the Mitchell Act EIS for defining low income 

13 and minority thresholds for counties. An environmental justice county is one whose minority or low14 income population was meaningfully greater than the state in which the county is located. Five population 

15 categories were considered: non-white, Native American, Hispanic, per capita income and poverty rate.

16 Tables 3-27 and 3-28 of the Mitchell Act EIS presented counties and communities in Washington and

17 Oregon that exceeded the environmental justice thresholds for low income and/or minority populations. 

18 By incorporating by reference the analysis and the findings presented in those tables, 21 counties (Benton, 

19 Hood River, Jefferson, Marion, Morrow, Multnomah, Sherman, Umatilla, Wasco, Washington, and 

20 Whitman counties in Oregon and Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Franklin, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat, 

21 Okanogan, Walla Walla and Yakima in Washington), are identified as Environmental Justice

22 communities for this EIS.

23 3.7.2. American Indian Tribes

24 The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance on Environmental Justice under NEPA (CEQ, 

25 1997) requires that effects on Indian tribes also be analyzed. As the alternatives analyzed in this EIS may 

26 affect Indian tribes within the analysis area, they are included as Environmental Justice communities for 

27 this EIS. The tribes include those that are parties to the U.S. v. Oregon Agreement as discussed in Section 

28 1.1 (the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

73

1 Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Confederated 

2 Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (collectively, the Columbia River Treaty Tribes)) as well as the 

3 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, and the Confederated Tribes of the 

4 Grand Ronde.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

74

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 utilizing the existing analysis of 

11 hatchery effects from the Mitchell Act EIS (NMFS) to 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 preferred alternative to disclose the likely impacts, to the relevant resources, from the 

16 hatchery production included in the proposed action. Where the impacts may vary from those described in 

17 the Mitchell Act EIS preferred alternative, based on the comparative review detailed in Subsection 4.2.1, 

18 below, NMFS includes an assessment of the likely difference in impacts expected. These impacts are 

19 further detailed in the 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 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

75

1 the behavior of the previously described specific defined metrics for each alternative (see Subsection 3.2.1 

2 for a description of the defined metrics). Modeled outputs for these defined metrics are used to provide a 

3 quantitative assessment of effects on the resources under the six alternatives. 

4 Similar to how we presented baseline conditions, we present the modeled outputs for defined metrics for 

5 the Harvest Indicator Stocks and Abundance Indicator Stocks by providing estimates of escapement past 

6 fisheries, the number of fish harvested, harvest rate (proportion of the total “Stock” that was harvested or 

7 killed by fisheries) for each alternative, for each stock.

8 Recall from Subsection 3.2.1 the first two defined metrics measure the escapement of the Harvest and 

9 Abundance Indicator Stocks at defined locations. Fish returning to the Upper Columbia River are counted 

10 at Priest Rapids Dam and those returning to the Snake River are counted at Lower Granite Dam. This EIS 

11 models the expected abundance for a respective stock that would pass (escape) through fisheries in the US 

12 v Oregon agreement if that particular alternative was implemented. The expected escapement abundance 

13 outputs are modeled using recent historical minimum, average, and maximum run size information from 

14 2005 to 2016. The harvest policies and management framework in the current management agreement 

15 have not changed since 2005.

16 The second set of the defined metrics measure catch in the Treaty commercial and C&S, and Non-treaty 

17 commercial and recreational fisheries. The expected catch is modeled based on observations from the 

18 2005 through 2016 base years and reported showing the minimum, average, and maximum that would 

19 have occurred under each of the harvest policies analyzed. 

20 The third set of defined metrics measure harvest rates in the Treaty and Non-Treaty fisheries. Harvest 

21 rates are calculated by dividing the catch and associated fishing mortality by the abundance. The expected 

22 harvest rates are modeled based on observations from the 2005 through 2016 base years and reported 

23 showing the minimum, average, and maximum that would have occurred under each of the harvest 

24 policies analyzed. 

25 Implementing the previous US v Oregon agreement taught the parties that certain stocks were consistently 

26 limiting fisheries across the various seasons (season structure was described in Subsection 1.3.1). A 

27 limiting stock is one that constrains harvest during a season, by being the lowest in abundance relative to 

28 its management objective and therefore restricting access to more abundant stocks thus limiting total 

29 catch. The analysis in this EIS uses Harvest Indicator Stocks that are also the known limiting stocks, 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

76

1 which allow for minimum and maximum catch estimates across each alternative. The modeled outputs for 

2 defined metrics for the Harvest Indicator Stocks and Abundance Indicator Stocks are presented in tables 

3 below. 

4 We make the explicit assumption that the environmental conditions and status of the fish stocks for the 

5 next 10 years will be similar to those observed in the recent past. This includes effects associated with 

6 climate change (discussed in Subsection 5.2.1). By using this short contemporary time frame of historical 

7 information (2005-2016) we assume recent variations of run sizes and harvest effects related to climate 

8 change will follow similar patterns during the next decade. We note that this time frame includes a broad 

9 range of run size and environmental conditions, including 2015 which was characterized by extreme 

10 temperature and related mortalities during upstream migration. The minimums reported in the analysis of 

11 alternatives will more closely represent the outcomes if adverse conditions resulting from climate change 

12 are more frequent over the next ten years than they were since 2005.

13 US v Oregon fisheries have been managed under the current management framework since 2005. We can 

14 therefore use historical information to estimate numerical outputs for each of the defined metrics in our 

15 analysis. Our analysis is based on historical data made available by the US v Oregon TAC that is used to 

16 compare the relative differences in impacts to the resources among alternatives.

17 Some assumptions are necessary to compare the relative effects of different alternatives and minimize the 

18 complexity of the underlying analyses. Harvest policies and associated management frameworks are used 

19 to set catch levels. But the catch must also be allocated between the treaty and non-treaty fisheries, and 

20 subsequently the states and tribes then make decisions about how to allocate further into their respective 

21 fishing sectors. The allocation of catch may not affect biological outcomes, but does affect economic 

22 outcomes. Allocations between treaty and non-treaty fisheries are explicitly determined by the US v 

23 Oregon management agreement for certain stocks, but not for others. In the following analysis, we use the 

24 allocations specified in the agreement where they exist, and use historic patterns of allocations where it is 

25 not otherwise specified. The allocation between non-treaty commercial and recreational fisheries is 

26 determined by the states of Oregon and Washington outside of the US v Oregon management agreement. 

27 These allocation decisions have changed in the past and may well change in the future. However, for the 

28 purposes of comparing the effects of the different alternatives, we have made the assumption that future 

29 allocations will be the same as those observed in recent years. Likewise, allocations in tribal fisheries 

30 between ceremonial and subsistence (C&S), and commercial fisheries are made by the tribes based on 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

77

1 year and fishery specific circumstances. We assume observations from the recent past encompass the 

2 range of outcomes likely to be observed during the course of the next agreement.

3 Results from the analysis are organized as follows. First, we show the results of the analysis for all 

4 alternatives for each of the Harvest Indicator and associated Abundance Indicator Stocks one by one. The 

5 defined metrics provide the basis for comparison of the relative effect of each alternative. This 

6 information is then used to examine the impacts of the alternatives on each subsequent resource identified 

7 in Section 3.

8 We assume that all fish allowed under the "harvest policy" criteria for each alternative are caught even 

9 though in some cases, such as fall season fisheries where there are multiple limiting stocks, certain 

10 fisheries cannot always catch all their available fish from one Indicator Stock due to limits on other 

11 Indicator Stocks. In Subsections 4.2 through 4.7 we will examine one resource at a time and compare the 

12 relative effects on that resource from each alternative.

13 Escapement Benchmarks

14 For each of the abundance indicator stocks, we use escapement related benchmarks to assess the 

15 conservation outcomes and impacts for each alternative. These are generally based on the population 

16 abundance recovery criteria that are summed at the ESU or DPS level and reported at the last upstream 

17 counting location - Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River and Rock Island Dam on the upper Columbia 

18 River. In most cases we further adjust the escapement benchmark at the last upstream counting station to 

19 account for subsequent mortality while migrating upstream from that final counting station and for the 

20 likelihood that fish arriving at the upstream counting station would distribute themselves unevenly to the 

21 individual tributaries. In most cases this adjustment factor is 25 percent, meaning that we assume that 

22 only 75 percent survive to their final spawning ground. The 25 percent value is used as a surrogate absent 

23 better, stock specific information. However, for Snake River sockeye salmon, we have direct estimates of 

24 the survival rate from Lower Granite Dam to the Stanley Basin (55.4 percent) and use that value to 

25 approximate an escapement benchmark at Lower Granite Dam.

26 These benchmarks should be viewed as approximations and examples of an approach and not 

27 recommendations for the specific criteria that should be used for implementing harvest policies and the 

28 related management frameworks. Nonetheless, they are used here to evaluate the relative effects of each 

29 alternative.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

78

1 The escapement benchmark for natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon is 4,000 fish (3,000/0.75) 

2 measured at Rock Island Dam which approximates the aggregate abundance of natural-origin spawners 

3 necessary to meet recovery objectives. The aggregate abundance of natural-origin spawners necessary to 

4 meet recovery objectives for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon is 34,000 

5 (25,500/0.75). The escapement objective for UCR summer Chinook salmon used for evaluating the 

6 alternatives is 20,000 hatchery and natural-origin fish (which requires 29,000 fish at the mouth of the 

7 Columbia River). This is consistent with the escapement goal used in the current management agreement 

8 and is used directly without expansion. For Snake River Sockeye salmon we use 12,600 (7,000/0.554) 

9 fish to Lower Granite Dam. The escapement benchmark for Snake River fall Chinook salmon is 4,000 

10 (3,000/0.75) natural-origin fish. Developing a similar benchmark for Snake River steelhead, and Snake 

11 River B-run steelhead in particular, is more problematic. Recovery level abundance criteria have been 

12 defined for some, but not all populations. As a consequence, we describe below the approach taken for 

13 this EIS.

14 There are 23 populations in the Snake River steelhead DPS. Twenty-two are located above Lower Granite 

15 Dam. The Tucannon population is the exception. We have abundance related recovery criteria for 11 of 

16 the 22 populations that sum to a total of 6,700. To approximate the recovery abundance of all 22 

17 populations, we double the estimate to 13,400. The Snake River steelhead DPS includes both A-run and 

18 B-run fish. As described more thoroughly in Subsection 3.2.1.4, B-run steelhead are generally older, 

19 larger, and have later run timing. Some populations have a higher proportion of B-run fish, but none are 

20 entirely B-run. We are not aware of a peer reviewed scientifically reviewed abundance based related 

21 recovery criterion for B-run steelhead. We multiply 13,400 by 0.15, the average proportion of all natural22 origin steelhead at Lower Granite Dam that are designated B-run as counted over the base period (2005 -

23 2016). The result is approximately 2,000. The abundance related benchmark used in the analysis is 

24 therefore 2,700 (2000/0.75).

25 The table format below is used in the sections that follow to provide the defined metrics for each 

26 abundance indicator stock.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

79

A B C D E F G

River Mouth Treaty 

Harvest

Non-Treaty 

Harvest

Total 

HR

Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Rock Island Dam 

Count

min

max

ave

1 ● Column A. River Mouth: Shows the type of modelled run size at the river mouth. As described in 

2 Subsection 3.2, the actual river mouth run sizes from 2005 to 2016 were cataloged and three data 

3 points representing the minimum run size, maximum run size, and average run size were 

4 calculated. As explained in Subsection 4.1.1, we assume recent variations of run sizes and harvest 

5 effects related to climate change will follow similar patterns during the next decade.

6 ● Column B. River Mouth: Presents the expected minimum, maximum, and average projected run 

7 sizes for the period 2018-2027 at the mouth of the Columbia River.

8 ● Columns C. Treaty Harvest: Presents the calculated treaty fisheries total harvest number for the 

9 stock

10 ● Column D. Non-Treaty Harvest: Presents the calculated non-treaty fisheries total harvest number 

11 for the stock

12 ● Column E. Total Harvest Rate. This shows the total harvest rate (treaty plus non-treaty harvest 

13 combined) as a percentage of the run size

14 ● Column F. Esc. Past Fisheries: The modeled number of fish that escape past the fisheries; i.e., the 

15 run size (Column B) minus the total harvest number (Column C plus Column D). 

16 ● Column G. Rock Island Dam County: this is the projected count of fish at the last upstream 

17 counting location (in this case Rock Island Dam on the Upper Columbia River).
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

80

1 There are two other important indicators used in the figures in the subsections in Subsection 4.2:

2 ● Spawning Escapement Benchmark – As discussed above under Escapement Benchmark, the 

3 modeled count at the last counting station (Column G) is further adjusted to account for the loss 

4 of fish between the counting station and their spawning ground. This loss includes mortality 

5 upstream of the counting station as well as uneven distribution to the individual tributaries.

6 ● Interdam Loss - This is calculated as the difference between Columns G and F, the difference in 

7 fish stocks between the mouth of the river and the last upstream counting station independent of 

8 fishing. The difference represents fish loses due to natural mortality or turnout to mainstem 

9 tributaries, and mortality associated with hydro operations, illegal fishing, and habitat 

10 degradation. The difference is based on estimates developed by the US v Oregon TAC. While this 

11 number provides an illustrative benchmark by which to evaluate the effects on the stock, it is not 

12 a specific proposal for the number of fish that suffer interdam loss.

13 Impacts of fishing

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

15 spawning potential. Fisheries may also kill fish species that they do not target. These fish, known as 

16 bycatch, are killed when fishing operations unintentionally catch and discard non-target fish, potentially 

17 causing unobserved injury and mortality. These non-target fish may include the harvest indicator units 

18 that are the subject of this EIS. As explained in Section 1 and Section 2, a new US v Oregon management 

19 agreement would track salmonid harvest across a wide number of fisheries, including bycatch of 

20 salmonids in non-salmonid directed fisheries.

21 Implementing a new US v Oregon management agreement will result in the removal of salmonids from 

22 the environment for commercial, recreational, or ceremonial and subsistence (C&S) consumption. In the 

23 following Subsections (4.1.1.1 through 4.1.1.5) we provide the modeled outputs, as just described above, 

24 to the harvest indicator stocks known as limiting stocks in the form of harvest rates (recall a harvest rate is 

25 the ratio of fishery related mortality for a group of fish over its abundance in a defined period of time). 

26 Reducing fish abundance, and subsequent spawning population potential, can lead to impacts of 

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

28 might be deprived of nutrient input that results in the ecosystem becoming immature and stressed. This 

29 happens in various ways. By targeting and reducing the abundance of high-value predators, fisheries 

30 modify the trophic chain and the flows of biomass (and energy) across the ecosystem as well as remove 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

81

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

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

3 inverse result of each harvest rate is a rate at which fish that are not harvested are able to escape past the 

4 fisheries and potentially return to the spawning grounds to spawn (e.g., if a harvest rate was 40 percent, 

5 then the subsequent escapement rate would be roughly 60 percent of any particular run size). Each 

6 alternative analyzed in this EIS only differs in the calculation of these two rates, however escapement 

7 estimates are presented in total numbers (e.g., if a harvest rate was 40 percent on a run size of 10,000, 

8 then 4,000 fish died from harvest (10,000 * 0.4 = 4,000), and the resulting escapement is 6,000 (10,000 -

9 harvest of 4,000 = 6,000)). Therefore, the impacts of each alternative analyzed are the harvest rates and 

10 escapement totals. These will vary based on the alternative and the fluctuating projected fish run sizes. 

11 The subsections that follow (4.1.1.1 through 4.1.1.5) describe the impacts of the alternatives on each 

12 indicator stock. Subsection 4.2 compares these impacts of each alternative relative to baseline conditions 

13 and the other alternatives for each indicator stock.

14 4.1.1.1. Upriver Spring Chinook Salmon

15 For management purposes, Upriver spring Chinook salmon are defined in the agreement as all adult 

16 spring and Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon returning to areas upstream of Bonneville Dam 

17 between January 1 and June 15. This stock includes both hatchery and natural-origin fish. Under the 

18 current agreement, Upriver spring Chinook salmon are managed using an abundance based management 

19 framework that depends on the abundance of Upriver spring Chinook salmon, natural-origin Snake River 

20 spring/summer Chinook salmon, and natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon. Allowable harvest rates 

21 range from 5.5 percent to 17 percent (Table 4-1). 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

82

1 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%

2 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 

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

4 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 

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

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

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

8 to 9 percent or less, than non-treaty fisheries would transfer 0.5 percent harvest rate to treaty fisheries. In no event would non-treaty fisheries go 

9 below 0.5 percent harvest rate.

10

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 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

83

1 the catch of natural-origin fish in the non-treaty fisheries is less than treaty fisheries.

2 4.1.1.1.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement

3 Under Alternative 1 fisheries would be managed using the abundance based management framework that 

4 allows harvest rates to range from 5.5 percent to 17 percent. For the purpose of comparing the relative 

5 effects of the alternatives we assume that extending the current US v Oregon agreement for the next ten 

6 years would result in harvest patterns similar to those of the last 12 years. Table 4-2 provides the 

7 minimum, maximum and average values for the defined metrics for Upriver spring Chinook salmon (a 

8 Harvest Indicator Stock). Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 provide defined metrics for natural-origin Snake River

9 spring/summer Chinook salmon and natural-origin Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon under 

10 Alternative 1, respectively (Abundance Indicator Stocks). The values for the defined metrics in these 

11 three tables are based on the projected run sizes. 

12 Under Alternative 1 (Extension), the harvest and escapement levels are unchanged from the baseline. 

13 Harvest fluctuates with the projected run size, meaning in years of low abundance harvest rates are lower 

14 than in years of high abundance. This results in escapement levels lower during years of low abundance, 

15 thereby reducing the adverse impact of removing fish from the spawning population during these years. 

16 Conversely, during years of high abundance, the greatest proportion of fish are harvested at the highest 

17 harvest rate. The resulting impact to the spawning population is negligible as the total number of fish 

18 escaping past the fisheries is still large.

19 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 

20
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

84

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

2 Alternative 1.

Snake River

Spring/ 

summer 

Chinook River 

Mouth

Treaty 

Harvest

Nontreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Lower 

Granite Run

min. 12,017 942 161 9.2% 10,913 8,360

max. 44,014 5,037 862 13.4% 38,115 29,199

ave. 26,269 2,645 453 11.8% 23,171 17,751

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

UCR Spring 

Chinook River 

Mouth

Treaty 

Harvest

Nontreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Rock Island 

Dam Count

min 1,374 108 18 9.2% 1,248 1,101

max 5,032 576 97 13.4% 4,360 3,846

ave 3,003 302 51 11.8% 2,650 2,338

4 4.1.1.1.2. 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 5.5

8 percent to 17 percent. The relative merits of abundance based management as a harvest policy are 

9 discussed in Subsection 2.1.2. Because the frameworks under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are the 

10 same, the analytical results and impacts are also the same (Tables 4-5 through 4-6).

11 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

12
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

85

1 Table 4-6 Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon under 

2 Alternative 2.

Snake River

spring/ 

summer 

Chinook River 

Mouth

Treaty 

Harvest

Nontreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Lower 

Granite Run

min. 12,017 942 161 9.2% 10,913 8,360

max. 44,014 5,037 862 13.4% 38,115 29,199

ave. 26,269 2,645 453 11.8% 23,171 17,751

3

4 Table 4-7. Defined Metrics for natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 2.

UCR spring 

Chinook River 

Mouth

Treaty 

Harvest

Nontreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Rock Island 

Dam Count

min. 1,374 108 18 9.2% 1,248 1,101

max. 5,032 576 97 13.4% 4,360 3,846

ave. 3,003 302 51 11.8% 2,650 2,338

5 4.1.1.1.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate

6 Under Alternative 3 fisheries would be managed using a fixed harvest rate of 11.3 percent. This is the 

7 average of the rates observed from 2005 to 2016. Although other fixed harvest rate levels could be 

8 devised that would be more or less restrictive, the average represents a plausible alternative that is used 

9 for comparison to the other alternatives. The fixed rate sets a limit on the total harvest rate. The analysis 

10 assumes that catch is distributed between fisheries using the average proportions observed during the 

11 2005 to 2016 base years. Table 4-8 shows the minimum, maximum and average values for the Defined 

12 Metrics for Upriver spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 3. Table 4-9 and Table 4-10 provide the 

13 minimum, maximum and average values for Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River

14 spring/summer Chinook salmon and natural-origin Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon under 

15 Alternative 3, respectively. In Table 4-8 the average expected C&S catch is greater than the maximum 

16 because in the past twelve years the tribes have allocated a greater proportion of the catch to C&S relative 

17 to commercial catch in the middle of the observed runsize range. In other words, at the highest observed 

18 runsize, less catch was allocated to C&S than in years of runsizes around the middle of the historical 

19 range.

20 Under Alternative 3, the harvest and escapement levels are constant. Harvest rate impacts occur 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

86

1 constantly at the same proportions regardless of any fluctuation in projected run size. Therefore, in years 

2 of low abundance harvest rates are the same as those in years of high abundance. This restricts the 

3 negative impacts associated with removing a greater number of fish from the spawning population during 

4 years of high abundance, thereby providing a slightly positive increase in the escapement past fisheries 

5 during large run sizes.

6 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

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

8 Alternative 3.

Snake River

spring/ 

summer 

Chinook River 

Mouth

Treaty 

Harvest

NonTreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Lower 

Granite Run

min 12,017 1,159 198 11.3% 10,660 8,166

max 44,014 4,244 727 11.3% 39,044 29,911

ave 26,269 2,533 434 11.3% 23,302 17,851

9 Table 4-10. Defined Metrics for natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 3.

UCR spring 

Chinook River 

Mouth

Treaty 

Harvest

NonTreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Rock Island 

Dam Count

min 1,374 132 22 11.3% 1,219 1,075

max 5,032 485 81 11.3% 4,466 3,939

ave 3,003 290 49 11.3% 2,665 2,351

10 4.1.1.1.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management

11 Under Alternative 4 fisheries would be managed using a fixed escapement goal policy based on the 

12 abundance of natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon. For this example, the escapement goal was set 

13 at 3,000 natural-origin UCR spring Chinook salmon past fisheries. The escapement goal approximates the 

14 aggregate abundance of natural-origin spawners necessary to meet recovery objectives for the UCR 

15 spring Chinook ESU. In this example, if the expected escapement is below the escapement goal, the 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

87

1 allowable harvest during the spring management period would be zero and Alternative 5 would best 

2 represent the expected outcome. Often under similar circumstances, a fixed escapement goal is coupled 

3 with a de minimis level of harvest opportunity to meet the minimal needs for tribal fisheries and allow 

4 limited access to other harvestable stocks. In this Alternative, the fixed escapement policy was coupled 

5 with a de minimis harvest rate cap of 1 percent for non-treaty fisheries and 5 percent for treaty fisheries. 

6 The de minimis rates are drawn from the lowest rates allowed in the abundance based harvest framework 

7 described in Alternative 1.

8 Other fixed escapement goal management objectives could have been used to explore the effect of fixed 

9 escapement goal policies. The aggregate abundance of natural-origin spawners necessary to meet 

10 recovery objectives for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon is 25,500. In either 

11 case, we would be using a weak stock as the basis for the harvest policy. Another approach would be to 

12 design a fixed harvest rate policy designed to maximize harvest opportunity. For example, setting an 

13 escapement goal based on the aggregate abundance of hatchery and natural-origin Upriver spring 

14 Chinook salmon would maximize harvest in the short term, but would do so at the expense of weaker 

15 stocks that would routinely be subject to higher harvest rates. The basis for choosing the conservative 

16 approach offers the highest likelihood of adhering to recovery plans.

17 Table 4-11 illustrates what the minimum, maximum and average could be for the defined metrics for 

18 Upriver spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 4. Table 4-12 and Table 4-13 provide the minimum, 

19 maximum and average values for Defined Metrics for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook 

20 salmon and natural-origin Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 4, 

21 respectively. 

22 Analyzing this approach in more detail, harvest adhering to fixed escapement goals may be defined in 

23 various ways. They may be defined as a number of fish escaping fisheries or they may be defined as a 

24 number of fish reaching a certain location after fisheries occur such as an upstream dam or spawning area. 

25 Fixed escapement goals imply that each fish exceeding the goal may be harvested. Under situations where 

26 run sizes are less than the escapement goal, these alternatives provide for a minimal level of fishing. This 

27 is a common practice in salmon management especially to allow some minimal opportunity to meet either 

28 treaty needs or to access other more abundant stocks. The natural-origin escapement goal for upper 

29 Columbia spring Chinook salmon was set at 3,000 fish. The average escapement past fisheries since 2005 

30 is approximately 2,700. Historic relationships between natural-origin and total harvest rates were utilized 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

88

1 to calculate treaty total harvest rates and non-treaty natural-origin harvest rates that would both meet the 

2 catch balance requirement and escape 3,000 natural-origin upper Columbia fish past the fisheries. Using 

3 average post fishery loss rates an expected run size to Rock Island Dam (RIS) can be calculated. Post 

4 fishery loss includes a mix of natural and anthropogenic mortality such as passage loss through the 

5 hydrosystem.

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. A fixed number of fish escape the fisheries. 

8 Harvest rates fluctuate as the projected run sizes fluctuate. In years of low abundance harvest rates are 

9 low, but in years of high abundance harvest rates are high. This is because all fish above the fixed 

10 escapement goal are deemed harvestable. During years of high abundance, negative impacts are 

11 maximized as all the fish above the escapement level are harvested. Thereby, compared to baseline 

12 conditions, Alternative 4 results in the lowest average level of escapement towards a total spawning 

13 population abundance.

14 Table 4-11. Defined Metrics for Upriver spring Chinook salmon under Alternative 4.

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

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

16 under Alternative 4.

Snake River

spring/summer

Chinook River 

Mouth

Treaty 

Harvest

Nontreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Lower 

Granite Run

min. 12,017 637 109 6.2% 11,271 8,634

max. 44,014 15,221 2,606 40.5% 26,188 20,062

ave. 26,269 3,919 671 17.5% 21,679 16,608

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

UCR spring 

Chinook River 

Mouth

Treaty 

Harvest

Nontreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Rock Island 

Dam Count

min. 1,374 73 12 6.2% 1,289 1,137
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

89

max. 5,032 1,740 292 40.4% 3,000 2,646

ave. 3,003 448 75 17.4% 2,480 2,188

1 4.1.1.1.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment

2 Under Alternative 5, harvest rates were assumed to be zero thus providing a benchmark for comparison to 

3 the other alternatives. Table 4-14 shows the maximum escapement of Upriver spring Chinook that could 

4 occur absent all fishing. Table 4-15 and Table 4-16 show the maximum escapement of natural-origin 

5 Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon and natural-origin Upper Columbia River spring Chinook 

6 salmon that could occur absent all fishing, respectively.

7 Under Alternative 5, the impacts associated with harvest are removed. This thereby provides the largest 

8 possible spawning population to the greatest extent possible each year.

9 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

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

11 under Alternative 5

Snake River

spring/ 

summer 

Chinook River 

Mouth

Treaty 

Harvest

NonTreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Lower 

Granite Run

min 12,017 0 0 0% 12,017 9,013

max 44,014 0 0 0% 44,014 33,011

ave 26,269 0 0 0% 26,269 19,702

12
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

90

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

UCR spring 

Chinook River 

Mouth

Treaty 

Harvest

Nontreaty 

Harvest

Total HR Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Rock Island 

Dam Count

min 1,374 0 0 0% 1,374 1,031 

max 5,032 0 0 0% 5,032 3,774 

ave 3,003 0 0 0% 3,003 2,252 

2 4.1.1.1.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated Harvest

3 Under the No Action—Uncoordinated Harvest alternative the federal parties would not sign the new 

4 agreement leading to tremendous uncertainty. As described in Subsection 2.2.6, the state and tribal parties 

5 might choose to forego harvest, a potential outcome that is described in Alternative 5. On the other hand, 

6 the parties could also choose to act independently to implement fisheries resulting in uncoordinated 

7 harvest that, at the upper end, would be constrained by the capacity of the various fishing sectors to catch 

8 fish. Resulting harvest levels could greatly exceed those observed in recent years. It is of course difficult 

9 to predict the level of fishing that would occur under this alternative, but the outcome can be 

10 approximated by the results and impacts described under Alternative 4. 

11 Therefore, Alternative 6 results in aggressive harvest rates that range from 6.2 percent minimum to 40.4 

12 percent maximum, with an average of 17.4 percent as shown in tables 4-11 through 4-13. This compares 

13 to an average harvest rate under the baseline conditions of 11.8 percent (Table 3-5). 

14 Under Alternative 6, as just described, the highest levels of impacts observed in Alternative 4 are 

15 expected to occur. This results in maximizing negative impacts associated with removing fish from a 

16 resulting spawning population to the greatest extent during years of high abundance, and thereby results 

17 in the lowest average level of escapement towards a total spawning population.

18 4.1.1.2. Upriver Summer Chinook Salmon

19 For management purposes, upper Columbia summer Chinook salmon are defined in the agreement as all 

20 Chinook salmon passing Bonneville Dam between June 16 and July 31. They are not listed under the 

21 ESA. Upper Columbia summer Chinook includes both hatchery and natural-origin fish. In recent years, 

22 the stock has been abundant providing significant harvest opportunity and therefore can be used to 

23 illustrate harvest policy alternatives that apply to healthy stocks. 

24 Under the current agreement, summer Chinook salmon are managed using a mix of harvest policies
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

91

1 (Table 4-17). When the run size is less than 29,000, fisheries are managed using an abundance based 

2 harvest rate framework with harvest rates ranging from 7 percent to 17 percent. At higher run sizes, the 

3 stock is managed using a modified fixed escapement policy that allows for some of the otherwise 

4 harvestable fish to accrue to escapement to better inform management decisions in the future. As a 

5 consequence, at higher abundance, the expected escapements range from 29,000 to 41,500. If the fixed 

6 escapement policy without this feature, expected escapements would never exceed 29,000. Upriver 

7 summer Chinook are generally managed to achieve 50/50 sharing between treaty and non-treaty fisheries. 

8 Under the current framework a greater proportion of the catch is allocated to the treaty fishery at low run 

9 size.

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

River Mouth 

Run Size

Max. Treaty 

Total 

Harvest 

Rate

Treaty 

Harvest

Max Nontreaty Total 

Harvest 

Rate

Non-treaty 

Harvest

Escapement

Past 

Fisheries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

60,000 23.8% 14,250 23.8% 14,250 31,500
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

92

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 to 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 Upriver summer 

13 Chinook salmon.

14 Under Alternative 1 (Extension), the harvest and escapement levels are unchanged from the 

15 baseline. Harvest fluctuates with the projected run size, meaning in years of low abundance 

16 harvest rates are lower than in years of high abundance. This results in escapement levels lower 

17 during years of low abundance, thereby reducing the adverse impact of removing fish from the 

18 spawning population during these years. Conversely, during years of high abundance, the 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

93

1 greatest proportion of fish are harvested at the highest harvest rate. The resulting impact to the 

2 spawning population is negligible as the total number of fish escaping past the fisheries is still 

3 large.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

94

1 Table 4-18. Defined Metrics for Upriver summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 1

Non-Treaty Treaty

Run

Size Ocean

Non-treaty 

Commercial

Sport 

Z 1-5

Sport 

Z 6

Sport 

Mcn -

PRD

Sport 

Above 

PRD

Nontreaty 

Tribal

Total 

NontreatyTreaty 

C&S

Treaty 

Commercial

Total 

Treaty

Total 

Harvest

Esc. Past 

Fisheries

min. 37,000 808 688 752 103 36 820 792 4,000 400 3,600 4,000 8,000 29,000

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

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

2
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

95

1 4.1.1.2.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management

2 Under Alternative 2 fisheries would be managed using a simple abundance management framework based 

3 on the abundance of Upriver summer Chinook salmon. In the example, the total harvest rate would range 

4 from 20 percent to 60 percent with the catch shared equally between treaty and non-treaty fisheries (10

5 percent to 30 percent for each) (Table 4-19). Table 4-20 provides the minimum, maximum and average 

6 values for the defined metrics for Upriver summer Chinook salmon. Because the frameworks under 

7 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are the same, the analytical results and impacts are also the same.

8 Table 4-19. Abundance-based harvest rate schedule for upriver summer Chinook 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%

134,000 80,400 40,200 30.0%

9
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

96

1 Table 4-20. Defined Metrics for Upriver summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 2

Non-Treaty Treaty

Run

Size Ocean

Non-Treaty 

Commercial

Sport 

Z 1-5

Sport 

Z 6

Sport 

Mcn -

PRD

Sport 

Above 

PRD

NonTreaty 

Tribal

Total 

NonTreatyTreaty 

C&S

Treaty 

Commercial

Total 

Treaty

Total 

Harvest

Esc. Past 

Fisheries

min 37,000 748 636 696 96 33 759 733 3,700 370 3,330 3,700 7,400 29,600

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

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

2
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

97

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 Upriver 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 Upriver summer Chinook salmon.

16 Under Alternative 4 the impacts from harvest vary based on the run size, but the associated impacts 

17 towards modifying spawning population levels are constant with a fixed escapement level. A fixed 

18 number of fish escape the fisheries. Harvest rates fluctuate as the projected run sizes fluctuate. In years of 

19 low abundance harvest rates are low, but in years of high abundance harvest rates are high. This is 

20 because all fish above the fixed escapement goal are deemed harvestable. During years of high 

21 abundance, negative impacts are maximized as all the fish above the escapement level are harvested. 

22 Thereby, compared to baseline conditions, Alternative 4 results in the lowest average level of escapement 

23 towards a total spawning population abundance.

24 4.1.1.2.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment

25 Under Alternative 5, harvest rates were assumed to be zero thus providing a bench for comparison to the 

26 other alternatives. Table 4-23 shows the maximum escapement of Upriver summer Chinook salmon that 

27 could occur absent all fishing.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

98

1 Under Alternative 5, the impacts associated with harvest are removed. This thereby provides the largest 

2 possible spawning population to the greatest extent possible each year.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

99

1 Table 4-21. Defined Metrics for Upriver summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 3.

Non-treaty Treaty

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

Exp. 

Priest 

Rapids 

Dam 

counts

min 37,000 1,570 1,336 1,462 201 70 1,593 1,539 7,770 777 6,993 7,770 15,540 37,000 21,460

max 134,000 5,685 4,838 5,294 727 253 5,771 5,572 28,140 2,814 25,326 28,140 56,280 134,000 77,720

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 74,417 43,162

2 Table 4-22. Defined Metrics for Upriver summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 4.

Non-treaty Treaty

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

Total 

HR

Esc. Past 

Fisheries

min 37,000 808 688 752 103 36 820 792 4,000 400 3,600 4,000 8,000 21.6% 29,000

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 78.4% 29,000

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 61.0% 29,000

3 Table 4-23. Defined Metrics for Upriver summer Chinook salmon under Alternative 5.

Non-Treaty Treaty

Run Size Ocean

Non-Treaty 

Commercial

Sport 

Z 1-5

Sport 

Z 6

Sport 

Mcn -

PRD

Sport 

Above 

PRD

Nontreaty 

Tribal

Total 

NontreatyTreaty 

C&S

Treaty 

Commercial

Total 

Treaty

Total 

Harvest

Esc. Past 

Fisheries

min 37,000 808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,750

max 134,000 10,607 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,500

ave 74,417 4,588 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55,813 

4
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

100

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 Upriver summer Chinook salmon harvest 

6 rate under the baseline 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 abundance 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
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

101

1 4.1.1.3.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement 

2 Under Alternative 1 fisheries would be managed using the two step abundance based schedule described 

3 above. At run sizes less than 50,000 the total allowed harvest rate is 6 percent and at 50,000 and greater, 

4 the allowed total harvest rate is 8 percent. The non-treaty portion of the total harvest rate is limited to 1

5 percent at all run sizes. Tables 4-25 and 4-26 show the defined metrics for upriver and Snake River

6 sockeye salmon, respectively. 

7 Under Alternative 1 (Extension), the harvest and escapement levels are unchanged from the baseline. 

8 Harvest fluctuates with the projected run size, meaning in years of low abundance harvest rates are lower 

9 than in years of high abundance. This results in escapement levels lower during years of low abundance, 

10 thereby reducing the adverse impact of removing fish from the spawning population during these years. 

11 Conversely, during years of high abundance, the greatest proportion of fish are harvested at the highest 

12 harvest rate. The resulting impact to the spawning population is negligible as the total number of fish 

13 escaping past the fisheries is still large.

14 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

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

Snake 

River Run

Size

Total 

Harvest

Total 

HR

Escapement

Past 

Fisheries

Lower 

Granite 

Run Size

min 124 7 6.0% 117 65

max 2,977 238 8.0% 2,738 1,517

ave 1,276 102 7.7% 1,175 651

16 4.1.1.3.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management

17 Under Alternative 2, fisheries would be managed using an expanded abundance based harvest rate 

18 schedule that is tied more directly to conservation related abundance objectives. In this example, a river 

19 mouth run size of 13,750 for Snake River sockeye salmon approximates the aggregate abundance 

20 necessary to meet abundance related recovery objectives for the ESU. A run size of 13,750 accounts for 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

102

1 upstream migration losses that occur between the river mouth and Stanley Basin, the endpoint of the 

2 migration corridor for Snake River sockeye salmon. Under this framework, harvest rates range from 6

3 percent to 11 percent depending on the abundance of Snake River sockeye salmon (Table 4-27). Tables 4-

4 28 and 4-29 show the defined metrics for upriver and Snake River sockeye salmon for Alternative 2.

5 Under Alternative 2, the harvest and escapement levels are slightly changed from the baseline, but only at 

6 high abundances. Harvest fluctuates with the projected run size, meaning in years of low abundance 

7 harvest rates are lower than in years of high abundance. This results in escapement levels lower during 

8 years of low abundance, thereby reducing the adverse impact of removing fish from the spawning 

9 population during these years. Conversely, during years of high abundance, the greatest proportion of fish 

10 are harvested at the highest harvest rate. The resulting impact to the spawning population is negligible as 

11 the total number of fish escaping past the fisheries is still large.

12 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%

13
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

103

1 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

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

Snake 

River Run

Size

Total 

Harvest

Total 

HR

Escapement

Past 

Fisheries

Lower 

Granite Run

Size

min. 124 7 6.0% 117 65

max. 2,977 387 13.0% 2,590 1,435

ave. 1,276 140 9.7% 1,136 629

3 4.1.1.3.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate

4 Under Alternative 3 fisheries would be managed using a fixed harvest rate of 8 percent. This is similar to 

5 Alternative 1 except the 8 percent total harvest rate would apply to all run sizes. This alternative would 

6 not be as conservative as Alternative 1 at the lowest run sizes. Tables 4-30 and 4-31 show the defined 

7 metrics for Upriver and Snake River sockeye salmon for Alternative 3.

8 Under Alternative 3, the harvest and escapement levels are constant. Harvest rate impacts occur 

9 constantly at the same proportions regardless of any fluctuation in projected run size. Therefore, in years 

10 of low abundance harvest rates are the same as those in years of high abundance. This restricts the 

11 negative impacts associated with removing a greater number of fish from the spawning population during 

12 years of high abundance, thereby providing a slightly positive increase in the escapement past fisheries 

13 during large run sizes.

14 Table 4-30. Defined Metrics for Columbia River 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

15 Table 4-31. Defined Metrics for Snake River sockeye salmon under Alternative 3.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

104

Snake 

River Run

Size

Total 

Harvest

Total 

HR

Escapement

Past 

Fisheries

Lower 

Granite Run

Size

min. 124 10 8.0% 114 63

max. 2,977 238 8.0% 2,738 1,517

ave. 1,276 102 8.0% 1,174 650

1 4.1.1.3.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management

2 Under Alternative 4 fisheries would be managed using a fixed escapement goal of 150,000 Upriver 

3 sockeye salmon past fisheries while still allowing for a 6 percent total harvest rate for runs less than the 

4 goal. In this example, the management framework is focused on the abundance of Upriver sockeye 

5 salmon and Snake River sockeye salmon are no longer the limiting stock. The 6 percent harvest rate 

6 provides for de minimis fisheries at low abundance. Otherwise, the harvest rate would be reduced to zero. 

7 The escapement objective of 150,000 approximates the aggregate abundance necessary meet escapement 

8 objectives for the Wenatchee and Okanogan stocks. Tables 4-32 and 4-33 show the defined metrics for 

9 upriver and Snake River sockeye salmon for Alternative 4.

10 Under Alternative 4 the impacts from harvest vary based on the run size, but the associated impacts 

11 towards modifying spawning population levels are constant with a fixed escapement level. A fixed 

12 number of fish escape the fisheries. Harvest rates fluctuate as the projected run sizes fluctuate. In years of 

13 low abundance harvest rates are low, but in years of high abundance harvest rates are high. This is 

14 because all fish above the fixed escapement goal are deemed harvestable. During years of high 

15 abundance, negative impacts are maximized as all the fish above the escapement level are harvested. 

16 Thereby, compared to baseline conditions, Alternative 4 results in the lowest average level of escapement 

17 towards a total spawning population abundance.

18 Table 4-32 Defined Metrics for upiver sockeye salmon under Alternative 4.

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

19 Table 4-33. Defined Metrics for Snake River sockeye salmon under Alternative 4.

Snake 

River Run

Total 

Harvest

Total 

HR

Escapement

Past 

Lower 

Granite Run
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

105

Size Fisheries Size

min. 124 7 6.0% 117 65

max. 2,977 2,288 76.9% 689 382

ave. 1,276 709 36.8% 567 314

1 4.1.1.3.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment

2 Under the Alternative 5, harvest rates on sockeye salmon were assumed to be zero thus providing a bench 

3 for comparison to the other alternatives. Tables 4-34 and 4-45 show the maximum escapement of Upriver 

4 sockeye salmon and Snake River sockeye salmon that could 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 4-34. Defined Metrics for Upriver sockeye salmon under Alternative 5

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

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

Snake 

River Run

Size

Total 

Harvest

Total 

HR

Escapement

Past 

Fisheries

Lower 

Granite Run

Size

min. 124 0% 0% 124 69

max. 2,977 0% 0% 2,977 1,649

ave. 1,276 0% 0% 1,276 707

9 4.1.1.3.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated harvest

10 Under the No Action—Uncoordinated Harvest alternative, the level of fishing can be approximated by the 

11 results and impacts described under Alternative 4, resulting in aggressive harvest rates that range from 6

12 percent minimum to 76.9 percent maximum and an average of 36.8 percent as shown in Tables 4-32. This 

13 compares to an average Upriver sockeye salmon harvest rate under the baseline conditions of 8 percent 

14 (Table 3-9).

15 Under Alternative 6, as just described, the highest levels of impacts observed in Alternative 4 are 

16 expected to occur. This results in maximizing adverse impacts associated with removing fish from a 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

106

1 resulting spawning population to the greatest extent during years of high abundance, and thereby results 

2 in the lowest average level of escapement towards a total spawning population.

3 4.1.1.4. Upriver Fall Chinook Salmon

4 For management purposes, Upriver fall Chinook salmon are defined as any of the fall Chinook salmon 

5 stocks passing Bonneville from August 1-December 31. The stock includes both hatchery and natural6 origin fish. Upriver fall Chinook salmon include a “tule” type which is an earlier maturing fall Chinook 

7 salmon which historically spawned in tributaries downstream of Celilo falls, and a “bright” stock of later 

8 maturing fish which historically spawned primarily in mainstem and tributary areas upstream of Celilo 

9 falls however bright fall Chinook salmon likely utilized areas downstream of Bonneville as well. The 

10 upriver stocks include an upriver bright (URB) fall Chinook salmon which includes all hatchery and 

11 natural bright stock fish originating upstream of McNary Dam and natural-origin fish originating in the 

12 Deschutes River. The URB stock includes the ESA listed Snake River fall Chinook ESU. The other 

13 upriver stocks include the pool upriver bright (PUB) stock, the Bonneville Pool Hatchery (BPH) stock, 

14 and the soon to be defunct Bonneville upriver bright (BUB) stock (the last return of adult BUBs will 

15 likely occur in 2017, with the possibility of a small amount of six year old fish returning in 2018). The 

16 PUB stock includes all hatchery and any natural-origin bright stock fish originating from tributaries other 

17 than the Deschutes between Bonneville and McNary Dams. Under the current agreement, Upriver fall 

18 Chinook salmon are managed using an abundance based harvest schedule that depends on the abundance 

19 of upriver fall Chinook salmon and natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon. Allowable harvest 

20 rates range from 21.5 percent to 45 percent (Table 4-36).

21 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

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

23 allowable mortality rate will be based on the Snake River natural fall Chinook salmon run size.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

107

1 4.1.1.4.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement

2 Under Alternative 1 fisheries would be managed using the abundance based schedule described above. 

3 Tables 4-37 and 4-38 provide the minimum, maximum and average values for defined metrics for Upriver 

4 fall Chinook salmon and natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 1. For 

5 reference, the abundance related recovery objective for natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon is 

6 3,500.

7 Under Alternative 1 (Extension), the harvest and escapement levels are unchanged from the baseline. 

8 Harvest fluctuates with the projected run size, meaning in years of low abundance harvest rates are lower 

9 than in years of high abundance. This results in escapement levels lower during years of low abundance, 

10 thereby reducing the adverse impact of removing fish from the spawning population during these years. 

11 Conversely, during years of high abundance, the greatest proportion of fish are harvested at the highest 

12 harvest rate. The resulting impact to the spawning population is negligible as the total number of fish 

13 escaping past the fisheries is still large.

14 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

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

16 Alternative 1.

Snake River

Fall Chinook 

Run Size at 

the Mouth

HR (less 

due to 

MSF)

Harvest Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Average 

Loss to 

Granite

Expected 

Granite 

Run Size

min. 5,808 25.9% 1,504 4,305 1,077 3,228

max. 40,916 43.9% 17,957 22,960 5,744 17,216

ave. 19,804 41.0% 8,470 11,334 2,836 8,499

17 4.1.1.4.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management

18 Under Alternative 2 fisheries would be managed using an abundance based management framework. 

19 Although other abundance based frameworks could be devised that would be more or less restrictive, the 

20 analysis assumes that the current framework would apply thus allowing harvest rates to range from 21.5
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

108

1 percent to 45 percent. Because the frameworks under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are the same, the 

2 analytical results and impacts are also the same (Tables 4-39 and 4-40).

3 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

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

5 Alternative 2.

Snake River

Fall Chinook 

Run Size at 

the Mouth

HR Harvest Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Average 

Loss to 

Granite

Expected 

Granite 

Run Size

min. 5,808 25.9% 1,504 4,305 1,077 3,228

max. 40,916 43.9% 17,957 22,960 5,744 17,216

ave. 19,804 41.0% 8,470 11,334 2,836 8,499

6 4.1.1.4.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate

7 Under Alternative 3 fisheries would be managed using a fixed harvest rate of 40.9 percent for ESA-listed 

8 Snake River fall Chinook salmon. This is the average rate observed over the last twelve years. Tables 4-

9 41 and 4-42 provide the minimum, maximum and average values for defined metrics for Upriver fall 

10 Chinook salmon and natural-origin Snake River fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 3.

11 Under Alternative 3, the harvest and escapement levels are constant. Harvest rate impacts occur 

12 constantly at the same proportions regardless of any fluctuation in projected run size. Therefore, in years 

13 of low abundance harvest rates are the same as those in years of high abundance. This restricts the 

14 negative impacts associated with removing a greater number of fish from the spawning population during 

15 years of high abundance, thereby providing a slightly positive increase in the escapement past fisheries 

16 during large run sizes.

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

Total 

SAFE

Total 

Comm.

Total 

Lower 

River 

Total 

Sport

Expect. 

Treaty 

C&S

Expect. 

Treaty 

Comm.

Total 

Treaty

Total 

Nontreaty

Total 

Harvest

Esc. Past 

Fisheries
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

109

Sport

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

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

2 Alternative 3

Snake River

Fall Chinook 

Run Size at 

Mouth

HR Harvest Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Average 

Loss to 

Granite

Expected 

Granite 

Run Size

min 5,808 40.9% 2,375 3,434 859 2,575

max 40,916 40.9% 16,729 24,187 6,051 18,136

ave 19,804 40.9% 8,097 11,707 2,929 8,778

3 4.1.1.4.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management

4 Under Alternative 4 fisheries would be managed using a fixed escapement goal of 3,000 natural-origin 

5 Snake River fall Chinook salmon to Lower Granite Dam. To account for the additional mortality that 

6 occurs during upstream migration, the escapement objective of 3,000 to Lower Granite Dam is expanded 

7 to 4,000. This expansion is an approximation of the interdam loss that occurs absent fishing based on 

8 estimates of conversion loss from the US v Oregon TAC and is an illustration of the approach rather than 

9 a specific proposal. At the highest Snake River fall Chinook salmon run sizes, harvest rates on the PUB 

10 and BUB stocks would severely limit expected escapement of these stocks. Where negative escapement 

11 past fisheries is shown, the model is in effect showing that harvest rates on the PUB and BUB stocks are 

12 excessive based on historic allocations and fishery patterns. Tables 4-43 and 4-44 provide the minimum, 

13 maximum and average values for defined metrics for Upriver fall Chinook and natural-origin Snake River 

14 fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 4.

15 Under Alternative 4 the impacts from harvest vary based on the run size, but the associated impacts 

16 towards modifying spawning population levels are constant with a fixed escapement level. A fixed 

17 number of fish escape the fisheries. Harvest rates fluctuate as the projected run sizes fluctuate. In years of 

18 low abundance harvest rates are low, but in years of high abundance harvest rates are high. This is 

19 because all fish above the fixed escapement goal are deemed harvestable. During years of high 

20 abundance, negative impacts are maximized as all the fish above the escapement level are harvested. 

21 Thereby, compared to baseline conditions, Alternative 4 results in the lowest average level of escapement 

22 towards a total spawning population abundance.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

110

1 Table 4-43. Defined Metrics for Upriver fall Chinook salmon under Alternative 4.

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.

Natural-origin

Snake River fall 

Chinook Run

Size at the Mouth

HR Harvest Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Average 

Loss to 

Granite

Expected 

Granite 

Run Size

min. 5,808 31.1% 1,808 4,000 1,000 3,000

max. 40,916 90.2% 36,916 4,000 1,000 3,000

ave. 19,804 71.6% 15,804 4,000 1,000 3,000

3
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

111

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 Run

Size at the 

Mouth

HR 

(less 

due to 

MSF)

Harvest Esc. Past 

Fisheries

Average 

Loss to 

Granite

Expected 

Granite 

Run Size

min 5,808 0% 0 5,808 1,452 4,356

max 40,916 0% 0 40,916 10,229 30,687

ave 19,804 0% 0 19,804 4,951 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 baseline 

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.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

112

1 4.1.1.5. Snake River Steelhead

2 Upriver steelhead returning to areas above Bonneville Dam have a complex life history and protracted run 

3 timing that introduces considerable complexity into the harvest management process. Although steelhead 

4 are present in the system throughout the year, most migrate through the areas above Bonneville Dam 

5 during the fall management period. For that reason and to reduce the complexity of the analysis of harvest

6 policy alternatives, the analysis here focuses on steelhead management during the fall season.

7 Under the current agreement, B-run steelhead are used as an indicator stock. B-run steelhead are defined 

8 as those that pass above Bonneville dam between July 1 and October 31 and are at least 78 cm in length. 

9 B-run steelhead return primarily to areas in the Snake River. B-run steelhead are used as an indicator 

10 because they can be visually identified based on their length, are general subject to higher harvest rates 

11 because of their size, and were, for the most part, depressed relative to other stocks in the basin. Harvest 

12 rate limits for B-run steelhead therefore provide protection for the smaller A-run components of the run. 

13 Under the current agreement, fisheries are managed during the fall season using an abundance based 

14 harvest rate schedule that depends on the abundance of natural-origin B-run steelhead. Allowable harvest 

15 rates on natural-origin fish range from 15 percent to 22 percent (Table 4-47).

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

Forecast 

Bonneville Total 

B Steelhead Run

Size

River Mouth 

URB Run Size

Treaty Total B 

Harvest Rate

Non-treaty 

Natural-origin B 

Harvest Rate

Total Harvest 

Rate

< 20,000 Any 13% 2.0% 15.0%

20,000 Any 15% 2.0% 17.0%

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

B-Run Steelhead are defined as steelhead measuring ≥78 cm

17
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

113

1 4.1.1.5.1. Alternative 1—Extension of Current Agreement

2 Under Alternative 1 fisheries would be managed using the abundance based harvest rate schedule 

3 described above that limits the harvest of natural-origin B-run steelhead to 15 percent to 22 percent. 

4 Tables 4-48 and 4-49 show the defined metrics for B-run (hatchery and natural-origin combined) and

5 natural-origin B-run steelhead, respectively.

6 Under Alternative 1 (Extension), the harvest and escapement levels are unchanged from the baseline. 

7 Harvest fluctuates with the projected run size, meaning in years of low abundance harvest rates are lower 

8 than in years of high abundance. This results in escapement levels lower during years of low abundance, 

9 thereby reducing the adverse impact of removing fish from the spawning population during these years. 

10 Conversely, during years of high abundance, the greatest proportion of fish are harvested at the highest

11 harvest rate. The resulting impact to the spawning population is negligible as the total number of fish 

12 escaping past the fisheries is still large.

13 4.1.1.5.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management

14 Under Alternative 2 fisheries would be managed using the same abundance-based harvest rate schedule as 

15 Alternative 1. Because the frameworks under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are the same, the analytical 

16 results and impacts are also the same (Tables 4-50 and 4-51).

17 4.1.1.5.3. Alternative 3—Fixed Harvest Rate

18 This alternative uses a fixed total B-run harvest rate for the tribal fishery and a fixed 2 percent natural19 origin B harvest rate for the non-treaty fishery.

20 Under Alternative 3, the harvest and escapement levels are constant. Harvest rate impacts occur 

21 constantly at the same proportions regardless of any fluctuation in projected run size. Therefore, in years 

22 of low abundance harvest rates are the same as those in years of high abundance (Tables 4-52 and 4-53). 

23 This restricts the negative impacts associated with removing a greater number of fish from the spawning 

24 population during years of high abundance, thereby providing a slightly positive increase in the 

25 escapement past fisheries during large run sizes.

26
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

114

1 4.1.1.5.4. Alternative 4—Fixed Escapement Management

2 This alternative uses an escapement goal of 4,700 natural-origin B-run steelhead at Lower Granite which 

3 is based on the 10 year average run size. This was expanded to an equivalent run size at Bonneville Dam 

4 of 8,200 using TACs run reconstruction methodology. For run sizes under 8,200 natural-origin B-run 

5 steelhead, our analysis assumes de minimis fisheries of 7% for treaty fisheries and 0.7% for non-Indian 

6 fisheries.

7 Under Alternative 4 the impacts from harvest vary based on the run size, but the associated impacts 

8 towards modifying spawning population levels are constant with a fixed escapement level. A fixed 

9 number of fish escape the fisheries. Harvest rates fluctuate as the projected run sizes fluctuate. In years of 

10 low abundance harvest rates are low, but in years of high abundance harvest rates are high. This is 

11 because all fish above the fixed escapement goal are deemed harvestable. During years of high

12 abundance, negative impacts are maximized as all the fish above the escapement level are harvested. 

13 Thereby, compared to baseline conditions, Alternative 4 results in the lowest average level of escapement 

14 towards a total spawning population abundance.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

115

1 Table 4-48. Defined Metrics for B-run 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 8,945 9,416 5,631 6,310 6,545 15,961 32,614 30,436

2 Table 4-49. Defined Metrics for natural-origin B-run steelhead under Alternative 1.

Run

Size

Total 

Treaty

Treaty 

HR

Total 

NT NT HR

Total 

Catch

Total 

HR

Escapement

Past Fisheries

Expected 

Granite Run

min 2,420 417 17.2% 48 2.0% 466 19.2% 1,954 1,129

max 19,951 5,148 25.8% 399 2.0% 5,547 27.8% 14,404 8,325

ave 10,220 2,565 25.1% 204 2.0% 2,770 27.1% 7,450 4,306

3 Table 4-50. Defined Metrics for B-run 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

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 8,945 9,416 5,631 6,310 6,545 15,961 32,614 30,436

4 Table 4-51. Defined Metrics for natural-origin B-run steelhead under Alternative 2.

Run

Size

Total 

Treaty

Treaty 

HR

Total 

NT NT HR Total Catch

Total 

HR

Escapement

Past Fisheries

Expected 

Granite Run

min. 2,420 417 17.2% 48 2.0% 466 19.2% 1,954 1,129

max. 19,951 5,148 25.8% 399 2.0% 5,547 27.8% 14,404 8,325

ave. 10,220 2,565 25.1% 204 2.0% 2,770 27.1% 7,450 4,306
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

116

1 Table 4-52. Defined Metrics for B-run 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

Expected 

Granite 

Run

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 B-run steelhead under Alternative 3.

Run

Size

Total 

Treaty

Treaty 

HR

Total 

NT NT HR Total Catch

Total 

HR

Escapement

Past Fisheries

Expected 

Granite Run

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% 2,587 25.3% 7,633 4,412

3 Table 4-54. Defined Metrics for B-run steelhead under Alternative 4.

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

Expected 

Granite 

Run

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 B-run steelhead under Alternative 4.

Run

Size

Total 

Treaty

Treaty 

HR

Total 

NT NT HR Total Catch

Total 

HR

Escapement

Past Fisheries

Expected 

Granite Run

min. 2,420 169 7.0% 17 0.7% 186 7.7% 2,233 1,291

max. 19,951 10,774 54.0% 978 4.9% 11,751 58.9% 8,200 4,740

ave. 10,220 2,879 28.2% 303 3.0% 3,182 31.1% 7,038 4,068

5
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

117

1 4.1.1.5.5. Alternative 5—Voluntary Fishing curtailment

2 Under Alternative 5, harvest rates on B-run steelhead were assumed to be zero thus providing a 

3 benchmark for comparison to the other alternatives. Tables 4-56 and 4-57 show the maximum escapement 

4 of B-run and natural-origin B-run steelhead that could 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 4-56. Defined Metrics for B-run 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

8 Table 4-57. Defined Metrics for natural-origin Group-B steelhead under Alternative 5.

Run Size

Total 

Treaty

Treaty 

HR

Total 

NT NT HR

Total 

Catch

Total 

HR

Average 

Loss to 

Granite

Expected 

Granite 

Run

min. 2,420 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 605 1,815

max. 19,951 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 4,988 14,960

mve. 10,220 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 2,555 7,665

9 4.1.1.5.6. Alternative 6—No-action—Uncoordinated harvest

10 Under the No Action—Uncoordinated Harvest alternative, the level of fishing can be approximated by the 

11 results and impacts described under Alternative 4, resulting in aggressive harvest rates that range from 7.7

12 percent minimum to 58.9 percent maximum and an average of 31.1 percent as shown in tables 4-54 

13 through 4-55. This compares to an average B-run steelhead harvest rate under the baseline conditions of 

14 27.1 percent (Table 3-11).

15 Under Alternative 6, as just described, the highest levels of impacts observed in Alternative 4 are 

16 expected to occur. This results in maximizing adverse impacts associated with removing fish from a 

17 resulting spawning population to the greatest extent during years of high abundance, and thereby results 

18 in the lowest average level of escapement towards a total spawning population.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

118

1 4.2. Fish

2 4.2.1. Salmonids

3 Salmonids in the Columbia River Basin that would be affected by the Proposed Action include five 

4 species of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus sp.), including steelhead. Recall that each alternative analyzed 

5 in this EIS uses the rate at which fish may be harvested to assess the impact of each alternative. These 

6 rates provide the levels at which fish abundance is reduced, and subsequent spawning population potential 

7 is conversely impacted. These species impacted are:

8 ● Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

9 ○ Upper Columbia River spring-run - ESA-listed 

10 For Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon the average harvest rate and average escapement past 

11 fisheries are the same for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 (Table 4-58, Subsection 4.1.1.1.1 and 

12 Subsection 4.1.1.1.2). The average harvest rate of Alternative 3 is the lowest of all alternatives that 

13 provide fishing opportunity, but not by much (Table 4-58, Subsection 4.1.1.1.3). The average escapement 

14 past fisheries of Alternative 3 is the highest of all alternatives that provide fishing opportunity, but not by 

15 much. Therefore impacts to the spawning escapement level are a slight positive under Alternative 3. 

16 Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 have the highest harvest rates and the lowest average escapements past 

17 fisheries of all the alternatives (Table 4-58, Subsection 4.1.1.1.4 and Subsection 4.1.1.1.6). This results in 

18 a high negative impact to spawning escapement for these two alternatives. Alternative 5 has the lowest 

19 overall average harvest rate (0 percent) and the highest average escapement past fisheries of all 

20 alternatives because Alternative 5 does not provide any fishing opportunity but provides a positive impact 

21 to spawning escapement.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

119

1 Table 4-58. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for Upper Columbia River spring Chinook 

2 salmon.

Total HR Esc. Past Fisheries Rock Island Dam Run

Min Max Ave Min Max Ave Min Max Ave

Alternative 1 9.2% 13.4% 11.8% 1,248 4,360 2,650 1,101 3,846 2,338

Alternative 2 9.2% 13.4% 11.8% 1,248 4,360 2,650 1,101 3,846 2,338

Alternative 3 11.3% 11.3% 11.3% 1,219 4,466 2,665 1,075 3,939 2,351

Alternative 4/6 6.2% 40.4% 17.4% 1,289 3,000 2,480 1,137 2,646 2,188

Alternative 5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1,374 5,032 3,003 1,031 3,774 2,252

3

4 Figure 4-1. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for Upper Columbia River spring Chinook 

5 salmon at minimum, average, and maximum run sizes expected
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

120

1 Figure 4-1 illustrates the minimum, maximum and average defined metrics values for Upper Columbia 

2 River spring/summer Chinook salmon, along with its escapement goal at Rock Island Dam. The 

3 escapement goals were defined in Subsection 4.1.1. The aggregate abundance of natural-origin spawners 

4 necessary to meet recovery objectives for natural-origin Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon is 

5 3,000 at Rock Island Dam. And with an average survival rate of 75 percent, the escapement past fisheries 

6 goal is 4,000. At a maximum observed rivermouth runsize used for modeling, Alternative 3 is the one that 

7 comes closest to reaching the recovery target abundance of 3000 to Rock Island Dam. All alternatives, 

8 except Alternative 5 show some level of harvest.

9 ○ Snake River spring/summer-run - ESA-listed

10 For Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon the average harvest rate and average escapement past 

11 fisheries are the same for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 (Table 4-59, Subsection 4.1.1.2.1 and 

12 Subsection 4.1.1.2.2). The average harvest rate of Alternative 3 is the lowest of all alternatives that 

13 provide fishing opportunity, but not by much (Table 4-59, Subsection 4.1.1.2.3). The average escapement 

14 past fisheries of Alternative 3 is the highest of all alternatives that provide fishing opportunity, but not by 

15 much. Therefore impacts to the spawning escapement level are a slight positive under Alternative 3. 

16 Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 have the highest harvest rates and the lowest average escapements past 

17 fisheries of all the alternatives (Table 4-59, Subsection 4.1.1.2.4 and Subsection 4.1.1.2.6). This results in 

18 a high negative impact to spawning escapement for these two alternatives. Alternative 5 has the lowest 

19 overall average harvest rate (0 percent) and the highest average escapement past fisheries of all 

20 alternatives because Alternative 5 does not provide any fishing opportunity but provides a positive impact 

21 to spawning escapement.

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

23 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% 10,913 38,115 23,171 8,360 29,199 17,751

Alternative 2 9.2% 13.4% 11.8% 10,913 38,115 23,171 8,360 29,199 17,751

Alternative 3 11.3% 11.3% 11.3% 10,660 39,044 23,302 8,166 29,911 17,851

Alternative 4/6 6.2% 40.5% 17.5% 11,271 26,188 21,679 8,634 20,062 16,608
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

121

Alternative 5 0% 0% 0% 12,017 44,014 26,269 9,013 33,011 19,702

1

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

3 salmon at minimum, average, and maximum run sizes expected

4 Figure 4-2 illustrates the minimum, maximum and average defined metrics values for Snake River

5 spring/summer Chinook salmon, along with its current escapement goal. The aggregate abundance of 

6 natural-origin spawners necessary to meet recovery objectives for natural-origin Snake River 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

122

1 spring/summer Chinook salmon is 25,500 at Lower Granite. And with an average survival rate of 75

2 percent, the rivermouth goal is 34,000. All alternatives, except Alternative 5 show some level of harvest. 

3 None of the modeled output for all alternatives meet the escapement goal. Escapement past fisheries is 

4 consistently higher for Alternative 5 than for the other four alternatives. Modeled outputs for escapement 

5 past fisheries under Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 are consistently lower than for all other alternatives. 

6 ○ Middle Columbia River spring- run

7 Effects to Middle Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon are assumed to be the same as those 

8 represented by Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon effects as fisheries are limited by the 

9 number of Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon that can be caught and are closed once that is 

10 achieved. This means impacts to Middle Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon will always be less 

11 than those to Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon as fisheries are never constrained for this 

12 stock due to it being healthier than the Snake River stock. The Middle Columbia River spring-run 

13 Chinook salmon migrate at the same time as the Snake River stock, and therefore we expect impacts to 

14 this ESU to vary proportionally to harvest impacts of Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon.

15 ○ Upper Columbia River summer run

16 Upper Columbia River summer Chinook salmon is not an ESA-listed ESU. It is both a Harvest Indicator 

17 and, because it is a single ESU, an Abundance Indicator Stock. The average harvest rate for this stock is 

18 the lowest for Alternative 3, aside Alternative 5 that involves no fishing (Table 4-60, Subsection 4.1.1.2.3 

19 and Subsection 4.1.1.2.5). Therefore impacts to the spawning escapement level are a slight positive under 

20 Alternative 3 but a positive impact under Alternative 5. The average harvest rate is almost the same for 

21 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 (Table 4-60, Subsection 4.1.1.2.1 and Subsection 4.1.1.2.2). The highest 

22 average harvest rate is for Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 (Table 4-60, Subsection 4.1.1.2.4 and 

23 Subsection 4.1.1.2.6). This results in a high negative impact to spawning escapement for these two 

24 alternatives. The average escapement past fisheries is almost the same for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. 

25 The highest average escapement past fisheries, apart from Alternative 5, is for Alternative 3 (Table 4-60).
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

123

1 Table 4-60. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for Upper Columbia River summer Chinook 

2 salmon

Total HR Esc. Past Fisheries

Min Max Ave Min Max Ave

Alternative 1 21.6% 62.7% 52.5% 29,000 50,000 35,375

Alternative 2 20.0% 60.0% 51.7% 29,600 53,600 35,920

Alternative 3 42.0% 42.0% 42.0% 21,460 77,720 43,162

Alternative 4/6 21.6% 78.4% 61.0% 29,000 29,000 29,000

Alternative 5 0% 0% 0% 37,000 134,000 74,417

3

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 River summer Chinook salmon. Fisheries are limited by the number of 

7 Upper Columbia River summer Chinook salmon that can be caught and are closed once that is achieved. 

8 This means impacts to Deschutes River summer/fall-run Chinook salmon will always be less than those to 

9 Upper Columbia River summer Chinook salmon as fisheries are never constrained for this stock. The 

10 Deschutes River summer/fall-run Chinook salmon migrate at the same time as the Upper Columbia River 

11 summer Chinook salmon stock, and therefore we expect impacts to this ESU to vary proportionally to 

12 harvest impacts of Upper Columbia River summer Chinook salmon stock..

13 ○ Snake River fall- run - ESA-listed

14 For Snake River fall Chinook salmon the average harvest rate and average escapement past fisheries are 

15 the same for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 (Table 4-61, Subsection 4.1.1.4.1 and Subsection 4.1.1.4.2). 

16 The average harvest rate of Alternative 3 is the lowest of all alternatives that provide fishing opportunity, 

17 but not by much (Table 4-61). The average escapement past fisheries of Alternative 3 is the highest of all 

18 alternatives that provide fishing opportunity, but not by much (Table 4-61, Subsection 4.1.1.4.3). 

19 Therefore impacts to the spawning escapement level are a slight positive under Alternative 3. Alternative

20 4 and Alternative 6 have the highest harvest rates and the lowest average escapements past fisheries of all 

21 the alternatives (Table 4-61, Subsection 4.1.1.4.4 and Subsection 4.1.1.4.6). This results in a high 

22 negative impact to spawning escapement for these two alternatives. Alternative 5 has the lowest overall 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

124

1 average harvest rate (0 percent) and the highest average escapement past fisheries of all alternatives 

2 because Alternative 5 does not provide any fishing opportunity but provides a positive impact to 

3 spawning escapement.

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

Total HR Esc. Past Fisheries Lower Granite Run

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% 0.0% 0.0% 5,808 40,916 19,804 4,356 30,687 14,853 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

125

1

2 Figure 4-3. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for Snake River fall Chinook salmon at 

3 minimum, average, and maximum run sizes expected

4 Figure 4-3 illustrates the minimum, maximum and average defined metrics values for Snake River fall 

5 Chinook salmon. There is a small difference for the minimum, average and maximum harvest and 

6 escapement values between Alternatives 1 through 3. Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 offer the highest 

7 harvest opportunity, but also provides for the lowest escapement. The differences in escapement numbers 

8 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. For a minimum observed river mouth runsize, the single 

11 alternative modeled output which meets the escapement goal at Lower Granite of 4,000 is Alternative 5. 

12 For the average observed river mouth runsize, the modeled output for all alternatives meet the escapement 

13 goal, except Alternative 4 and Alternative 6. For the minimum observed river mouth runsize, all of the 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

126

1 alternatives modeled outputs meet the escapement goal of 4,000, except Alternative 4 and Alternative 6. 

2 For the average observed river mouth runsize, the modeled output for Alternative 5 meets the escapement 

3 goal, but all other alternatives also almost meet the escapement goal. For the maximum observed river 

4 mouth runsize, all of the alternatives modeled outputs meet the escapement goal.

5 ● Coho salmon (O. kisutch)

6 Harvest policy for the management of Upriver coho salmon has not been set in the prior US v Oregon

7 agreements except to specify limitations to insure 50/50, treaty/non-treaty sharing of the catch. This is 

8 expected to continue under a new US v Oregon agreement as the success of reintroduction programs in 

9 basins upstream of The Dalles Dam are evaluated and possibly expanded to other areas. Reintroduction of 

10 coho salmon into areas upstream of The Dalles Dam is still underway at this point in time. It is currently 

11 unknown the level upriver areas could support in terms of coho salmon abundance and escapement. 

12 Upriver coho salmon fall fisheries are therefore yet to be developed, but instead are currently only limited 

13 by the harvest policies that are set for steelhead and fall Chinook salmon. Fisheries targeting these two 

14 species operate during the fall and simply retain coho salmon as bycatch, but there is no harvest policy in 

15 the US v Oregon agreement specific for a conservation requirement for coho salmon upstream of 

16 Bonneville Dam. Therefore with no harvest policy for the management of Upriver coho salmon there will 

17 be no limits to fisheries based on coho salmon. Harvest impacts to coho salmon will vary proportionally 

18 with B-run steelhead harvest impacts, meaning if there is a large abundance of B-run steelhead then 

19 higher numbers of coho salmon will be caught as bycatch in fisheries targeting B-run steelhead. If B-run 

20 steelhead are low in abundance then lower harvest impacts to coho salmon will occur as fisheries 

21 targeting salmonids will be curtailed due to B-run steelhead low abundances. For these reasons, the 

22 analysis does not include detailed 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 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

127

1 Subsection 4.1.1.3.3). Therefore impacts to the spawning escapement level are a slight positive under 

2 these Alternatives. Alternative 2 has no change in impact relative to the baseline. Alternative 4 and 

3 Alternative 6 have the highest harvest rates and the lowest average escapements past fisheries of all the 

4 alternatives (Table 4-62, Subsection 4.1.1.3.4 and Subsection 4.1.1.3.6). This results in a high negative 

5 impact to spawning escapement for these two alternatives. Alternative 5 has the lowest overall average 

6 harvest rate (0 percent) and the highest average escapement past fisheries of all alternatives because 

7 Alternative 5 does not provide any fishing opportunity but provides a positive impact to spawning 

8 escapement.

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

Total HR Snake River

ESU Esc. Past Fisheries Lower Granite Run

Min Max Ave Min Max Ave Min Max Ave

Alternative 1 6.0% 8.0% 7.7% 117 2,734 1,175 65 1,517 651

Alternative 2 6.0% 13.0% 9.7% 117 2,590 1,136 65 1,435 629

Alternative 3 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 114 2,738 1,174 63 1,517 650

Alternative 4/6 6.0% 76.9% 36.8% 117 689 567 65 382 314

Alternative 5 0% 0% 0% 124 2,977 1,276 69 1,649 707

10
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

128

1

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

3 average, and maximum run sizes expected

4 Figure 4-4 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 zero harvest. For the average values and maximum values, Alternative 4 and 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

129

1 Alternative 6 offer the highest harvest opportunity, but also provide for the lowest escapements. The 

2 differences in escapement numbers between Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 are small for minimum, 

3 average and maximum values. Escapement for Alternative 2 is somewhat lower than for Alternative 1 and 

4 Alternative 3. Alternative 5 offers the most escapement and zero harvest. None of the alternatives 

5 modeled outputs meet the escapement goal.

6 ● Steelhead (O. mykiss)

7 Steelhead limits are constrained by Snake River Basin B-run steelhead, by being the lowest in abundance 

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

9 limited by the number of Snake River Basin B-run Steelhead that can be caught and fisheries are closed 

10 once that is achieved. This means impacts to every other steelhead stock will always be less than those to 

11 Snake River Basin B-run Steelhead as fisheries are never constrained for any other steelhead stock due to 

12 them being healthier than the B-run stock. Other steelhead migrate at the same time as the Snake River 

13 Basin B-run Steelhead stock, and therefore we expect impacts to other DPSs to vary proportionally to 

14 harvest impacts of Snake River Basin B-run Steelhead. But the harvest impacts to the other DPSs are 

15 lower, likely much lower, as these other DPSs are greater in abundance, than those to Snake River Basin

16 B-run steelhead, and effects were not modeled or analyzed in this EIS. 

17 We expect harvest and resulting escapement levels, and therefore impacts, to these DPSs to vary 

18 proportionally to catch of B-run fish.

19 ○ Southwest Washington DPS.

20 ○ Lower Columbia River DPS.

21 ○ Upper Willamette River DPS.

22 ○ Mid-Columbia River DPS.

23 ○ Upper Columbia River DPS.

24 ○ Snake River Basin DPS.

25

26 For Snake River Basin B-run steelhead the average harvest rate and average escapement past fisheries are 

27 the same for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 (Table 4-63, Subsection 4.1.1.5.1 and Subsection 4.1.1.5.2). 

28 The average harvest rate of Alternative 3 is the lowest of all alternatives that provide fishing opportunity, 

29 but not by much (Table 4-63, Subsection 4.1.1.5.3). The average escapement past fisheries of Alternative 

30 3 is the highest of all alternatives that provide fishing opportunity, but not by much (Table 4-63, 

31 Subsection 4.1.1.5.3). Therefore impacts to the spawning escapement level are a slight positive under 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

130

1 Alternative 3. Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 have the highest harvest rates and the lowest average 

2 escapements past fisheries of all the alternatives (Table 4-63, Subsection 4.1.1.5.4 and Subsection 

3 4.1.1.5.6). This results in a high negative impact to spawning escapement for these two alternatives. 

4 Alternative 5 has the lowest overall average harvest rate (0 percent) and the highest average escapement 

5 past fisheries of all alternatives because Alternative 5 does not provide any fishing opportunity but 

6 provides a positive impact to spawning escapement.

7 Table 4-63. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for B-run Snake River steelhead.

Total HR B-run Esc. Past Fisheries Lower Granite Run

Min Max Ave Min Max Ave Min Max Ave

Alternative 1 19.2% 27.8% 27.1% 1,954 4,404 7,450 1,129 8,325 4,306

Alternative 2 19.2% 27.8% 27.1% 1,954 14,404 7,450 1,129 8,325 4,306

Alternative 3 25.9% 25.2% 25.3% 1,794 14,919 7,633 1,037 8,623 4,412

Alternative 4/6 7.7% 58.9% 31.1% 2,233 8,200 7,038 1,291 4,740 4,068

Alternative 5 0% 0% 0% 2,420 19,951 10,220 1,815 14,960 7,665 

8
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

131

1

2 Figure 4-5. Comparison of alternatives modeled outputs for Snake River Basin B-run steelhead at 

3 minimum, average, and maximum run sizes expected

4 Figure 4-5 illustrates the minimum, maximum and average defined metrics values for Snake River Basin

5 B-run steelhead. For the minimum values, there is practically no difference between alternatives, except 

6 that Alternative 5 has zero 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. For the minimum observed 

11 river mouth runsize, none of the alternatives modeled outputs meet the escapement goal of 4,700. For the 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

132

1 average observed river mouth runsize, the modeled output for Alternative 5 meets the escapement goal, 

2 but all other alternatives also almost meet the escapement goal. For the maximum observed river mouth 

3 runsize, all of the alternatives modeled outputs meet the escapement goal.

4 In summary, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 on Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon, Snake 

5 River spring/summer Chinook salmon, Snake River fall Chinook salmon, and B-run steelhead would not 

6 impact the current baseline conditions. The effects of Alternative 3 on these same resources is practically 

7 the same as those of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, but generally provides a slight positive impact to 

8 spawning escapement. Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 have the greatest effects (largest harvest) on all 

9 affected salmonid species, especially for Snake River Fall Chinook salmon, Snake River spring/summer 

10 Chinook salmon, Upper Columbia River Chinook salmon, Snake River sockeye salmon and B-run

11 steelhead. Only for Upper Columbia River summer/fall Chinook salmon the effects of Alternative 4 or 6 

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

13 for these two alternatives across all stocks. Alternative 5 has the lowest harvest impacts on all salmonid 

14 species because it involves no fishing, and therefore provides a positive impact to spawning escapement 

15 across all stocks. None of the alternatives, including Alternative 5, meet the escapement goal for Snake 

16 River Sockeye salmon.

17 Hatchery Effects to Salmonid Populations

18 The operation of salmon and steelhead hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin, including the hatchery 

19 programs contained in a new US v Oregon management agreement, results in impacts to ESA-listed and 

20 non-listed salmon and steelhead. As discussed earlier in this DEIS, the impacts of Columbia River 

21 hatcheries were disclosed in the Mitchell Act EIS. For this reason, NMFS is incorporating Section 4 of 

22 the Mitchell Act EIS into our impacts analysis here.

23 As described in detail in Subsection 3.2.3.1, General Risks and Benefits of Hatchery programs to Salmon 

24 and Steelhead Species, in the Mitchell Act EIS and Appendix B of this EIS, hatchery salmon and 

25 steelhead programs can have beneficial effects to these species but also pose risks. Those beneficial 

26 effects include potential increases to abundance by increasing populations and helping maintain at-risk 

27 populations threatened by extirpation, benefits to productivity by providing nutrients and improving 

28 spawning gravel conditions, and to spatial structure by expanding spatial distribution. Additionally, 

29 hatcheries pose risks to natural-origin salmon and steelhead populations in the form of effects to 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

133

1 abundance and productivity through competition, predation, disease and harvest. Interbreeding of 

2 hatchery and natural-origin fish can negatively affect genetic diversity and productivity, by interfering 

3 with the natural forces that strengthen the population genetics and by introducing maladaptive genetic 

4 changes. The presence of hatchery fish can lead to impacts to natural-origin populations from competition 

5 for resources such as food and spawning sites, and to predation by hatchery fish on natural-origin fish. 

6 Finally, hatchery facilities have impacts that result from the operation of weirs and other structures that 

7 can disrupt migrations, water intakes that risk entrainment and impingement, removal of water from the 

8 stream, discharge of effluent into streams, and impacts to river flows that interfere with migration and 

9 spawning.

10 Each of the alternatives in this action will continue to result in impacts from hatchery operations. As 

11 discussed in Subsection 1.3.2, above, hatchery production is incorporated into a new US v Oregon

12 management agreement. Although individual programs are technically independent of harvest goals and 

13 would be expected to continue under any of the alternatives, continued impacts from the collective 

14 hatchery production in the Columbia River basin adopted cumulatively in a new US v Oregon

15 management agreement is considered part of the impacts discussed here. 

16 In addition to disclosing hatchery impacts generally at a basin-wide level, the Mitchell Act EIS disclosed 

17 impacts at the ESU/DPS-level as well as for each hatchery program, species by species, for each of its six 

18 hatchery alternatives, which can be viewed in the Mitchell Act EIS appendices (NMFS 2014)

19 (Appendices C-F).

20 NMFS has reviewed the Mitchell Act EIS and determined that it contains an analysis of 113 of the 115 

21 programs incorporated into a new US v Oregon management agreement, and therefore the impacts 

22 disclosed in the Mitchell Act EIS comprise a significant portion of the impacts of the current action. 

23 However, two programs in the new US v Oregon management agreement were not analyzed in the 

24 Mitchell Act EIS, and 42 of the programs that were analyzed there have either increased or decreased in 

25 size, resulting in potential changes to the impacts of individual programs. To update the analysis for this 

26 EIS, NMFS has reviewed the changes program-by-program and assessed how the impacts could differ 

27 from those reported in the Mitchell Act EIS. This review and its conclusions are found in Appendix B of 

28 this document.

29 Overall, the comparison of total programs, species by species, reveals that the production incorporated 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

134

1 into a new US v Oregon management agreement falls within the range of total hatchery production 

2 analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS, with the exception of sockeye salmon programs, which doubles the total 

3 production analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS, and coho salmon programs, which are proposed to be 2

4 percent greater than the upper limit of programs analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS. 

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

6 Management Agreement Compared to the Hatchery Production Analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS (NMFS

7 2014)

Hatchery

Species

Total 

Proposed US v 

Oregon

Releases

Mitchell Act EIS 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%

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%
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

135

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 Mitchell Act EIS analysis. Therefore, 

12 NMFS is incorporating by reference the likely effects of the Mitchell Act EIS Preferred Alternative, in 

13 consideration of any program changes, as described above and in Appendix B, to the Chinook salmon 

14 ESUs impacted by new US v Oregon management agreement harvest actions.

15 ● Upper Columbia River spring-run

16 Under the Mitchell Act EIS preferred alternative, and considering any differences in release number from 

17 the proposed programs (Appendix B, Table 2), NMFS expects that: hatchery effects to productivity and 

18 abundance of this ESU would likely decrease overall, due to the reduction in total spring Chinook salmon 

19 hatchery production; hatchery effects to population genetic diversity would likely decrease, slightly; and 

20 hatchery risk of competition and predation from hatchery fish to this ESU would likely remain consistent 

21 with baseline conditions, due to the overall hatchery salmon and steelhead production in the Upper 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

136

1 Columbia River area.

2 ● Snake River Spring/Summer-run Chinook Salmon ESU

3 Under the Mitchell Act EIS preferred alternative, and considering any differences in release number from 

4 the proposed programs (Appendix B, Table 2), NMFS expects that: hatchery effects on productivity of 

5 this ESU would likely increase, slightly, overall; while hatchery effects to abundance would likely be 

6 increased slightly, overall, given the potential use of more natural-origin fish in the hatchery broodstocks; 

7 hatchery effects to population genetic diversity would likely increase, slightly, overall; hatchery risk of 

8 competition and predation, from hatchery fish, to this ESU, would increase, slightly, due to likely 

9 increases in overall hatchery spring/summer Chinook and coho salmon production in the Snake River

10 Basin.

11 ● Upper Columbia River Summer Chinook Salmon ESU

12 Under the Mitchell Act EIS preferred alternative, and considering the differences in release number from 

13 the proposed programs (Appendix B, Table 2), NMFS expects that: hatchery effects to population 

14 productivity and abundance would likely decrease, overall; hatchery risks to population genetic diversity 

15 would likely be decreased; and hatchery risk of competition and predation, from hatchery fish, to this 

16 ESU would likely remain consistent with baseline conditions, due to the overall hatchery salmon and 

17 steelhead production in the Upper Columbia River area.

18 ● Snake River Fall-run Chinook Salmon ESU

19 Under the Mitchell Act EIS preferred alternative, and considering the differences in release number from 

20 the proposed programs (Appendix B, Table 2), NMFS expects that: hatchery effects to the productivity of 

21 this ESU would likely remain constant while abundance would likely be reduced slightly, given the 

22 potential use of more natural-origin fish in the hatchery broodstock; hatchery risks to population genetic 

23 diversity would also, likely remain constant; hatchery risk of competition and predation from hatchery 

24 fish to this ESU would likely increase, slightly, due to likely increases in overall hatchery spring/summer 

25 Chinook and coho salmon production in the Snake River Basin.

26 Coho Salmon (above Bonneville Dam)

27 As detailed above in Table 4-64, the hatchery production level of coho salmon, overall, referenced in a 

28 new US v Oregon management agreement, is slightly higher than the production level analyzed in the 

29 Mitchell Act EIS analysis. Therefore, NMFS is incorporating by reference the likely effects of the 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

137

1 Mitchell Act EIS Preferred Alternative, in consideration of any program changes, as described above and 

2 in Appendix B, to the coho salmon populations impacted by a new US v Oregon management agreement.

3 Under the Mitchell Act EIS preferred alternative, and considering the differences in release number from 

4 the proposed programs (Appendix B, Table 2), NMFS expects: the hatchery effects to coho salmon 

5 abundance from the programs would be higher; the hatchery effects to coho salmon productivity would 

6 likely remain constant; hatchery risks to coho salmon population genetic diversity would increase, 

7 slightly; and hatchery risks of competition and predation from hatchery fish to these coho salmon 

8 populations would likely remain consistent with baseline conditions. 

9 Sockeye Salmon

10 As detailed above in Table 4-64, the hatchery production level of sockeye salmon, referenced in a new US 

11 v Oregon management agreement, is higher than the production level analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS 

12 analysis. Therefore, NMFS is incorporating by reference the likely effects of the Mitchell Act EIS 

13 Preferred Alternative, in consideration of any program changes, as described above and in Appendix B, to 

14 the sockeye salmon ESUs impacted by a new US v Oregon management agreement.

15 ● Snake River Sockeye Salmon ESU

16 Under the Mitchell Act EIS preferred alternative, and considering the differences in release number from 

17 the proposed programs (Appendix B, Table 2), NMFS expects: the abundance benefits from the program 

18 would likely be higher, relative to the program analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS preferred alternative; the 

19 benefits to productivity would likely be lower, relative to the program analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS 

20 preferred alternative; the risks to population genetic diversity may increase, relative to the program 

21 analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS alternative; and hatchery risks of competition and predation from 

22 hatchery fish to this ESU would likely increase, slightly, due to likely increases in overall hatchery 

23 spring/summer Chinook and coho salmon production in the Snake River Basin.

24 Steelhead

25 As detailed above, the hatchery production levels of steelhead, referenced in a new US v Oregon

26 management agreement, are well represented in the Mitchell Act EIS analysis. Therefore, NMFS is 

27 summarizing here and incorporating by reference the likely effects of the Mitchell Act EIS Preferred 

28 Alternative, and in consideration of any program changes, as described above and in Appendix B to the 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

138

1 steelhead DPSs impacted by a new US v Oregon management agreement.

2 ● Snake River Steelhead DPS

3 Under the Mitchell Act EIS preferred alternative, and considering the differences in release number from 

4 the proposed programs (Appendix B, Table 2), NMFS expects that: hatchery effects to the productivity of 

5 this DPS would likely decrease, with an overall decrease in hatchery steelhead production; hatchery 

6 effects to the abundance of this DPS would also, likely, decrease; hatchery effects to population genetic 

7 diversity would likely for this population. Risk of competition and predation, from hatchery fish, to this 

8 DPS would likely decrease, slightly, due to decreases in overall hatchery steelhead in the Snake River

9 Basin.

10 4.2.2. ESA-Listed Fish Species (non-salmonids)

11 There is potential for incidental take of non-salmonid ESA-listed green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris, 

12 Threatened, 71 Fed. Reg. 17757) in fisheries directed at white sturgeon. However, in 2008 NMFS

13 determined the total expected annual take of Southern DPS green sturgeon associated with prospective US 

14 v Oregon non-treaty commercial white sturgeon fisheries was estimated annually to be 14 fish and zero in 

15 treaty Indian fisheries (NMFS 2008). Between 2008 and 2013, salmon fisheries largely replaced white 

16 sturgeon seasons, further limiting the possibility of green sturgeon incidental take. Effective 2014, 

17 policies adopted by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission and Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

18 Commission prohibited the retention of white sturgeon in all non-Indian fisheries downstream of 

19 Bonneville Dam (JSR 2016), thereby reducing the likelihood of green sturgeon incidental take to near 

20 zero. Therefore there is no discernable effect on green sturgeon from any of the alternatives. 

21 In 2008 the USFWS determined encounters with bull trout (salvelinus confluentus) were expected to be 

22 extremely limited in fisheries subject to a US v Oregon agreement (USFWS 2008). USFWS determined 

23 bull trout may only rarely or intermittently be present in mainstem locations. In general, bull trout are too 

24 small to be taken in gear types known to be used by treaty and non-treaty commercial fisheries. 

25 Recreational fisheries in the mainstem Columbia and Snake Rivers are not allowed to keep bull trout and 

26 all bull trout incidentally hooked in recreational fisheries must be released immediately. Therefore there is 

27 no discernable effect on bull trout from any of the alternatives.

28 Neither harvest policy nor salmon harvest strategies used in prospective US v Oregon fisheries are 

29 expected to incidentally take ESA-listed Pacific Eulachon (thaleichthys pacificus, Threatened, 79 Fed. 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

139

1 Reg. 20802). Therefore there is no discernable effect on Pacific Eulachon from any of the alternatives.

2 Under implementation of the Mitchell Act EIS Preferred Alternative, levels of hatchery produced salmon 

3 and steelhead smolts do not change substantially. This would not change the impacts to bull trout as either 

4 a prey base (hatchery juveniles) or through potential competition (returning hatchery adults). Nor would 

5 the impacts to eulachon, through predation from hatchery salmon and steelhead change. 

6 4.2.3. Other Non-Salmonids (non ESA-listed Fish Species)

7 Harvest policies are not set in the US v Oregon agreement for fisheries directed at the following species:

8 ● White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus)

9 ● American Shad (Alosa sapidissima)

10 ● Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus)

11 ● Walleye (Sander vitreus)

12 The US v Oregon agreement does not specify conservation specific needs for any of these fish. Instead, 

13 these species are mentioned in the agreement as very small levels of salmon or steelhead bycatch might 

14 occur during fisheries targeting these species. The parties to the US v Oregon management agreement 

15 track any salmon or steelhead bycatch, regardless of the low level, to ensure they remain static and 

16 accounted for in allocation and fishery management calculations. The level of effort for these fisheries 

17 have remained relatively unchanged and we expect this level of effect to continue. Therefore we expect 

18 no discernable effect on these species under any of the alternatives relative to baseline, but they are 

19 included in this DEIS as a new US v Oregon management agreement references fisheries targeting these 

20 species so that bycatch of salmonid resources are accounted for. We account for impacts to from 

21 salmonid bycatch in the salmonid resource Subsections.

22 Implementation of the Mitchell Act EIS Prefered Alternative would not substantially alter the total 

23 production of salmon and steelhead throughout the Columbia River Basin. As such, we would not expect 

24 a discernible difference in effects to other species of fish, from the hatchery programs included in a new 

25 US v Oregon management agreement.

26 4.3. Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients

27 In reviewing the differences in production levels between the agreement-referenced programs and those 

28 analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS, NMFS considered the increases in production, for some programs, and 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

140

1 the decreases in production, for some programs, represented by the programs in a new US v Oregon

2 agreement, relative to the programs, as analyzed, in the Mitchell Act EIS. The small scale of these 

3 changes, in numbers of fish, and the relationship of that change to the total production at the facilities 

4 used makes it difficult to estimate the likely change in facility effects (as described in Subsection 3.3) to 

5 water quality from these production differences. Additionally, considering that the facilities operating in 

6 the Columbia River basin, including the facilities associated with the production in a new US v Oregon

7 agreement, operate under existing federal Clean Water Act (CWA), National Pollution Discharge 

8 Elimination System (NPDES) permits (when required), NMFS concludes that the differences in the 

9 hatchery program releases, included in the US v Oregon Agreement, relative to the programs analyzed in 

10 the Mitchell Act EIS, are not likely to have substantively different effects to the water quality where they 

11 operate.

12 As discussed in Subsection 3.3, anadromous species such as salmon and steelhead are important 

13 components of the freshwater ecosystem, particularly for their role in transporting nutrients upstream 

14 from the marine ecosystem. There is no difference in hatchery production under any of the alternatives. 

15 Therefore, the level of marine derived nutrients deposited from hatchery production is constant and stable 

16 across every alternative.

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

18 comparison to Alternative 5 because fish carcasses will be removed through harvest. Harvest would 

19 reduce nutrients to aquatic organisms, including listed salmon and steelhead, and limit stream engineering 

20 from spawning adult salmon. Table 4-65 shows the total harvest and indicates the level of reduced fish 

21 carcasses that would be distributed in the ecosystem. Alternative 5 would lead to an immediate positive 

22 effect and improvement over time relative to the other alternatives as there would be more marine derived 

23 nutrients deposited throughout the Columbia River Basin.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

141

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

2 maximum, and average run size abundances expected over the next 10 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

3

4 Figure 4-6. Total Treaty and Non-Treaty harvests of all salmon and steelhead species by average run size

5 abundances expected over the next 10 years.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

142

1 Alternative 3 results in the highest average escapement past fisheries, as it results in the lowest harvest 

2 total (Table 4-65), but relative to Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, it is a low difference (6 percent), and 

3 since the majority of fish harvested are hatchery fish, and hatchery fish normally return to traps and 

4 hatcheries, the reduction in available carcasses would not equal the number of fish harvested. Alternative 

5 4 and Alternative 6 result in the lowest number of carcasses distributed compared to the other alternatives, 

6 as both result in the highest average harvest total (Table 4-65). Alternative 5 would have the maximum 

7 stream bed modification effect due to it resulting in the largest number of escaping adults, while the other 

8 alternative would show negligible differences between each other given the slight differences in 

9 escapement.

10 4.4. Wildlife

11 As discussed in Subsection 3.4 fisheries have the potential to affect wildlife through interactions between 

12 wildlife and fishing gear and through changes in the availability of fish as prey. Wildlife that are most 

13 likely to be affected by fishing activities are seabirds and marine mammals. Analyses conducted for 

14 wildlife were based on the use of literature representing the best available science and other studies. 

15 4.4.1. Seabirds, Raptors, and Other Piscivorous Birds

16 Seabirds prey on juvenile salmon as they migrate down the Columbia River, primarily in the estuary 

17 (downstream of Bonneville Dam), and in the tailraces of some dams. Seabirds that prey on juvenile 

18 salmon include Caspian terns, Double-crested cormorants, and several species of gulls. Guillemots, 

19 murres, and puffins also prey on juvenile salmon, primarily in the ocean. However, they are considered 

20 to be a minor source of predation. Seabirds do not prey on adult salmon at any time during upstream 

21 migration.

22 None of the harvest alternatives examined in this DEIS are expected to directly affect seabirds by 

23 reducing their prey base, which do not include adult salmon. It is possible the harvest alternatives 

24 (Alternatives 1 through 6) could indirectly affect seabirds by reducing a potential food supply (by 

25 reducing the potential spawning population size). Seabirds are known to feed on juvenile salmon in the 

26 Columbia River estuary. However, the majority of the juvenile salmon eaten by seabirds originate from 

27 hatcheries downstream of Bonneville Dam. Since the alternatives do not affect the hatchery program 

28 release sizes, their production of juvenile salmon is not expected to be reduced. As such, this food source 

29 for seabirds would be maintained. However, the capacity limit of the current spawning habitat does not 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

143

1 allow for increased juvenile production at higher escapement numbers. Therefore, an increase in 

2 escapement of adult fish to terminal spawning areas does not translate into an increase in juvenile 

3 salmonids. All alternatives would have a similar positive effect when salmonid abundance is sufficient to 

4 meet escapement goals, which is to produce 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 baseline 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 Implementation of the Mitchell Act EIS Preferred Alternative, would not be expected to change the 

19 current availability of juvenile salmonid prey base for seabirds and the resulting adult returns would be 

20 well within annual variability of total salmon and steelhead returns, so would not have a discernable 

21 effect on the availability of adult salmon and steelhead prey.

22 4.4.2. Marine Mammals

23 Subsection 3.4.2 indicates fisheries occur in areas known to be inhabited by seals and sea lions and these 

24 mammals prey on adult salmonids that are also target of the fisheries. Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 

25 would have no impact change relative to baseline levels of adults available as prey for marine mammals 

26 while Alternative 3 would have a slightly positive impact as its average harvest is lower than that of 

27 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Alternative 4 and Alternative 6, with the largest harvest, would have the 

28 most noticeable negative effect on these marine mammals, as they remove the largest number of adults 

29 available as prey. Alternative 5 would offer the most adult salmonids as prey since they would not be 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

144

1 harvested resulting in a positive impact.

2 Alternatives examined in this analysis represent options for controlling harvest inside the Columbia 

3 River. Any anadromous fish taken or not taken through fisheries inside the Columbia River would not be 

4 available to Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW) given they would have already passed through 

5 their respective ocean habitat. However, the capacity limit of the current spawning habitat does not allow 

6 for increased juvenile production at higher escapement numbers. Therefore, an increase in escapement of 

7 adult fish to terminal spawning areas does not translate into an increase in juvenile salmonids that would 

8 eventually serve as adult prey for the SRKW. There is no discernable difference between the alternatives 

9 on the effect to SRKW.

10 Implementation of the Mitchell Act EIS Preferred Alternative would likely increase the number of adult 

11 Columbia River Basin Chinook salmon in the ocean. This increase, however, would likely be within the 

12 range of annual natural variability and would be difficult to distinguish from other sources of variability. 

13 Therefore, the implementation of the Mitchell Act Preferred Alternative would not be expected to add a 

14 substantial benefit for the population abundance of the SRKW.

15 4.5. Economics

16 This economic analysis evaluates harvest-related effects from implementing harvest policy alternatives in 

17 the project area, relative to existing conditions as described in Subsection 3.5, Economics. This analysis 

18 focuses on analyzing effects related to commercial and recreational fishing activity directed on the five 

19 harvest indicator stocks identified in Subsection 3.5: Upriver Spring Chinook salmon, Upriver Summer 

20 Chinook salmon, Upriver Fall Chinook salmon, Upper Columbia River Sockeye salmon, and Snake River

21 Basin steelhead. The analysis identifies the effects of the harvest policy alternatives on the number of fish 

22 harvested in affected commercial fisheries in the Columbia River mainstem, catch and effort associated 

23 with affected recreational fisheries in the Columbia River mainstem, and changes in different metrics of 

24 economic value, including the ex-vessel value of commercial landings and estimates of trip-related 

25 expenditures by recreational anglers. 

26 Potential changes in the direct and indirect contribution of the harvest policy alternatives to employment 

27 and personal income in the four economic impact subregions of the Columbia River basin are estimated. 

28 The numbers of jobs estimated in this analysis below are expressed as full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs. 

29 However, most jobs in the commercial fishing industry are part-time positions due to the seasonality of 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

145

1 commercial salmon fishing in Puget Sound. Many persons engaged in commercial salmon fishing also 

2 participate in other fisheries and/or have other occupations. This situation should be considered in 

3 interpreting the employment effects presented for estimated job changes associated with commercial 

4 fisheries (and to a lesser extent, jobs associated with businesses that support recreational fishing activity). 

5 In summary, considering all potential economic effects from the harvest policy alternatives for the US v 

6 Oregon Project Area, under existing conditions (Subsection 3.5, Economics), the value to tribal and non7 tribal commercial fishers and to non-tribal recreational fishers, and the employment and personal income 

8 contribution to the regional and local economy overall, has a moderate positive effect in the economic 

9 analysis area. This is because of the contribution to income and jobs that are primarily associated with 

10 tribal commercial and non-tribal recreational fisheries. The harvest policy alternatives also affect salmon 

11 and steelhead for ceremonial and subsistence fishing, as discussed in Subsection 4.6, Cultural 

12 Resources—C&S Harvest.

13 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

14 It should be noted that the information presented in this section is organized first by harvest policy 

15 alternative and then generally follows the organization in Subsection 3.5, Economics (commercial 

16 fisheries, recreational fisheries, and contributions to regional economic activity). As indicated in 

17 Subsection 3.5, Economics, values in the following subsections are not rounded to aid the reader in 

18 finding corresponding numbers between tables and text. The use of unrounded numbers, however, should 

19 not be interpreted as suggestive of unusually high levels of precision in the estimates. All numbers 

20 presented represent a reasonable estimate of the underlying values. Information on methods and analyses 

21 used in this analysis is presented in Appendix A, Economic Methods.

22 4.5.1. Alternative 1 – Extension of Current Agreement 

23 Under Alternative 1, the harvest policy would support the same level of harvest as under the status quo 

24 condition, the same number of salmon and steelhead would be harvested in commercial and recreational 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

146

1 fisheries as described in Subsection 3.5, Economics.

2 4.5.1.1. Commercial Fisheries

3 Upriver Spring Chinook Salmon

4 Under Alternative 1, the commercial harvest of Upriver Spring Chinook salmon (11,606 fish) would be 

5 the same as under the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 65 percent (7,528 

6 fish) of the harvest and non-tribal fisheries about 35 percent (4,078 fish) of the harvest. Ex-vessel values 

7 associated with the total harvest of Upriver Spring Chinook salmon ($848,193) also would be the same as 

8 under status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 65 percent ($493,029) of total ex9 vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for about 42 percent ($355,164) of the value. Details of ex-vessel 

10 value and harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix 

11 A, Table A-7.

12 Upriver Summer Chinook Salmon

13 Under Alternative 1, the commercial harvest of Upriver Summer Chinook salmon (24,791 fish) would be 

14 the same as under the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 71 percent (17,569 

15 fish) and non-tribal fisheries about 29 percent (7,222 fish) of the harvest. Ex-vessel values associated with 

16 the total harvest of Upriver Summer Chinook salmon ($854,787) also would be the same as under status 

17 quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 66 percent ($565,958) of total ex-vessel value 

18 and non-tribal fisheries for about 34 percent ($288,829) of the value. Details of ex-vessel value and 

19 harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table 

20 A-8.

21 Upriver Fall Chinook Salmon

22 Under Alternative 1, the commercial harvest of Upriver Fall Chinook salmon (232,173 fish) would be the 

23 same as under the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 81 percent (187,303 

24 fish) of the harvest and non-tribal fisheries about 19 percent (44,870 fish) of the harvest. Ex-vessel values 

25 associated with the total harvest of Upriver Fall Chinook salmon ($8,373,007) also would be the same as 

26 under status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 77 percent ($6,457,182) of total ex27 vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for about 23 percent ($1,915,825) of the value. Details of ex-vessel 

28 value and harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

147

1 A, Table A-9.

2 UCR Sockeye Salmon

3 Under Alternative 1, the commercial harvest of UCR sockeye salmon (16,952 fish) would be the same as 

4 under the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 97 percent (16,440 fish) of the 

5 harvest and non-tribal fisheries about 3 percent (512 fish) of the harvest. Ex-vessel values associated with 

6 the total harvest of UCR sockeye ($110,569) also would be the same as under status quo conditions, with 

7 tribal fisheries accounting for about 97 percent ($106,825) of total ex-vessel value and non-tribal fisheries 

8 for about 3 percent ($3,744) of the value. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by sub9 region, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-10.

10 B-run Snake River Steelhead

11 Under Alternative 1, the commercial harvest of B-run Snake River steelhead (9,180 fish) would be the 

12 same as under the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 97 percent (8,945 fish) 

13 of the harvest and non-tribal fisheries about 3 percent (235 fish) of the harvest. Ex-vessel values 

14 associated with the total harvest of B-run Snake River steelhead ($126,353) also would be the same as 

15 under status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 97 percent ($493,029) of total ex16 vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for about 3 percent ($3,554) of the value. Details of ex-vessel value 

17 and harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, 

18 Table A-11.

19 Summary

20 Under Alternative 1, the total commercial harvest across all harvest indicator units would be the same as 

21 under the status quo conditions (294,701 fish), including the harvest of 237,785 fish in tribal fisheries and 

22 56,916 fish in non-tribal fisheries. The total ex-vessel value of the commercial harvest would be 

23 $10,312,910, including $7,745,794 in tribal fisheries and $2,567,116 in non-tribal fisheries.

24 4.5.1.2. Recreational Fisheries 

25 Under Alternative 1, recreational catch and effort targeting the five harvest indicator stocks (71,366 fish 

26 and 342,318 angler trips) would be the same as under the status quo condition. Trip-related expenditures 

27 associated with the total recreational effort targeting the five harvest indicator stocks ($45,465,572) also 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

148

1 would be the same as under status quo conditions. The Lower Columbia River subregion accounts for 

2 about 72 percent of the recreational catch, about 70 percent of angler effort, and about 79 percent of trip3 related expenditures. Details of recreational catch, estimated angler trips and trip-related angler 

4 expenditures by sub-region and alternative are provided in Appendix A, Table A-12.

5 4.5.1.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity

6 Under Alternative 1, the contribution of commercial and recreational fisheries to regional economic 

7 activity would be identical to status quo conditions. Table A-13 in Appendix A presents the personal 

8 income and jobs by alternatives and sub-region for commercial and recreational fisheries. 

9 Commercial Fisheries: Harvest and primary processing of salmon caught in tribal and non-tribal 

10 commercial fisheries is estimated to generate $16.2 million in personal income and 419 Full-time 

11 Equivalent (FTE) jobs. More than two-thirds of this activity would occur in the Mid-Columbia River

12 subregion.

13 Recreational Fisheries: Recreational fishing activities targeting salmon and steelhead generate an 

14 estimated $27.9 million in personal income and 672 jobs in the Columbia River region. More than two15 thirds of the jobs and income would occur in the Lower Columbia River subregion, with most of the 

16 remainder in the Mid-Columbia River subregion.

17 4.5.2. Alternative 2—Abundance-based Management Alternative

18 Under Alternative 2, the same level of commercial harvest and recreational catch and effort as under the 

19 status quo condition and Alternative 1. 

20 4.5.2.1. Commercial Fisheries

21 Upriver Spring Chinook Salmon

22 Under Alternative 2, the commercial harvest of Upriver Spring Chinook salmon (11,606 fish) would be 

23 the same as under the status quo condition and Alternative 1, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 65 

24 percent (7,528 fish) of the harvest and non-tribal fisheries about 35 percent (4,078 fish) of the harvest . 

25 Ex-vessel values associated with the total harvest of Upriver Spring Chinook salmon ($848,193) also 

26 would be the same as under status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 65 percent 

27 ($493,029) of total ex-vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for about 42 percent ($355,164) of the value. 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

149

1 Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of fishery are 

2 provided in Appendix A, Table A-7.

3 Upriver Summer Chinook Salmon

4 Under Alternative 2, the commercial harvest of Upriver Summer Chinook salmon (24,791 fish) would be 

5 the same as under the status quo condition and Alternative 1, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 71 

6 percent (17,569 fish) of the harvest and non-tribal fisheries about 29 percent (7,222 fish) of the harvest. 

7 Ex-vessel values associated with the total harvest of Upriver Summer Chinook salmon ($854,787) also 

8 would be the same as under status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 66 percent 

9 ($565,958) of total ex-vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for about 34 percent ($288,829) of the value. 

10 Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of fishery are 

11 provided in Appendix A, Table A-8. 

12 Upriver Fall Chinook Salmon

13 Under Alternative 2, the commercial harvest of Upriver Fall Chinook salmon (232,173 fish) would be the 

14 same as under the status quo condition and Alternative 1, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 81 

15 percent (187,303 fish) of the harvest and non-tribal fisheries about 19 percent (44,870 fish) of the harvest. 

16 Ex-vessel values associated with the total harvest of Upriver Fall Chinook salmon ($8,373,007) also 

17 would be the same as under status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 77 percent 

18 ($6,457,182) of total ex-vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for about 23 percent ($1,915,825) of the 

19 value. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of fishery 

20 are provided in Appendix A, Table A-9.

21 UCR Sockeye Salmon

22 Under Alternative 2, the commercial harvest of UCR sockeye salmon (23,683 fish) would increase by 

23 6,631 fish relative to the status quo condition and Alternative 1, with tribal fisheries accounting for more 

24 than 98 percent (6,631 fish) of the harvest increase and non-tribal fisheries about 2 percent (99 fish) of the 

25 increase. Ex-vessel values associated with the harvest of UCR sockeye salmon ($154,386) also would 

26 increase relative to status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 97 percent ($149,916) 

27 of total ex-vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for about 3 percent ($4,471) of the value. Details of ex28 vessel value and harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

150

1 Appendix A, Table A-10.

2 B-run Snake River Steelhead

3 Under Alternative 2, the commercial harvest of B-run Snake River steelhead (9,180 fish) would be the 

4 same as under the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 97 percent (8,945 fish) 

5 of the harvest and non-tribal fisheries about 3 percent (235 fish) of the total harvest. Ex-vessel values 

6 associated with the total harvest of Snake River steelhead ($126,353) also would be the same as under 

7 status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 97 percent ($122,799) of total ex-vessel

8 value and non-tribal fisheries for about 3 percent ($3,554) of the value. Details of ex-vessel value and 

9 harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table 

10 A-11.

11 Summary 

12 As compared to status quo conditions, the total commercial harvest across all harvest indicator units under 

13 Alternative 2 would be slightly higher (6,384 fish), with all of the harvest increase occurring in tribal 

14 fisheries. Sockeye salmon accounts for all of the increase, offset by a reduction of 245 fish of Upriver 

15 Spring Chinook salmon stocks. The overall ex-vessel value also would increase (by $31,869), with the 

16 value of the reduced harvest of Summer Chinook salmon stocks slightly offsetting the value of the 

17 increased tribal harvest of sockeye salmon.

18 4.5.2.2. Recreational Fisheries 

19 Under Alternative 2, recreational catch and effort targeting the five harvest indicator stocks (71,366 fish 

20 and 342,318 angler trips) would be the same as under the status quo condition. Trip-related expenditures 

21 associated with the total recreational effort targeting the five harvest indicator stocks ($45,465,572) also 

22 would be the same as under status quo conditions. The Lower Columbia River subregion accounts for 

23 about 72 percent of the recreational catch, about 70 percent of angler effort, and about 79 percent of trip24 related expenditures. Details of recreational catch, estimated angler trips and trip-related angler 

25 expenditures by sub-region and alternative are provided in Appendix A, Table A-12.

26 4.5.2.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity

27 Under Alternative 2, the contribution of commercial and recreational fisheries to regional economic 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

151

1 activity would be identical to status quo conditions. Table A-13 in Appendix A presents the personal 

2 income and jobs by alternatives and sub-region for commercial and recreational fisheries. 

3 Commercial Fisheries: Harvest and primary processing of salmon caught in tribal and non-tribal 

4 commercial fisheries is estimated to generate $16.2 million in personal income and 419 FTE jobs. More 

5 than two-thirds of this activity would occur in the Mid-Columbia River subregion.

6 Recreational Fisheries: Recreational fishing activities targeting salmon and steelhead generate an 

7 estimated $27.9 million in personal income and 672 jobs in the Columbia River region. More than two8 thirds of the jobs and income would occur in the Lower Columbia River subregion, with most of the 

9 remainder in the Mid-Columbia River subregion.

10 4.5.3. Alternative 3 – Fixed Harvest Rate

11 Under Alternative 3, the total commercial harvest would decline by 13,864 salmon and steelhead relative

12 to the status quo condition. The only harvest indicator stock in which there would be an increase in fish 

13 harvested relative to status quo conditions would be UCR sockeye salmon.

14 4.5.3.1. Commercial Fisheries

15 Upriver Spring Chinook Salmon

16 Under Alternative 3, the commercial harvest of Upriver Spring Chinook salmon (10,677 fish) would 

17 decrease relative to status quo condition, with a decrease of 755 fish in the tribal harvest and a decrease of 

18 174 fish of the non-tribal harvest. Ex-vessel values of Upriver Spring Chinook salmon also would 

19 decrease relative to status quo condition, with a decrease of $49,478 in the tribal harvest of Upriver 

20 Spring Chinook salmon and a decrease of $15,146 in the non-tribal harvest value. Details of ex-vessel 

21 value and harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix 

22 A, Table A-7. 

23 Upriver Summer Chinook Salmon

24 Under Alternative 3, the commercial harvest of Upriver Summer Chinook salmon (19,846 fish) would 

25 decline relative to status quo condition, with a decrease of about 3,504 fish in the tribal harvest of Upriver 

26 Summer Chinook salmon and a decrease of 1,441 fish) in the non-tribal harvest. Ex-vessel values of 

27 Upriver Summer Chinook salmon also would decrease relative to status quo condition, with a decrease of 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

152

1 $112,878 in the tribal harvest of Upriver Summer Chinook salmon and a decrease of $57,618 in the non2 tribal harvest value. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and 

3 type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-8.

4 Upriver Fall Chinook Salmon

5 Under Alternative 3, the commercial harvest of Upriver Fall Chinook salmon (224,731 fish) would 

6 decline relative to status quo condition, with a decrease of 3,100 fish in the tribal harvest of Upriver Fall 

7 Chinook salmon and a decrease of 4,342 fish in the non-tribal harvest. Ex-vessel values of upriver Fall 

8 Chinook salmon also would decrease relative to status quo condition, with a decrease of $106,855 in the 

9 tribal harvest of Upriver Fall Chinook salmon and a decrease of $185,412 in the non-tribal harvest value. 

10 Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of fishery are 

11 provided in Appendix A, Table A-9. 

12 UCR Sockeye Salmon

13 Under Alternative 3, the commercial harvest of UCR sockeye salmon (17,043 fish) would increase 

14 relative to status quo condition, with a small increase of 91 fish in the tribal harvest and no change in the 

15 non-tribal harvest. Ex-vessel values of UCR sockeye salmon also would slightly increase relative to status 

16 quo condition, with an increase of $592 in the tribal harvest of UCR sockeye salmon and no change in the 

17 ex-vessel value of the non-tribal harvest. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by sub18 region, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-10. 

19 B-run Snake River Steelhead

20 Under Alternative 3, the commercial harvest of B-run Snake River steelhead (8,541 fish) would decline 

21 relative to status quo condition, with a decrease of 639 fish in the tribal harvest of Snake River steelhead. 

22 Ex-vessel values of Snake River steelhead also would decrease relative to status quo condition, with a 

23 decrease of $8,769 in the tribal harvest value of Snake River steelhead. Details of ex-vessel value and 

24 harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table 

25 A-11.

26 Summary
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

153

1 As compared to status quo conditions, the total commercial harvest across all harvest indicator units under 

2 Alternative 3 would be lower (by 13,864 fish), with about 57 percent (7,907 fish) of the harvest decrease 

3 occurring in tribal fisheries and 43 percent (5,957 fish) occurring in non-tribal fisheries. Most of the 

4 overall decrease in harvest would occur in the Upriver Summer and Fall Chinook salmon fisheries. The 

5 overall ex-vessel value would decrease by $535,563.

6 4.5.3.2. Recreational Fisheries 

7 Under Alternative 3, recreational catch and effort targeting the five harvest indicator stocks (65,132 fish 

8 and 312,986 angler trips) would represent a decline (6,234 fish and 29,332) angler trips relative to the 

9 status quo condition. Total trip-related expenditures associated with the recreational effort targeting the 

10 five harvest indicator stocks ($441,119,593) would decrease by $4,345,979 relative to status quo 

11 conditions. The Lower Columbia River subregion would account for about a 72 percent of decrease in 

12 recreational catch, about 70 percent of decrease in angler effort, and about 75 percent of the decrease in 

13 total trip-related expenditures. Details of recreational catch, estimated angler trips and trip-related angler 

14 expenditures by sub-region and alternative are provided in Appendix A, Table A-12.

15 4.5.3.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity

16 Under Alternative 3, impacts are slightly more negative than under status quo conditions, Alternative 1 

17 and Alternative 2. Overall economic impacts under Alternative 3 are the second lowest among the five 

18 alternatives, being more positive than only Alternative 5. Table A-13 in Appendix A presents the personal 

19 income and jobs by alternatives and sub-region for commercial and recreational fisheries. 

20 Commercial Fisheries: Overall impacts from tribal and non-tribal commercial fisheries would be $841 

21 thousand income and 21 FTE jobs lower than under Existing Conditions and Alternative 1. The decrease 

22 in commercial fishing activity is split between the Lower Columbia (-$359,000 income and -8 jobs) and 

23 Mid-Columbia subregions (-$482,000 income and -13 jobs).

24 Recreational Fisheries: Under Alternative 3, impacts from recreational fishing would be $2.4 million 

25 income and 57 FTE jobs lower than under Existing conditions and Alternative 1. The reduction in 

26 recreational fishing impacts would mainly occur in the Lower Columbia (-$1.7 million income and -38 

27 jobs) and Mid-Columbia subregions (-$700,000 income and -19 jobs). A decrease of $16,000 income and 

28 1 FTE job is also projected for Lower Snake River subregion.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

154

1 4.5.4. Alternative 4 – Escapement-based Management

2 Under Alternative 4, the commercial harvest of salmon and steelhead would increase relative to the status 

3 quo condition. The only harvest indicator stock that would be harvested less than under status quo 

4 conditions would be Upriver Fall Chinook salmon.

5 4.5.4.1. Commercial Fisheries

6 Upriver Spring Chinook Salmon

7 Under Alternative 4, the commercial harvest of Upriver Spring Chinook salmon (20,968 fish) would be 

8 much greater than under the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 81 percent 

9 (7,400 fish) of the harvest, and non-tribal fisheries about 19 percent (1,962 fish) of the harvest. Ex-vessel 

10 values associated with the total harvest of Upriver Spring Chinook salmon ($1,503,704) also would 

11 increase relative to status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 65 percent ($977,652) 

12 of total ex-vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for about 35 percent ($526,052) of the value. Details of 

13 ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in 

14 Appendix A, Table A-7.

15 Upriver Summer Chinook Salmon

16 Under Alternative 4, the commercial harvest of Upriver Summer Chinook salmon (28,838 fish) would be 

17 much greater than under the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 71 percent 

18 (20,438 fish) of the harvest and non-tribal fisheries about 29 percent (8,401fish) of the harvest. Ex-vessel 

19 values associated with the total harvest of Upriver Summer Chinook salmon ($994,344) also would 

20 increase relative to status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 66 percent ($658,372) 

21 of total ex-vessel value and non-tribal fisheries for about 34 percent ($335,972) of the value. Details of 

22 ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in 

23 Appendix A, Table A-8.

24 Upriver Fall Chinook Salmon

25 Under Alternative 4, the commercial harvest of Upriver Fall Chinook salmon (219,756 fish) would be 

26 lower than under the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 67 percent (148,242 

27 fish) and non-tribal fisheries about 33 percent (71,514 fish) of the total harvest. The number of fish 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

155

1 harvested by non-tribal fishers represents an increase of 26,644 fish, whereas the number of fish caught 

2 by tribal fishers represents a decrease of 39,061 fish. Ex-vessel values associated with the total harvest of 

3 Upriver Fall Chinook salmon ($8,164,049) also would be lower than under status quo conditions, with the 

4 value of tribal fisheries decreasing by $1,346,609) of the ex-vessel value of non-tribal fisheries increasing 

5 by 1,137,651. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of 

6 fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-9.

7 UCR Sockeye Salmon

8 Under Alternative 4, the commercial harvest of UCR sockeye salmon (79,942 fish) would be much 

9 greater than under the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 65 percent (65,772 

10 fish) and non-tribal fisheries about 35 percent (14,170 fish) of the total harvest. Ex-vessel values 

11 associated with the total harvest of UCR sockeye ($530,993) also would be much higher than under status 

12 quo conditions, with tribal fisheries accounting for about 65 percent ($320,553) and non-tribal fisheries 

13 for about 42 percent ($99,871) of the total value of UCR sockeye salmon. Details of ex-vessel value and 

14 harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table 

15 A-10.

16 B-run Snake River Steelhead

17 Under Alternative 4, the commercial harvest of B-run Snake River steelhead (11,366 fish) would increase 

18 relative to the status quo condition, with tribal fisheries accounting for almost all (11,018 fish) of the fish 

19 caught. Ex-vessel values associated with the total harvest of Snake River steelhead ($156,521) would 

20 resent an increase of about 24 percent relative to status quo conditions, with tribal fisheries nearly all of 

21 the increase in ex-vessel value. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by sub-region, 

22 alternative, and type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-11.

23 Summary

24 As compared to status quo conditions, the total commercial harvest across all harvest indicator units under 

25 Alternative 4 would be substantially higher (by 66,169 fish), with 34 percent (22,612 fish) of the harvest 

26 increase occurring in tribal fisheries and 66 percent (43,557 fish) occurring in non-tribal fisheries. 

27 Sockeye salmon accounts most of the harvest increase, followed by harvest increases in Upriver Spring 

28 Chinook salmon and Summer Chinook salmon; decreases in the harvest of Upriver Fall Chinook salmon 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

156

1 would offset the increases in the harvest of other harvest indicator stocks. The total ex-vessel value of the 

2 commercial harvest would increase by $1,036,709.

3 4.5.4.2. Recreational Fisheries 

4 Under Alternative 4, recreational catch and effort targeting the five harvest indicator stocks (183,211 fish 

5 and 895,961 angler trips) would increase substantially (by 111,845 fish and 553,643 angler trips) relative 

6 to the status quo condition. Total trip-related expenditures associated with the recreational effort targeting 

7 the five harvest indicator stocks ($111,821,173) would increase by $6,635,600 relative to status quo 

8 conditions. The Lower Columbia River subregion would account for more than 90 percent of the increase 

9 in recreational catch, angler effort, and total trip-related expenditures. Details of recreational catch, 

10 estimated angler trips and trip-related angler expenditures by sub-region and alternative are provided in 

11 Appendix A, Table A-12.

12 4.5.4.3. Contribution to Regional Economic Activity

13 Under Alternative 4, overall economic impacts are the most positive among the five Alternatives. Table 

14 A-13 in Appendix A presents the personal income and jobs by alternatives and sub-region for commercial 

15 and recreational fisheries. 

16 Commercial Fisheries: Overall impacts from tribal and non-tribal commercial fisheries would be $1.6 

17 million income and 34 FTE jobs greater than under Existing Conditions and Alternative 1. Increases 

18 would occur in the Lower Columbia subregion (+$2.3 million income and +51 jobs) and Lower Snake 

19 River subregion (+$186 thousand income and +6 jobs), while the Mid-Columbia subregion would see a 

20 decrease of $622 thousand income and 17 jobs.

21 Recreational Fisheries: Under Alternative 4, overall impacts from recreational fishing would be $45.2 

22 million income and 1,042 FTE jobs greater than under Existing conditions and Alternative 1. More than 

23 90 percent of the increase in recreational fishing impacts would occur in the Lower Columbia subregion 

24 (+$41.9 million income and +954 jobs). Increases would also occur in the Mid-Columbia (+$3.1 million 

25 income and +82 jobs) and Lower Snake River subregions (+186 thousand and +6 jobs).

26 4.5.5. Alternative 5 - Fishing curtailment

27 Under Alternative 5, commercial and recreational fisheries targeting the harvest indicator stocks and other 

28 Columbia River stocks would be terminated. 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

157

1 4.5.5.1. Commercial Fisheries

2 Upriver Spring Chinook Salmon

3 Under Alternative 5, no commercial harvest of Upriver Spring Chinook salmon would occur, resulting in 

4 the elimination of 7,528 fish harvested in tribal fisheries and 4,078 fish in non-tribal fisheries. Ex-vessel 

5 values associated with the total harvest of Upriver Spring Chinook salmon also would be lost, with the 

6 value to tribal fisheries being reduced by $493,029 and the value to non-tribal fisheries being reduced by 

7 $355,164. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of 

8 fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-7.

9 Upriver Summer Chinook Salmon

10 Under Alternative 5, no commercial harvest of Upriver Summer Chinook salmon would occur, resulting 

11 in the elimination of 17,569 fish harvested in tribal fisheries and 44,870 fish in non-tribal fisheries. Ex12 vessel values associated with the total harvest of Upriver Summer Chinook salmon also would be lost, 

13 with the value to tribal fisheries being reduced by $565,928 and the value to non-tribal fisheries being 

14 reduced by $288,829. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, 

15 and type of fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-8.

16 Upriver Fall Chinook Salmon

17 Under Alternative 5, no commercial harvest of Upriver Fall Chinook salmon would occur, resulting in the 

18 elimination of 187,303 fish harvested in tribal fisheries and 4,078 fish in non-tribal fisheries. Ex-vessel 

19 values associated with the total harvest of Upriver Fall Chinook salmon would also be lost, with the value 

20 to tribal fisheries being reduced by $6,457,182 and the value to non-tribal fisheries being reduced by 

21 $1,915,825. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of 

22 fishery are provided in Appendix A, Table A-9.

23 UCR Sockeye Salmon

24 Under Alternative 5, no commercial harvest of UCR sockeye salmon would occur, resulting in the 

25 elimination of 16,440 fish harvested in tribal fisheries and 512 in non-tribal fisheries. Ex-vessel values 

26 associated with the total harvest of UCR sockeye salmon would be lost, with the value to tribal fisheries 

27 being reduced by $ $106,825 and the value to non-tribal fisheries being reduced by $3,744. Details of ex-
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

158

1 vessel value and harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of fishery are provided in 

2 Appendix A, Table A-10.

3 Snake River Steelhead

4 Under Alternative 5, no commercial harvest of Snake River steelhead would occur, resulting in the 

5 elimination of 8,945 fish harvested in tribal fisheries and 235 fish in non-tribal fisheries (Table 4.5.1.1-5). 

6 Ex-vessel values associated with the total harvest of Snake River steelhead also would be lost, with the 

7 value to tribal fisheries being reduced by $122,799 and the value to non-tribal fisheries being reduced by 

8 $3,554. Details of ex-vessel value and harvest number of fish by sub-region, alternative, and type of 

9 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 sub-region 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 sub-region 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 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

159

1 subregions where it occurs under status quo conditions would be expected under this alternative.

2 Recreational Fisheries: Under Alternative 5, overall impacts from recreational fishing would be $27.9 

3 million income and 672 FTE jobs lower than under Existing conditions and Alternative 1. Elimination of 

4 all recreational fishing activity targeting harvest indicator stocks in all subregions under status quo 

5 conditions would be expected. 

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

7 Under Alternative 6, overall impacts would be assumed to be those observed under Alternative 4 at the 

8 highest harvest level.

9 4.6. Cultural Resources—Ceremonial & Subsistence (C&S) Fisheries

10 As described in Subsection 3.6, C&S Harvest is based on need and is considered a priority in that it 

11 typically occurs before fish are taken for commercial purposes. An increase in the C&S needs at a 

12 particular time, or a decrease in runs that lead to a reduction in fish available for harvest, may further 

13 reduce the fish available for commercial tribal harvests.

14 Table 4-67 and Figure 4-7 present a summary of the estimated availability for C&S based on the harvest 

15 modeling results as explained in Subsection 4.1. The values in the table and chart that follows are used to 

16 compare the relative numerical and proportional differences among alternatives, and they should not be 

17 considered precise predictions of actual harvests in the future.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

160

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

2 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%

3 * This alternative may include some very limited treaty fishing opportunity to meet base ceremonial needs of the 

4 tribes. However, the amounts cannot be quantified and depend on the specific needs as discussed in Subection 3.6. 

5

6 Figure 4-7. Total C&S harvest of all salmon and steelhead species by minimum, maximum, and average 

7 run size abundances expected over the next 10 years.

8 * See footnote to Table 4-77 above regarding ceremonial harvest.

9 Under Alternative 1, Extension, Alternative 2, Abundance, and Alternative 3, Fixed Harvest, Native
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

161

1 American tribes in the project area would be able to continue their C&S harvest without substantial 

2 changes to tribal cultural viability. The differences between the minimum and maximum harvest for each 

3 alternative is based on the modelled run sizes as described in Subsection 4.1. In years with low runs, any 

4 deficit in C&S harvest needs will likely be taken from the commercial harvest as the C&S harvest is the 

5 priority. This decision is made by the tribes as needed.

6 Under Alternative 4, Fixed Escapement, and Alternative 6, Uncoordinated Harvest, the modelled C&S

7 harvest presents a wider range as compared to Alternative 1. The minimum C&S harvest, in years with 

8 low runs, may be as low as 6,704 fish, or 23 percent less than Alternative 1, while the maximum C&S 

9 harvest may be more than double (163 percent) that of Alternative 1 in years with high runs. C&S harvest 

10 levels under Alternative 4 or Alternative 6 may not be sufficient to meet C&S needs in years with low 

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

12 available commercial harvest. The effects of Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 on cultural resources would 

13 therefore be medium negative.

14 Under Alternative 5, Voluntary Fishery Curtailment, there would be some very limited treaty fishing 

15 opportunity to meet base ceremonial needs of the tribes. However, C&S harvest would be largely 

16 curtailed. While salmon and steelhead could be purchased or obtained from other sources, the 

17 fundamental role that salmon play in the lives of Indian tribes would be affected. This Alternative, 

18 therefore, results in a high negative effect on cultural resources. 

19 Implementation of the Mitchell Act EIS Preferred Alternative would not be expected to alter the amount 

20 of fish available for Columbia River tribal C&S harvest.

21 4.7. Environmental Justice

22 Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

23 and Low-Income Populations, states that “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental 

24 justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

25 adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 

26 populations and low-income populations.” Further, the environmental justice analysis also determine 

27 whether such populations or communities have been sufficiently involved in the decision-making process.

28 Environmental justice is not an impact category standing alone. First, it must be determined if impacts in 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

162

1 other impacts categories are adverse under any alternative, and, if so, whether such impacts may be felt 

2 disproportionately by environmental justice populations. Effects of the alternatives on fish, marine3 derived nutrients, and wildlife would not impact environmental justice populations. However, the effects 

4 of alternatives on both Economics and Cultural Resources may impact environmental justice populations. 

5 These populations are the Indian tribes and those living in the 28 counties and 2 communities described in 

6 Subsection 3.7. 

7 4.7.1. Cultural Resources - Ceremonial & Subsistence (C&S)

8 Alternative 1 (Extension), Alternative 2 (Abundance), and Alternative 3 (Fixed Harvest) do not have an 

9 adverse effect on cultural resources among Indian tribes (Section 4.6). However, Alternative 4 (Fixed 

10 Escapement), Alternative 5 (Fishing Curtailment), and Alternative 6 (Uncoordinated) result in a negative 

11 effect. Given the significance of salmon and steelhead to Indian tribes, and given that this significance is 

12 not paralleled among other populations that may be affected by the C&S harvest, these negative effects 

13 would be disproportionate. This disproportionate effect cannot be quantified as no metric can be 

14 attributed to the importance of this cultural resource to Indian tribes and because the importance of the 

15 C&S harvest among non-Indian tribes is essentially zero. 

16 Environmental Justice Determination: Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 would result in a disproportionate adverse 

17 Cultural Resources effect on Indian tribes as it pertains to C&S fisheries. 

18 4.7.2. Economics

19 Indian Tribes

20 Indian tribes are defined as an Environmental Justice population for this EIS in Section 3.5. The change in 

21 tribal and non-tribal commercial harvest by harvest indicator stock, presented in Subsection 4.5.1.2 to 

22 4.5.1.2, was analyzed to determine whether any of the alternatives would result in a disproportionate 

23 adverse effect on the tribes. Table 4-68 presents these findings based on the number of fish. The 

24 corresponding economic values for the commercial harvest are proportional to the number of fish and can 

25 be found in Subsections 4.5.1.2 to 4.5.1.2.

26 As shown in Table 4-68, Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 would result in a 198 percent increase in tribal 

27 commercial harvest for Upper Spring Chinook salmon compared to a corresponding non-tribal 

28 commercial increase of 48 percent. Similarly, Alternative 2 would result in a 40 percent increase in tribal 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

163

1 commercial harvest for UCR Sockeye salmon, compared to no increase for the non-tribal commercial 

2 harvest. Both examples are positive disproportionate effects on an Environmental Justice population.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

164

1 Table 4.7.2-1 Change in Tribal vs Non-Tribal Commercial Harvest by Harvest Indicator Stock and Alternative.

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

Upriver 

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

UCR 

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

Steelhead T 0 0 0 0 -639 -7 2,073 23 -8,945 -100

NT 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 48 -235 -100

2
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

165

1 Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 would result in a larger non-tribal commercial increase for both UCR 

2 Sockeye salmon and Snake River Steelhead when compared to the tribal increase. However, given that 

3 the fact that the corresponding tribal harvest numbers are significantly higher under existing conditions 

4 and under Alternative 1, the change in non-tribal harvest would not be a disproportionate adverse effect. 

5 For example, non-tribal commercial harvest for Snake River Steelhead would increase from 235 fish 

6 under existing conditions and Alternative 1 by 48 percent to 113 fish under Alternatives 4 or 6. The 

7 corresponding non-tribal harvest would increase by 23 percent from 8,945 fish to 11,018 fish. 

8 Tribal commercial harvest (and associated revenue) of Upriver Fall Chinook salmon would decrease by 

9 21 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 sub-region 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 sub-region in order 

23 to determine the harvest opportunities. Further dividing the sub-region forecast to each county would 

24 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. 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

166

1 4.7.3. Public Participation

2 CEQ’s EJ Guidance require that agencies develop appropriate public participation strategies and assure 

3 meaningful community representation in the process. In addition, “Agencies should seek tribal 

4 representation in the process in a manner that is consistent with the government-to-government 

5 relationship between the United States and tribal governments, the Federal government’s trust 

6 responsibility to federally-recognized tribes, and any treaty rights.” (CEQ, 1997).

7 Throughout the DEIS process, NMFS has attempted to ensure that the requirements of E.O. 12898 

8 regarding environmental justice are implemented, including the conduct of appropriate tribal consultation 

9 activities. As part of the public scoping process for this EIS, NMFS directly notified tribal entities on the 

10 Proposed Action. NMFS sent a letter to Columbia River, Puget Sound/Strait of Juan de Fuca, and 

11 Washington's coastal tribes asking them to participate in an EIS scoping meeting. Additionally, on May 

12 31, 2016 NMFS sent a joint letter, with USFWS, to invite the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to 

13 participate as a cooperating agency on the EIS. As a result the BIA, as a party to US v Oregon as 

14 described in Subsection 1.1, is a cooperating agency for this EIS. NMFS also solicited advice and 

15 information from US v Oregon parties by incorporating the help of current US v Oregon TAC chair, 

16 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission employee Stuart Ellis, in developing the model outputs 

17 used in this EIS.

18 Notices were published in the Federal Register and picked up by regional electronic newsletters. Emails 

19 were also sent to individuals who NMFS was previously aware that are interested in salmon fishery issues 

20 (e.g., non-tribal commercial, recreational, or tribal fishers). All groups notified during scoping are 

21 included on the EIS distribution list and received direct information about commenting on the draft EIS. 

22 In this way, a diverse population, located over a broad geographic area, was identified and reached during 

23 the scoping process, was also notified during the review period for the draft EIS, and will be notified 

24 when the final EIS is published.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

167

1

2 5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

3 5.1. Introduction

4 Against these baseline conditions, Section 4, Environmental Consequences, presents the incremental 

5 impacts of harvest policy alternatives for a proposed new US v Oregon agreement. The direct and indirect 

6 effects of each alternative on each resource’s baseline conditions are presented in Section 3, Affected 

7 Environment, incorporating the past effects of harvest, hatcheries, hydropower, and habitat.

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 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

168

1 environments. It is important to keep in mind that the Columbia River harvests take place near the end of 

2 each salmonid species’ life cycle. Some of the fish foregone in one fishery will be lost to other fisheries 

3 or dam mortality, while the remainder will contribute to escapement.

4

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

6 The cumulative impacts analysis area is the same as the project and analysis areas described in Subsection 

7 1.3. The temporal scope of the cumulative effects analysis is 10 years, coinciding with the duration of the 

8 proposed US v. Oregon management agreement. 

9 The existing baseline conditions, as described in the resource subsections in Section 3, include influences 

10 from historical and current conditions. Human uses and development have had substantial influences on 

11 the area. Human presence in the project area dates back more than 10,000 years when the Columbia River
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

169

1 was the dominant contributor of food, water, and transportation for humans. Presently, the primary 

2 influencing factors on the Columbia and Snake Rivers are the dams that provide electrical power, flood 

3 control, and navigational opportunities, as well as supporting agricultural needs, while simultaneously 

4 resulting in long-term environmental impacts on aquatic life. Associated development and human uses 

5 have also impacted the Columbia River ecosystem. These factors include port improvements, dredging, 

6 fishing, urban pollution, and channelization. Despite these extensive uses, however, the basin is 

7 considered a diverse, highly productive ecosystem that will continue to provide both important biological 

8 functions and economic services. Human uses and associated development, as stressors to the existing 

9 ecosystem, are expected to continue under future actions as described below.

10 5.2. Future Foreseeable Actions

11 Future effects of climate change are discussed, as are the effects of development and proposed or ongoing 

12 projects, and habitat restoration and protection of salmon and steelhead efforts. Each of the above topics 

13 is described in terms of effects on the project area and proposed alternatives.

14 5.2.1. Climate Change

15 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 16 , mandated by Congress 

17 in the Global Change Research Act of 1990, reports average warming of about 1.3oF from 1895 to 2011 

18 and projects an increase in average annual temperature of 3.3oF to 9.7oF by 2070 to 2099 (CCSP, 2014). 

19 Climate change has negative implications for designated critical habitats in the Pacific Northwest 

20 (Climate Impacts Group 2004; Scheuerell and Williams 2005; Zabel et al. 2006; ISAB 2007). According 

to the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB)5 21 , these effects pose the following impacts into the 

22 future:

23 ● Warmer air temperatures will result in diminished snowpack and a shift to more winter/spring 

24 rain and runoff, rather than snow that is stored until the spring/summer melt season.

25 ● With a smaller snowpack, these watersheds will see their runoff diminished earlier in the season, 

 4 http://www.globalchange.gov

5 The Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) serves the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA 

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 DEIS June 2017

170

1 resulting in lower stream-flows in the June through September period. River flows in general and 

2 peak river flows are likely to increase during the winter due to more precipitation falling as rain 

3 rather than snow.

4 ● Water temperatures are expected to rise, especially during the summer months when lower 

5 stream-flows co-occur with warmer air temperatures.

6 These changes will not be spatially homogeneous across the entire Pacific Northwest. Low-lying areas 

7 are likely to be more affected. Climate change may have long-term effects that include, but are not 

8 limited to, depletion of important cold water habitat, variation in quality and quantity of tributary rearing 

9 habitat, alterations to migration patterns, accelerated embryo development, premature emergence of fry, 

10 and increased competition among species (ISAB 2007). This is likely to occur to some degree over the 

11 next ten years, but at a similar rate as the last ten years.

12 Climate Change and Pacific Northwest Salmon

13 Climate change is predicted to cause a variety of impacts to Pacific salmon and their ecosystems (Mote et 

14 al. (2003); Crozier et al. (2008a); Martins et al. (2012); Wainwright and Weitkamp (2013)). The complex 

15 life cycles of anadromous fishes including salmon rely on productive freshwater, estuarine, and marine 

16 habitats for growth and survival, making them particularly vulnerable to environmental variation 

17 (Morrison et al. 2016). Ultimately, the effect of climate change on salmon and steelhead across the Pacific 

18 Northwest will be determined by the specific nature, level, and rate of change and the synergy between 

19 interconnected terrestrial/freshwater, estuarine, nearshore and ocean environments.

20 The primary effects of climate change on Pacific Northwest salmon and steelhead are:

21 ● direct effects of increased water temperatures of fish physiology

22 ● temperature-induced changes to stream flow patterns

23 ● alterations to freshwater, estuarine, and marine food webs

24 ● changes in estuarine and ocean productivity

25 While all habitats used by Pacific salmon will be affected, the impacts and certainty of the change vary by 

26 habitat type. Some effects (e.g., increasing temperature) affect salmon at all life stages in all habitats, 

27 while others are habitat specific, such as stream flow variation in freshwater, sea level rise in estuaries, 

28 and upwelling in the ocean. How climate change will affect each stock or population of salmon also 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

171

1 varies widely depending on the level or extent of change and the rate of change and the unique life history 

2 characteristics of different natural populations (Crozier et al. 2008b). For example, a few weeks 

3 difference in migration timing can have large differences in the thermal regime experienced by migrating 

4 fish (Martins et al. 2011). This occurred in 2015 on Upriver Sockeye in the Columbia River when over 

5 475,000 sockeye entered the River but only two percent of sockeye counted at Bonneville Dam survived 

6 to their spawning grounds. Most died in the Columbia River beginning in June when the water warmed to 

7 above 68 degrees, the temperature at which salmon begin to die. It got up to 73 degrees in July due to 

8 elevated temperatures associated with lower snow pack from the previous winter and drought conditions 

9 exacerbate due to increased occurrences of warm weather patterns.

10 These impacts are likely to occur to some degree over the next ten years, but at a similar rate as the last 

11 ten years.

12 Temperature Effects

13 Like most fishes, salmon are poikilotherms (cold-blooded animals), therefore increasing temperatures in 

14 all habitats can have pronounced effects on their physiology, growth, and development rates (see review 

15 by Whitney et al. (2016)). Increases in water temperatures beyond their thermal optima will likely be 

16 detrimental through a variety of processes including: increased metabolic rates (and therefore food 

17 demand), decreased disease resistance, increased physiological stress, and reduced reproductive success. 

18 All of these processes are likely to reduce survival (Beechie et al. 2013; Wainwright and Weitkamp 2013; 

19 Whitney et al. 2016). As examples of this, high mortality rates for adult sockeye salmon in the Columbia 

20 River have recently been attributed to higher water temperatures and likewise in the Fraser River, as 

21 increasing temperatures during adult upstream migration are expected to result in increased mortality of 

22 sockeye salmon adults by 9 to 16 percent by century’s end (Martins et al. 2011). Juvenile parr-to-smolt 

23 survival of Snake River Chinook salmon are predicted to decrease by 31 to 47 percent due to increased 

24 summer temperatures (Crozier et al. 2008b).

25 By contrast, increased temperatures at ranges well below thermal optima (i.e., when the water is cold) can 

26 increase growth and development rates. Examples of this include accelerated emergence timing during 

27 egg incubation stages, or increased growth rates during fry stages (Crozier et al. 2008a; Martins et al. 

28 2012). Temperature is also an important behavioral cue for migration (Sykes et al. 2009), and elevated 

29 temperatures may result in earlier-than-normal migration timing. While there are situations or stocks 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

172

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
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

173

1 In estuarine environments, the two big concerns associated with climate change are rates of sea level rise 

2 and temperature warming (Wainwright and Weitkamp 2013; Limburg et al. 2016). Estuaries will be 

3 affected directly by sea-level rise: as sea level rises, terrestrial habitats will be flooded and tidal wetlands 

4 will be submerged (Kirwan et al. 2010; Wainwright and Weitkamp 2013; Limburg et al. 2016). The net 

5 effect on wetland habitats depends on whether rates of sea-level rise are sufficiently slow that the rates of 

6 marsh plant growth and sedimentation can compensate (Kirwan et al. 2010). 

7 Due to subsidence, sea level rise will affect some areas more than others, with the largest effects expected 

8 for the lowlands, like southern Vancouver Island and central Washington coastal areas (Verdonck 2006; 

9 Lemmen et al. 2016). The widespread presence of dikes in Pacific Northwest estuaries will restrict 

10 upward estuary expansion as sea levels rise, likely resulting in a near-term loss of wetland habitats for 

11 salmon (Wainwright and Weitkamp 2013). Sea level rise will also result in greater intrusion of marine 

12 water into estuaries, resulting in an overall increase in salinity, which will also contribute to changes in 

13 estuarine floral and faunal communities (Kennedy 1990). While not all anadromous fish species are 

14 generally highly reliant on estuaries for rearing, extended estuarine use may be important in some 

15 populations (Jones et al. 2014), especially if stream habitats are degraded and become less productive.

16 These impacts are likely to occur to some degree over the next ten years, but at a similar rate as the last 

17 ten years.

18 Marine Impacts

19 In marine waters, increasing temperatures are associated with observed and predicted poleward range 

20 expansions of fish and invertebrates in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans (Lucey and Nye 2010; Asch 

21 2015; Cheung et al. 2015). Rapid poleward species shifts in distribution in response to anomalously warm 

22 ocean temperatures have been well documented in recent years, confirming this expectation at short time 

23 scales. Range extensions were documented in many species from southern California to Alaska during 

24 unusually warm water associated with “The Blob” in 2014 and 2015 (Bond et al. 2015; Di Lorenzo and 

25 Mantua 2016), and past strong El Niño events (Pearcy 2002; Fisher et al. 2015).

26 Exotic species benefit from these extreme conditions to increase their distributions. Green crab (Carcinus 

27 maenas) recruitment increased in Washington and Oregon waters during winters with warm surface 

28 waters, including 2014 (Yamada et al. 2015). Similarly, Humboldt squid (Dosidicus gigas) dramatically 

29 expanded their range during warm years of 2004-2009 (Litz et al. 2011). The frequency of extreme 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

174

1 conditions, such as those associated with El Niño events or “blobs” are predicted to increase in the future 

2 (Di Lorenzo and Mantua 2016). This is likely to occur to some degree over the next ten years, but at a 

3 similar rate as the last ten years.

4 As with changes to stream ecosystems, expected changes to marine ecosystems due to increased 

5 temperature, altered productivity, or acidification, will have large ecological implications through 

6 mismatches of co-evolved species and unpredictable trophic effects (Cheung et al. 2015; Rehage and 

7 Blanchard 2016). These effects will certainly occur, but predicting the composition or outcomes of future 

8 trophic interactions is not possible with the tools available at this time.

9 Pacific Northwest anadromous fish inhabit as many as three marine ecosystems during their ocean 

10 residence period: the Salish Sea, the California Current, and the Gulf of Alaska (Brodeur et al. 1992; 

11 Weitkamp and Neely 2002; Morris et al. 2007). The response of these ecosystems to climate change is 

12 expected to differ, although there is considerable uncertainty in all predictions. It is also unclear whether 

13 overall marine survival of anadromous fish in a given year depends on conditions experienced in one 

14 versus multiple marine ecosystems. Several are important to Columbia River Basin species, including the 

15 California Current and Gulf of Alaska.

16 Wind-driven upwelling is responsible for the extremely high productivity in the California Current 

17 ecosystem (Bograd et al. 2009; Peterson et al. 2014). Minor changes to the timing, intensity, or duration 

18 of upwelling, or the depth of water column stratification, can have dramatic effects on the productivity of 

19 the ecosystem (Black et al. 2014; Peterson et al. 2014). Current projections for changes to upwelling are 

20 mixed: some climate models show upwelling unchanged, but others predict that upwelling will be delayed 

21 in spring, and more intense during summer (Rykaczewski et al. 2015). Should the timing and intensity of 

22 upwelling change in the future, it may result in a mismatch between the onset of spring ecosystem 

23 productivity and the timing of salmon entering the ocean, and a shift towards food webs with a strong 

24 sub-tropical component (Bakun et al. 2015).

25 Columbia River anadromous fish also use coastal areas of British Columbia and Alaska, and mid-ocean 

26 marine habitats in the Gulf of Alaska, although their fine-scale distribution and marine ecology during 

27 this period are poorly understood (Morris et al. 2007; Pearcy and McKinnell 2007). Increases in 

28 temperature in Alaskan marine waters have generally been associated with increases in productivity and 

29 salmon survival (Mantua et al. 1997; Martins et al. 2012), thought to result from temperatures that have 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

175

1 been below thermal optima (Gargett 1997). Warm ocean temperatures in the Gulf of Alaska are also 

2 associated with intensified downwelling and increased coastal stratification, which may result in 

3 increased food availability to juvenile salmon along the coast (Hollowed et al. 2009; Martins et al. 2012). 

4 Predicted increases in freshwater discharge in British Columbia and Alaska may influence coastal current 

5 patterns (Foreman et al. 2014), but the effects on coastal ecosystems are poorly understood.

6 In addition to becoming warmer, the world’s oceans are becoming more acidic as increased atmospheric 

7 CO2 is absorbed by water. The North Pacific is already acidic compared to other oceans, making it 

8 particularly susceptible to further increases in acidification (Lemmen et al. 2016). Laboratory and field 

9 studies of ocean acidification show it has the greatest effects on invertebrates with calcium-carbonate 

10 shells and relatively little direct influence on finfish (see reviews by Haigh et al. (2015); Mathis et al. 

11 (2015). Consequently, the largest impact of ocean acidification on salmon will likely be its influence on 

12 marine food webs, especially its effects on lower trophic levels, which are largely composed of 

13 invertebrates (Haigh et al. 2015; Mathis et al. 2015).

14 Uncertainty in Climate Predictions

15 There is considerable uncertainty in the predicted effects of climate change on the globe as a whole, and 

16 on Pacific Northwest in particular and there is also the question of indirect effects of climate change and 

17 whether human “climate refugees” will move into the range of salmon and steelhead, increasing stresses 

18 on their respective habitats (Dalton et al. 2013; Poesch et al. 2016).

19 Many of the effects of climate change (e.g., increased temperature, altered flow, coastal productivity, etc.) 

20 will have direct impacts on the food webs that species examined in this analysis rely on in freshwater, 

21 estuarine, and marine habitats to grow and survive. Such ecological effects are extremely difficult to 

22 predict even in fairly simple systems, and minor differences in life history characteristics among stocks of 

23 salmon may lead to large differences in their response (e.g., Crozier et al. (2008b); Martins et al. (2011); 

24 Martins et al. (2012). This means it is likely that there will be “winners and losers” meaning some salmon 

25 populations may enjoy different degrees or levels of benefit from climate change while others will suffer 

26 varying levels of harm.

27 Pacific anadromous fish are adapted to natural cycles of variation in freshwater and marine environments, 

28 and their resilience to future environmental conditions depends both on characteristics of each individual 

29 population and on the level and rate of change. They should be able to adapt to some changes, but others 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

176

1 are beyond their adaptive capacity (Crozier et al. 2008a; Waples et al. 2009). With their complex life 

2 cycles, it is also unclear how conditions experienced in one life stage are carried over to subsequent life 

3 stages, including changes to the timing of migration between habitats. Systems already stressed due to 

4 human disturbance are less resilient to predicted changes than those that are less stressed, leading to 

5 additional uncertainty in predictions (Bottom et al. 2011; Naiman et al. 2012; Whitney et al. 2016).

6 Climate change is expected to impact Pacific Northwest anadromous fish during all stages of their 

7 complex life cycle. In addition to the direct effects of rising temperatures, indirect effects include 

8 alterations in stream flow patterns in freshwater and changes to food webs in freshwater, estuarine and 

9 marine habitats. There is high certainty that predicted physical and chemical changes will occur;

10 however, the ability to predict bio-ecological changes to fish or food webs in response to these 

11 physical/chemical changes is extremely limited, leading to considerable uncertainty.

12 Climate Change and Marine Mammals

13 The effects of climate change on marine species including the SRKW is not definitively known, however, 

14 it is likely that any changes in weather and ocean conditions affecting salmon populations would have 

15 consequences for fish-eating SRKW (NMFS 2008). Warming water and air temperature trends are 

16 ongoing and are expected to disrupt annual precipitation cycles, alter prevailing patterns of wind and 

17 ocean currents, and raise sea levels (Glick 2005; Snover et al. 2005). Together with increased 

18 acidification of ocean waters, these changes are expected to have substantial effects on marine 

19 productivity and food webs, including populations of salmon and other killer whale prey (NMFS 2008). 

20 Climate change could result in changes to migration patterns, alteration of ecological community 

21 composition and structure as species relocate from areas they currently use in response to changes in 

22 oceanic conditions, changes in species abundance, increased susceptibility to disease and contaminants, 

23 alterations to prey composition and availability, and altered reproductive timing (MacLeod et al. 2005; 

24 Robinson et al. 2005; McMahon and Hays 2006). Such changes could affect reproductive success and 

25 survival, and therefore would have consequences for the survival and recovery of SRKW (Robinson et al. 

26 2005; Learmonth et al. 2006; Cotte ́ and Guinet 2007). Naturally occurring climatic patterns, such as the 

27 Pacific Decadal Oscillation and El Niño and La Niña events, cause major changes to marine productivity 

28 and may also influence SRKW prey abundance (Mantua et al. 1997; Francis and Hengeveld 1998; 

29 Beamish et al. 1999; Hare et al. 1999; Benson and Trites 2002; Dalton et al. 2013). Prey species such as 

30 salmon are most likely to be affected through changes in food availability and oceanic survival (Benson 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

177

1 and Trites 2002), with biological productivity increasing during cooler periods and decreasing during 

2 warmer periods (Hare et al. 1999; NMFS 2008). This is likely to occur to some degree over the next ten 

3 years, but at a similar rate as the last ten years.

4 In conclusion, the current literature supports previous concerns that natural climatic variability can 

5 amplify and exacerbate long-term climate change impacts. Recent estimates of rates of climate change 

6 are similar to those previously published. Anthropogenic climate change will likely to varying degrees 

7 affect all west coast fish species, especially when interacting factors are incorporated (e.g., existing 

8 threats to populations, water diversion, accelerated mobilization of contaminants, hypoxia, and invasive 

9 species). However, through historic selective processes native fish species have adapted their behavior 

10 and physiology to inhabit available habitat ranging from southern California up to the Alaskan western 

11 coastline. This process by which animals native to the Pacific Northwest are adapted to natural cycles of 

12 variation in freshwater and marine environments required a certain degree of plasticity, and may show 

13 resilience to future environmental conditions that mimic this natural variation. While climate change 

14 effects will certainly result in changes, it is unlikely that specifics are possible to predict. Alternate life 

15 history types, such as those associated with extended lake or estuarine rearing, provide an important 

16 component of the species diversity with which to guard against an uncertain future. However, the life 

17 history types that will be successful in the future is neither static nor predictable, therefore maintaining or 

18 promoting existing diversity that is specifically found in the natural populations of Pacific anadromous 

19 fish is essential for continued existence of populations into the future (Schindler et al. 2010; Bottom et al. 

20 2011).

21 5.2.2. Development Projects

22 Development that has occurred within the Columbia River Basin over the past decade has affected the 

23 abundance, distribution, and health of hatchery-origin and natural-origin salmon and steelhead, other fish, 

24 economics, wildlife populations, and water quantity and quality. Provided below is a bulleted list of these 

25 development trends taken from ISAB (2007a, b) and the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership 

26 (2005), followed by some of the larger planned projects within the Columbia River Basin. These trends 

27 cannot be quantified in full detail because some of the development projects are in the early stages of 

28 permitting and planning, while others are closer to implementation decisions demonstrated by completion 

29 of records of decision (RODs) or draft EISs. However, this analysis assumes that all of the projects 

30 described in this chapter would be implemented during the 10-year period of the Proposed Action to 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

178

1 provide a review of the highest-impact potential scenario.

2 ● New, Non-US v Oregon management agreement hatchery production in the Columbia River

3 Basin 

4 ● Human populations are increasing primarily in urban metropolitan areas, with smaller increases 

5 in rural areas. This increase is expected to continue until at least 2030.

6 ● Freshwater withdrawals for domestic, industrial, commercial, and public uses are increasing,

7 whereas withdrawals for irrigation purposes are decreasing due to the conversion of agricultural 

8 lands to residential areas.

9 ● Forests are being converted for development, which is resulting in forest fragmentation.

10 ● Mining in the Columbia River Basin is focused on sand and gravel with the removal occurring 

11 along or within rivers.

12 ● Electrical demand continues to increase by approximately 1 percent per year.

13 ● Globalization of trade has contributed to the loss of trade in some areas (e.g., the Mexico 

14 strawberry market) and to the increase in trade in other areas (e.g., increased Columbia River

15 Basin wine production due to Australian droughts).

16 ● An increase in ship traffic is likely to occur because of Columbia River channel-deepening 

17 projects.

18 ● New port infrastructure projects continue to result in loss of aquatic habitat.

19 ● Hazardous materials transport and airborne pollution have been increasing in the Columbia River

20 Basin.

21 ● Dam operations will continue at various levels to impound water, inundate habitat, and hamper 

22 passage conditions both upstream and downstream.

23 5.2.3. Habitat Restoration and Protection of Salmonids 

24 Throughout the Columbia River Basin, habitat restoration efforts are supported by Federal, state, and 

25 local agencies; tribes; environmental organizations; and communities. Projects supported by these entities 

26 focus on improving general habitat and ecosystem function or species-specific conservation objectives 

27 that, in some cases, are identified through ESA recovery plans. The larger, more region-wide, restoration 

28 and conservation efforts, either underway or planned throughout the Columbia River Basin, are presented 

29 below. These actions have helped restore habitat, improve fish passage, and reduce pollution. While these 

30 efforts are reasonably likely to occur, funding levels may vary on an annual basis. These include:

31 ● Bonneville Power Aadministration (BPA), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and USACE
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

179

1 ● National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Community-based Restoration

2 Program (CRP). 

3 ● NMFS – Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF), Columbia and Snake Rivers.

4 ● Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Council – Fish and Wildlife Program, Columbia 

5 and Snake Rivers. 

6 ● State of Idaho – ESA Section 6 Cooperative Agreement.

7 ● State of Oregon – Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. 

8 ● State of Washington – Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office.

9 ● Miscellaneous Funding Sources – Regional and Local Habitat Restoration and Conservation

10 Support. 

11 ● USACE – Double-crested Cormorant Management Plan to Reduce Predation of Juvenile 

12 Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary, Oregon.

13 5.3. Effects from Future Actions

14 Here we discuss effects of all expected future actions within the action area focusing on the additional 

15 effects of each alternative in the context of future climate change when combined with future actions.

16 5.3.1. Fish

17 Subsection 3.2, Fish, describes how past and present conditions have influenced fish populations in the 

18 analysis area. These conditions represent effects from many years of development, as well as habitat 

19 restoration, hydropower operations, existing hatchery production. The expected impacts of the 

20 alternatives on fish populations are described in Subsection 4.2, Fish. Section 4 also presents the likely 

21 impacts from the hatchery production associated with this agreement, ongoing fisheries in the basin and, 

22 most likely, climate changes. The Proposed Action itself occurs across the Columbia River Basin, and 

23 includes both harvest and hatchery impacts as part of the Proposed Action. Moreover, the affected 

24 environment already includes the full impact of hydropower effects across the basin. Therefore a great 

25 deal of the discussion that would ordinarily be found in cumulative impacts has taken place in Section 4. 

26 However, Section 4 does not take into account future foreseeable actions, especially in the context of 

27 future climate change. Future Foreseeable Actions are described in Subsection 5.2. This section considers 

28 impacts that may occur as a result of any one of the alternatives being implemented at the same time as 

29 other anticipated future actions and presents information in the context of future climate change.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

180

1 5.3.1.1. Salmonids

2 According to ISAB (2007a), the effects of future climate change on salmonids would vary among species 

3 and with life history stages, but they potentially may affect virtually every species and life history stage of 

4 salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. Rising temperatures will increase disease and/or mortality in 

5 several iconic salmon species, especially for spring/summer Chinook salmon and sockeye salmon in the 

6 interior Columbia and Snake River Basins (Mote et al. 2014). This is because increases in water 

7 temperature are known to increase stress on these salmonid species thereby reducing their immune 

8 response and dually also provide positive conditions for pathogen incubation that is known to be harmful 

9 to these salmonid species. All alternatives, except Alternative 5, remove fish abundance from the 

10 spawning population, which reduces genetic diversity, by simply killing possibly sexually mature adult 

11 contributors to the general spawning populations. Harvest impacts might cumulatively add to the climate 

12 change impacts associated with increased disease/decrease immune responses as the diversity that may 

13 have been present is simply reduced by lowering the size of the spawning populations via harvest 

14 removals. This added impact would be greatest in Alternative 4 and Alternative 6, the same as baseline 

15 conditions and as Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, slightly less in Alternative 3, and none at all in 

16 Alternative 5.

17 As described in Subsection 4.2.1, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would not result in changes from the 

18 current baseline conditions of the Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon, Snake River

19 spring/summer Chinook salmon, Snake River fall Chinook salmon, and B-run steelhead. The effects of 

20 Alternative 3 on these same resources is slightly positive relative to baseline conditions, as it increases the 

21 average level of spawning escapements. Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 have the greatest negative effects 

22 (largest harvest) on all affected salmonid species, especially for Snake River Fall Chinook salmon, Snake 

23 River spring/summer Chinook salmon, Upper Columbia River Chinook salmon, Snake River sockeye 

24 salmon and B-run steelhead. Only for Upper Columbia River summer/fall Chinook salmon the effects of 

25 Alternative 4 or Alternative 6 are lower than for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. These negative impacts to 

26 spawning escapements would subject lower numbers of spawning adults to conditions where greater 

27 abundances for a spawning population might mitigate high rates of elevated mortality due to climate 

28 change impacts described above. Thereby Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 may cumulatively add to the 

29 future climate change impacts by subjecting lower spawning populations to higher levels of elevated 

30 mortality and diminishing future returns
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

181

1 Alternative 5 has a positive harvest effects on all salmonid species because it involves no fishing. 

2 Alternative 5, while having a positive harvest effects on all salmonid species, because it involves no 

3 fishing, would however, likely result in escapement of larger numbers of hatchery-origin adults, leading 

4 to potential negative effects from elevated levels of hatchery-origin fish spawning. These effects, 

5 discussed in Section 4, relate to the effects of high levels of unharvested hatchery fish ending up on 

6 natural spawning grounds and competing with and reproductively interacting with natural-origin fish of 

7 the same species/run.

8 Cumulatively, when combined with all past, present and future actions in the Columbia River Basin, the 

9 harvest and hatcheries will have a greater effect on genetic impacts from hatchery-origin interbreeding 

10 with natural-origin fish, and mortality of natural-origin fish associated with competition, predation, and 

11 disease impacts from hatchery-origin fish as those summarized above and in Section 4. As described in 

12 Subsection 3.2.1, Salmonids, unique patterns of genetic diversity can be lost in natural-origin populations 

13 when they interbreed with hatchery-origin fish. Competition, predations, and disease transmission occurs 

14 during interaction among members of the same species or different species utilizing a limited resource 

15 (e.g., food or space). These interactions typically results in winners and losers. Impacts between hatchery16 origin and natural-origin fish result from direct interactions, in which hatchery-origin fish interfere with 

17 access to limited resources, predate (eat), or transmit disease to natural-origin fish. These interactions 

18 occur between juveniles during outmigration, including the mainstem and estuary areas of the Columbia 

19 River Basin, and between adults during spawning when the adults are competing for space and 

20 resources. 

21 All alternatives that include some level of fishing (Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6) would generally reduce 

22 genetic, competition, and disease impacts from the interaction of hatchery-origin fish with natural-origin 

23 salmon and steelhead populations because the fishing removes adult hatchery-origin fish from the river 

24 basin. There are no additional cumulative impacts on juvenile salmonids (primarily predation and disease) 

25 as a result of any of the alternatives, because the harvest alternatives will not alter or affect the level of 

26 hatchery production, and therefore the hatchery-related impacts to salmonids under each alternative are 

27 the same impacts discussed already in Section 4. All risks, however, may exacerbate the effects of climate 

28 change on natural-origin salmon and steelhead populations. For example, if hatchery production disrupts 

29 unique patterns of genetic diversity in a natural-origin salmon or steelhead population, that population 

30 may be less able to adapt to the changing environmental conditions anticipated because of future climate 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

182

1 change (Subsection 5.3.1, Climate Change). 

2 Specifically Alternative 5 would accumulate negative hatchery related impacts at the highest rate as there 

3 would be no fishing to remove adult hatchery-origin fish. These fish would be able to return to the 

4 spawning grounds and hatcheries and given the ratio of hatchery to non-hatchery spawners under 

5 Alternative 5, the genetic diversity will be diminished. Under this alternative, competition effects would 

6 be at the highest level, as would transmission potential of disease, while impacts from juvenile predation 

7 would likely remain similar to the other alternatives since there is no effect to the release sizes under any 

8 alternative.

9 Changing environmental conditions are also likely to occur as a result of future development, changes in 

10 hydropower operations, hatchery production and habitat restoration in the Columbia River Basin. When 

11 aggregated with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area, 

12 a new US v Oregon agreement, as a result of harvest and hatchery actions, all alternatives contribute 

13 meaningfully to cumulative effects and the result will continue to cumulatively negatively impact 

14 salmonids.

15 5.3.1.2. ESA-Listed Fish Species (non-salmonids)

16 The cumulative effects on ESA-Listed Fish Species (non-salmonids) from their bycatch during salmon 

17 and steelhead directed fisheries may be greater than those described in Subsection 4.2.2, ESA-Listed Fish 

18 Species (non-salmonids), but no discernable changes across any of the alternatives are expected. 

19 Changing environmental conditions are also likely to occur as a result of future development, changes in 

20 hydropower operations, hatchery production and habitat restoration in the Columbia River Basin. When 

21 aggregated with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area, 

22 a new US v Oregon management agreement resulting in fisheries and hatcheries would make a minor 

23 additive contribution to cumulative negative effects on ESA-Listed Fish Species (non-salmonids).

24 5.3.1.3. Other Non-Salmonids (non ESA-listed Fish Species)

25 The cumulative effects on non-salmonids from their bycatch during salmon and steelhead directed 

26 fisheries may be greater than those described in Subsection 4.2.3, Non-salmonids. Changing 

27 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, 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

183

1 a new US v Oregon management agreement resulting in fisheries and continued hatcheries would make a 

2 minor additive contribution to cumulative adverse effects on Non-salmonids. No discernable changes 

3 across any of the alternatives are expected, especially when considering the increased potential negative 

4 effects from elevated levels of hatchery-origin fish spawning are taken into account.

5 5.3.2. Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients 

6 The effects of the alternatives on water quality from hatchery operations are described in Subsection 4.3, 

7 Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients. Future actions are described 

8 in Subsection 5.2, Future Foreseeable Actions. This section considers effects that may occur as a result of 

9 the alternatives being implemented at the same time as other anticipated future actions. This section only 

10 discusses future impacts that have not already been described and evaluated in Subsection 4.3, Water 

11 Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients. Climate change is expected to 

12 affect water quality in general by altering water temperatures and changing seasonal river flows, the 

13 cumulative effects on water quality may be greater than those summarized above and described in 

14 Subsection 4.3, Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients, for all 

15 alternatives. Since none of the alternatives moving forward into the future would alter hatchery 

16 production, the negative impacts associated with hatchery effluent as it relates to water quality would add 

17 to the cumulative negative impacts.

18 Subsection 3.3, Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients, describes 

19 how past and present conditions have influenced the level of marine derived nutrients in the Columbia 

20 River Basin, including conditions resulting from past development and ongoing restoration actions. 

21 Climate change effects on present marine derived nutrients are likely represented in these current 

22 conditions as well. The effects of the alternatives on levels of marine derived nutrients from harvest and 

23 hatchery operations are described in Subsection 4.3, Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & 

24 Marine-Derived Nutrients. Future actions are described in Subsection 5.2, Future Foreseeable Actions. 

25 This section considers effects that may occur as a result of the alternatives being implemented at the same 

26 time as other anticipated future actions. This section only discusses future impacts that have not already 

27 been described and evaluated in Subsection 4.3, Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & 

28 Marine-Derived Nutrients. Climate change is expected to affect marine derived nutrients by altering water 

29 temperatures and changing seasonal river flows, affecting the ability and distribution of returning adult 

30 anadromous fish to deposit as carcasses and deliver marine derived nutrients in similar patterns.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

184

1 As a result, cumulative effects may lead to less marine derived nutrients than is considered in Subsection 

2 4.3, Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients. The potential benefits 

3 of restoration actions within the basin are difficult to quantify. It is unlikely that substantial benefits 

4 would be realized in the action area in the future, although minor improvements would likely occur over 

5 time from local restoration efforts. When aggregated with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably 

6 foreseeable future actions in the project area, a new US v Oregon agreement resulting in fisheries and 

7 continued hatcheries would make a minor additive negative contribution to the cumulative negative 

8 effects on Water Quality and Quantity—Hatchery Effects & Marine-Derived Nutrients under each of the 

9 alternatives except under Alternative 5, which eliminates the negative harvest impact.

10 While the effects of the voluntary fishing curtailment in Alternative 5 will be positive on marine derived 

11 nutrients, and the effects from the hatchery production will be positive in all alternatives, these are 

12 unlikely to mitigate for the net negative cumulative effects from the impacts of past, present, and 

13 reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area.

14 5.3.3. Wildlife

15 Subsection 3.4, Wildlife, describes how past and present conditions have influenced wildlife populations 

16 in the Columbia River Basin. These conditions represent effects from many years of basin-wide 

17 development, as well as habitat restoration, and, most likely, climate changes. The effects of the 

18 alternatives on wildlife populations are described in Subsection 4.4, Wildlife. Future actions are described 

19 in Subsection 5.2, Future Foreseeable Actions. This section considers potential effects that may occur as a 

20 result of implementing any one of the alternatives at the same time as other anticipated actions. This 

21 section only discusses future effects that have not already been described and evaluated in Subsection 4.4, 

22 Wildlife.

23 As described in Subsection 5.3.1, Fish, salmonids, climate change and development in the Columbia 

24 River Basin is likely to reduce the abundance and productivity of natural-origin salmon and steelhead 

25 populations. Reduction in adult fish abundance would likely have an additional low negative impact on 

26 wildlife by reducing available prey. Overall, the total number of salmon and steelhead available as prey to 

27 wildlife may be lower than that considered in Subsection 4.4, Wildlife, for all alternatives if climate 

28 change effects are more pronounced than anticipated. Reduced abundance of salmon and steelhead would 

29 also decrease the number of salmon and steelhead carcasses available to wildlife for scavenging and for 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

185

1 nutrient contribution to the freshwater system. The potential benefits of restoration actions within the 

2 basin are difficult to quantify. It is unknown whether these actions would fully, or even partially, mitigate 

3 for the impacts of climate change and development on salmon and steelhead abundances. Therefore, it is 

4 difficult to estimate future trends in available prey bases for wildlife and available nutrient contributions 

5 to the freshwater system. Again, however, localized microclimate fish habitat improvements may be 

6 realized from these restoration actions. This potential benefit would be experienced in the future by 

7 wildlife that reside in the same localized ecosystems. 

8 However, when aggregated with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in 

9 the project area, a new US v Oregon agreement resulting in fisheries would make a minor additive 

10 contribution to cumulative negative impacts of reducing prey availability, via harvest removal, on wildlife 

11 under each of the alternatives except under Alternative 5. Given Alternative 5 results in no prey being 

12 removed, by itself when also aggregating Alternative 5 with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably 

13 foreseeable future actions in the project area it wouldn’t likely mitigate for changing development and 

14 climate change effects therefore results in a likely non discernible cumulative effect.

15 5.3.3.1. Seabirds, Raptors, and other Piscivorous Birds

16 Subsection 3.4.1, Seabirds, Raptors, and other Piscivorous Birds, describes how past and present 

17 conditions have influenced these resources in the Columbia River Basin. These conditions represent 

18 effects from many years of basin-wide development, as well as habitat restoration, and, most likely, 

19 climate change impacts. The effects of the alternatives on birds are described in Subsection 4.4.1, 

20 Seabirds, Raptors, and other Piscivorous Birds. Overall Seabirds will continue to be affected by other 

21 development in the Columbia River Basin, but no additional impacts will be added by a new US v Oregon

22 management agreement.

23 For Raptors and other piscivorous birds Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 impacts from adult prey 

24 reductions were unchanged relative to baseline conditions, slightly positive in Alternative 3, negative in 

25 Alternative 4 and Alternative 6, and positive in Alternative 5. The cumulative effects to these birds would 

26 be similar to those described to other wildlife in Subsection 5.3.3, Wildlife.

27 5.3.3.2. Marine Mammals

28 Subsection 3.4.2, Marine Mammals, describes how past and present conditions have influenced marine 

29 mammals in the Columbia River Basin. These conditions represent effects from many years of basin-wide 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

186

1 development, as well as habitat restoration, and, most likely, climate change impacts. The effects of the 

2 alternatives on marine mammals are described in Subsection 4.4.2, Marine Mammals. For Alternative 1 

3 and Alternative 2 impacts from prey reductions were unchanged relative to baseline conditions, slightly 

4 positive in Alternative 3, negative in Alternative 4 and Alternative 6, and positive in Alternative 5, while 

5 for SRKW there were no discernable impacts across the alternatives. Future actions are described in 

6 Subsection 5.2, Future Foreseeable Actions. This section considers potential effects that may occur as a 

7 result of implementing any one of the alternatives at the same time as other anticipated actions. This 

8 section only discusses future effects that have not already been described and evaluated in Subsection 

9 4.4.2, Marine Mammals.

10 As described in Subsection 5.4, Wildlife, fish, salmonids, climate change and development in the 

11 Columbia River Basin is likely to reduce the abundance and productivity of natural-origin salmon and 

12 steelhead populations. Future actions in the project area will have a negative but unquantifiable effect on 

13 marine mammals, likely low because of Marine Mammal Protection Act restoration activities and ESA

14 protections. When aggregated with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

15 in the project area, a new US v Oregon agreement resulting in fisheries would make a minor additive 

16 contribution to cumulative negative effects on marine mammals and SRKW under each of the alternatives 

17 except under Alternative 5, which results in a positive harvest impact to marine mammals since this 

18 alternative results in zero fishing and therefore zero prey removal via harvest. 

19 By itself when also aggregating Alternative 5 with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably 

20 foreseeable future actions in the project area the effects of reduced harvest would not likely mitigate for 

21 changing development and climate change effects therefore resulting in a likely non discernible 

22 cumulative effect on marine mammals. 

23 Under Alternative 5 the cumulative effect would still be non-discernible for SRKW, as adult fish would 

24 have passed through areas already where they might be preyed upon. In addition, higher numbers of 

25 adults escaping to the terminal spawning grounds would not increase juvenile production unless habitat 

26 improvements offset changing development and climate change effects enough to equate to increase 

27 future adult abundance.

28 5.3.4. Economics

29 Subsection 3.5, Economics, characterizes how past and present conditions have affected economic 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

187

1 conditions related to commercial and recreational fishing activity targeting salmon and steelhead in the 

2 analysis area. These conditions reflect the effects of many years of land development, as well as effects

3 from habitat restoration, hydropower operations, hatchery production and, most likely, climate changes on 

4 fisheries in the Columbia River Basin. The expected direct and indirect effects of the US v Oregon

5 agreement alternatives on fishery-related economic conditions are described in Subsection 4.5, 

6 Economics. Future Foreseeable Actions that likely will affect these conditions are described in Subsection 

7 5.2, Future Foreseeable Actions.

8 This section considers impacts that may occur as a result of any one of the alternatives being implemented 

9 at the same time as other anticipated future actions, and presents findings in the context of future climate 

10 change. This section only discusses future impacts that have not already been described and evaluated in 

11 Subsection 4.5, Economics.

12 5.3.4.1. Commercial Fisheries

13 As described in Subsection 5.2, future climate change and other changes in environmental conditions can 

14 be expected to affect salmonids and other species important to commercial (and recreational) fisheries in 

15 the Columbia River Basin. While the effects would be expected to vary among species, virtually every 

16 species of salmonids in the Columbia River Basin likely will be affected, as identified in Subsection 

17 5.3.1, Fish. Rising water and air temperatures are a major concern for salmon species, especially 

18 spring/summer Chinook salmon and sockeye salmon in the interior Columbia and Snake River Basins. 

19 The effects of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 on the harvest of Upper Columbia River spring Chinook 

20 salmon, Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, Snake River fall Chinook salmon, and B-run 

21 steelhead would be similar to current baseline conditions, but Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 have the greatest 

22 effects (negative for Alternative 3 and positive for Alternative 4 and Alternative 6) on the harvest of 

23 harvest indicator stocks.

24 Although unquantifiable, future climate change and development actions may reduce the number of 

25 salmon and steelhead available for harvest over time. This, in turn, would reduce the total ex-vessel value 

26 obtained by commercial fishers relative to conditions considered in Subsection 4.5.1.1, Commercial

27 Fisheries, for all alternatives. As a result, the cumulative effects on economic values to commercial 

28 fishers may differ from those described in Subsection 4.5.1.1, Commercial Fisheries, for all alternatives 

29 except Alternative 5. If the abundance of salmon and steelhead decreases as a result of future climate 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

188

1 change, combined with development in the Columbia River Basin, economic values derived from 

2 commercial fisheries may be lower than those identified in Subsection 4.5.1.1, Commercial Fisheries, for 

3 all alternatives except for Alternative 5, unless ex-vessel prices increase as a result of reduced supply. 

4 This would result in greater economic impacts than described in Subsection 4.5.1.1, Commercial 

5 Fisheries, on commercial fisheries under Alternative 3 and reduced benefits under Alternative 4 and 

6 Alternative 6.

7 5.3.4.2. Recreational Fisheries

8 As described in Subsection 5.2, future climate change and other changes in environmental conditions as a 

9 result of future development, changes in hydropower operations, hatchery production and habitat 

10 restoration, can be expected to affect salmonids and other species that contribute to recreational fisheries 

11 in the Columbia River Basin. Rising air and water temperatures are a particular concern for salmonid 

12 species, which are important to the recreational fisheries in the Columbia River Basin. Overall, 

13 environmental changes are likely to reduce the future abundance, catch, and level of effort directed on 

14 most, if not all, salmonid fish species in the Columbia River Basin, as compared to the direct and indirect 

15 effects on recreational fishing effort and associated economic effects described in Subsection 4.5.1.2, 

16 Recreational Fisheries, for all alternatives except Alternative 5.

17 Future climate change, combined with development in the basin, may affect the net benefit (benefits 

18 minus costs) that recreational anglers receive from participating in salmon and steelhead fishing. If fewer 

19 fish are available for harvest, and more restrictions are in place (e.g., reduced bag limits and fishing 

20 seasons), fewer recreational fishers may be willing to pay for the opportunity to fish. As a result, 

21 cumulative effects on economic values to recreational fishers could lead to lower future values (trip22 related expenditures) than those identified in Subsection 4.5.1.2, Recreational Fisheries, for all 

23 alternatives except for Alternative 5. To some unpredictable extent, restoration actions within the basin 

24 would be expected to benefit salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. Overall, it is unknown whether 

25 restoration actions would fully, or even partially, mitigate for the impacts of climate change or 

26 development on the abundance of fish species that provide recreational fishing opportunities

27 5.3.4.3. Regional and Local Economic Impacts

28 The assessment of regional and local economic effects of the alternatives described in Subsection 4.5.1.3, 

29 Contribution to Regional Economic Activity, relies on changes in personal income and jobs as key 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

189

1 indicators of the direction and magnitude of potential effects on regional economic activity. Commercial

2 and recreational fisheries generate personal income and jobs in regional economies through the export of 

3 products and services to outside economies. Commercial catch of salmon and steelhead harvested in the 

4 Columbia River Basin is frequently sold directly, or after processing, to individuals or businesses located 

5 outside the regional economy. Similarly, non-local recreational anglers (i.e., anglers who do not live in a 

6 local area) spend money on guide services, lodging, and other goods and services that generate household 

7 income and employment in many sectors of the regional economy. This regional transfer of money 

8 supports payments to labor, and those payments are then re-spent regionally, resulting in a multiplier 

9 effect.

10 Future climate change and development-related impacts may reduce the abundance of salmon and 

11 steelhead available for catch, which would reduce the total number of salmon and steelhead exported to 

12 outside economies relative to conditions considered in Subsection 4.5.1.3, Contribution to Regional 

13 Economic Activity, for all alternatives except for Alternative 5. As a result, the cumulative effects on 

14 generating regional and local economic impacts may be lower than those identified in Subsection 4.5.1.3, 

15 Contribution to Regional Economic Activity, for all alternatives except for Alternative 5. Although it is 

16 unpredictable what effects restoration actions within the basin will have on salmonid resources, these 

17 actions would be expected to at least partially mitigate for the impacts of climate change or development 

18 on fish available for harvest in commercial or recreational fisheries, and therefore, also on regional and 

19 local economies.

20 5.3.5. Cultural Resources

21 A portion of tribal fish harvests is used to meet Ceremonial & Subsistence (C&S) needs as discussed in 

22 Subsection 3.6. The anticipated effects of each alternative on C&S harvest are described in Subsection 

23 4.6. This section considers the effects that may occur as a result of implementing any one of the 

24 alternatives together with other foreseeable actions and the effects of climate change.

25 While the current and future habitat restoration activities offer mitigation, their benefits are difficult to 

26 predict in light of negative effects from concurrent development and climate changes. At the same time, 

27 the protection of ESA-listed salmonid stocks will continue. Coupled with the negative effect from 

28 development projects and habitat changes, there will likely be continuing cumulative adverse effects on 

29 cultural resources. These adverse effects are a continued reduction in the number of salmon and steelhead 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

190

1 available for the tribe’s C&S harvest that may result in a deterioration in cultural practices and the erosion 

2 of salmon and steelhead as a core symbol of tribal identity, health, individual identity, culture, spirituality, 

3 religion, emotional well-being, and economy.

4 However, as C&S harvests are given priority over commercial harvests, the adverse effect on C&S 

5 harvests is anticipated to be low when commercial harvests exist. Under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, 

6 commercial harvests would continue. The size of the C&S harvest would therefore be driven primarily by 

7 the harvest framework in each alternative and not by other concurrent development changes or climate 

8 change. Each of these five alternatives will contribute a meaningful effect to the overall cumulative 

9 adverse effect on cultural resources.

10 Under Alternative 5, there would be no commercial harvest and minimal C&S harvest. Therefore, 

11 Alternative 5 contributes a higher effect on the overall cumulative adverse effect on C&S cultural 

12 resources than the other alternatives. 

13 5.3.6. Environmental Justice

14 The expected effects of the alternatives on environmental justice communities, described in Subsection 

15 4.7, found that Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 would result in a disproportionate adverse effect on Cultural 

16 Resources for Indian tribes as it pertains to C&S fisheries. Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 would also 

17 result in a disproportionate adverse economic effect on Indian tribes as it pertains to Upriver Fall Chinook

18 salmon. Future actions are described in Subsection 5.2. This section considers the cumulative effects that 

19 may occur as a result of implementing any one of the alternatives together with other foreseeable actions.

20 5.3.6.1. Cultural Resources—C&S

21 Given the significance of C&S harvests on the cultural practices and traditions among Indian tribes, the 

22 effect on Indian tribes as an Environmental Justice community would be adverse and disproportionate 

23 whenever C&S harvests are negatively affected. The C&S harvest would be negatively affected under 

24 Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 as a result in a decrease in the number of fish available to the tribes. The C&S 

25 harvest is driven primarily by the harvest framework in each alternative and not by other concurrent 

26 development changes or climate change. Therefore, Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 result in a cumulative 

27 disproportionate adverse cultural resources effect in that the Indian tribes are the only population group 

28 that is affected by the loss of cultural resources pertaining to salmon and steelhead.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

191

1 5.3.6.2. Economics

2 As described in Subsection 4.7.2, Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 results in a disproportionate adverse 

3 economic effect on Indian tribes resulting from a decrease in tribal commercial harvest of and revenue 

4 from Upriver Fall Chinook salmon by 21 percent under both alternatives compared to an increase in non5 tribal commercial harvest by 59 percent. The economic impact on the tribes is driven primarily by the 

6 selected harvest. It may be affected by, but it is not driven by, other development or restoration activities. 

7 Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 would result in a cumulative disproportionate adverse economic effect on 

8 the tribes.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

192

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
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

193

1 6.2. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Contacted 

2 The following agencies and persons were contacted in the course of preparing this EIS

3 ● Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission, 

4 ○ Mr. Stewart Ellis, current US v Oregon Technical Advisory Committee Chair, Portland, 

5 Oregon

6 ● U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (Cooperating Agency)

7 ○ Dr. Howard Schaller, Portland, Oregon

8 ○ Mr. Mark Bagdovitz, Portland, Oregon

9 ● U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, (Cooperating Agency)

10 ○ Randy Peone, Portland, Oregon

11 6.3. Distribution List for DEIS

12 ● Federal and State Agencies

13 o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10

14 o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

15 o U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

16 o U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

17 o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

18 o U.S. Geological Survey

19 o U.S. Department of Justice

20 o U.S. Department of the Interior

21 o Bonneville Power Administration

22 o Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

23 o Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

24 o Idaho Department of Fish and Game

25 ● Elected Officials

26 o Governor’s Offices in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington

27 ● Tribes

28 o Burns Paiute Tribe

29 o Coeur d’Alene Tribe
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

194

1 o Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

2 o Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon

3 o Hoh Tribe

4 o Kalispel Tribe

5 o Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

6 o Makah Indian Tribe

7 o Nez Perce Tribe

8 o Quileute Tribe

9 o Quinault Indian Nation

10 o Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

11 o Cowlitz Indian Tribe

12 o Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

13 o Spokane Tribe of Indians

14 o Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation

15 o Yakama Nation

16 o Wanapum Indian Tribe

17 ● Councils and Commissions

18 o Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

19 ● Organizations and Associations

20 o Stoel Rives, LLP

21 o Northwest RiverPartners

22 o The Conservation Angler

23 o Hatchery Scientific Review Group

24 o DJW Associates

25 o Wild Fish Conservancy

26 o Defenders of Wildlife, 

27 o Native Fish Society

28 o Salmon for All

29 ● Individuals

30 o C. Hyland ○ K. Malone

31 o J. Publiee ○ R. Sudar
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

195

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.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

196

1 Bograd, S. J., I. Schroeder, N. Sarkar, X. Qiu, W. J. Sydeman, and F. B. Schwing. 2009. 

2 Phenology of coastal upwelling in the California Current. Geophysical Research Letters. 

3 36(1).

4 Bond, N. A., M. F. Cronin, H. Freeland, and N. Mantua. 2015. Causes and impacts of the 2014 

5 warm anomaly in the NE Pacific. Geophysical Research Letters. 42(9): 3414–3420.

6 Bottom, D. L., K. K. Jones, C. A. Simenstad, C. L. Smith, and R. Cooper. 2011. Pathways to 

7 resilience. Oregon Sea Grant. 367p. Pathways to resilience: sustaining salmon ecosystems in 

8 a changing world (Vol. 11, No. 1). Oregon Sea Grant.

9 Brodeur, R. D., R. C. Francis, and W. G. Pearcy. 1992. Food consumption of juvenile coho 

10 (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) on the continental shelf off 

11 Washington and Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 49: 1670-

12 1685.

13 Busby, P. J., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, L. J. Lierheimer, R. S. Waples, F. W. Waknitz, and 

14 I. V. Lagomarsino. Status Review of West Coast Steelhead from Washington, Idaho, 

15 Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-27. 275 p.

16 Cheung, W. W. L., R. D. Brodeur, T. A. Okey, and D. Pauly. 2015. Projecting future changes in 

17 distributions of pelagic fish species of Northeast Pacific shelf seas. Progress in 

18 Oceanography. 130: 19-31.

19 Close, D. A., M. Fitzpatrick, H. Li, B. Parker, D. Hatch, and G. James. 1995. Status report of the 

20 Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) in the Columbia River Basin. Technical Report to 

21 Bonneville Power Administration DOE/BP-39067-1.

22 Close, D. A, M. S. Fitzpatrick, and H. W. Li. 2002. The ecological and cultural importance of a 

23 species at risk of extinction, Pacific Lamprey. Fisheries 27:19-25.

24 Climate Change Science Program. 2014. U.S. Global Change Research Program. Northwest 

25 Report. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/northwest.

26 Climate Impacts Group. 2004. Overview of Climate Change Impacts in the U.S. Pacific 

27 Northwest. July 29, 2004. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle, 

28 Washington. 13p.

29 Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. 2008. Recommendations for amendments to the 

30 Northwest Power and Conservation Council 2000 Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife

31 Program.

32 Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997, Environmental Justice Guidance under the 

33 National Environmental Policy Act.

34 Cotte ́, C. d., and C. Guinet. 2007. Historical whaling records reveal major regional retreat of 

35 Antarctic sea ice. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers. 54(2): 243–

36 252.

37 Crozier, L., and R. W. Zabel. 2006. Climate impacts at multiple scales: evidence for differential 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

197

1 population responses in juvenile Chinook salmon. Journal of Animal Ecology. 75(5): 1100-

2 1109.

3 Crozier, L. G., A. P. Hendry, P. W. Lawson, T. P. Quinn, N. J. Mantua, J. Battin, R. G. Shaw, 

4 and R. B. Huey. 2008a. Potential responses to climate change in organisms with complex life 

5 histories: Evolution and plasticity in Pacific salmon.

6 Crozier, L. G., R. W. Zabel, and A. F. Hamlet. 2008b. Predicting differential effects of climate 

7 change at the population level with life-cycle models of spring Chinook salmon. Global 

8 Change Biology. 14(2): 236–249.

9 Dalton, M., P. W. Mote, and A. K. S. [Eds.]. 2013. Climate Change in the Northwest, 

10 Implications for Our Landscapes, Waters, and Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

11 271p.

12 Dawkins, R. 2004. The ancestor’s tale: a pilgrimage to the dawn of evolution. Houghton Mifflin

13 Company, New York, New York.

14 Di Lorenzo, E., and N. Mantua. 2016. Multi-year persistence of the 2014/15 North Pacific 

15 marine heatwave. Nature Climate Change.

16 Fisher, J. L., W. T. Peterson, and R. R. Rykaczewski. 2015. The impact of El Niño events on the 

17 pelagic food chain in the northern California Current. Global Change Biology. 21(12): 4401–

18 4414.

19 Foreman, M. G. G., W. Callendar, D. Masson, J. Morrison, and I. Fine. 2014. A model 

20 simulation of future oceanic conditions along the British Columbia continental shelf. Part II: 

21 results and analyses. Atmosphere-Ocean. 52(1): 20-38.

22 Francis, D., and H. Hengeveld. 1998. Extreme Weather and Climate Change. 34p.

23 Gargett, A. E. 1997. The optimal stability `window': a mechanism underlying decadal 

24 fluctuations in North Pacific salmon stocks? Fisheries Oceanography. 6(2): 109-117.

25 Glick, P. 2005. Fish Out of Water: A Guide to Global Warming and Pacific Northwest Rivers. 

26 March 2005. National Wildlife Federation.

27 Gustafson, R.G., M.J. Ford, D. Teel, and J.S. Drake. 2010. Status review of eulachon 

28 (Thaleichthys pacificus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., 

29 NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-105, 360 p.

30 Gustafson, R. G., T. C. Wainwright, G. A. Winans, F. W. Waknitz, L. T. Parker, and R. S. 

31 Waples. 1997. Status Review of Sockeye Salmon from Washington and Oregon. NOAA 

32 Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-33. 300 p.

33 Haigh, R., D. Ianson, C. A. Holt, H. E. Neate, and A. M. Edwards. 2015. Effects of ocean 

34 acidification on temperate coastal marine ecosystems and fisheries in the Northeast Pacific. 

35 PLOS One. 10(2): e0117533.

36 Hare, S. R., N. J. Mantua, and R. C. Francis. 1999. Inverse production regimes: Alaska and west 

37 coast Pacific salmon. Fisheries. 24(1): 6-14.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

198

1 Hollowed, A. B., N. A. Bond, T. K. Wilderbuer, W. T. Stockhausen, Z. T. A’mar, R. J. Beamish, 

2 J. E. Overland, and M. J. Schirripa. 2009. A framework for modelling fish and shellfish 

3 responses to future climate change. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 66: 1584–1594.

4 IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and 

5 III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core

6 Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 169p.

7 ISAB. 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife. May 11, 2007. 

8 Report ISAB 2007-2. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon. 146p 

9 Johnson, O. W., W. S. Grant, R. G. Kope, K. Neely, F. W. Waknitz, and R. S. Waples. 1997. 

10 Status Review of Chum Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. NOAA 

11 Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-32. 298 p.

12 Jones, K. K., T. J. Cornwell, D. L. Bottom, L. A. Campbell, and S. Stein. 2014. The contribution 

13 of estuary-resident life histories to the return of adult Oncorhynchus kisutch. Journal of Fish 

14 Biology. 85: 52-80.

15 Kennedy, V. S. 1990. Anticipated effects of climate change on estuarine and coastal fisheries. 

16 Fisheries. 15(6): 16-24.

17 Kirwan, M. L., G. R. Guntenspergen, A. D’Alpaos, J. T. Morris, S. M. Mudd, and S. 

18 Temmerman. 2010. Limits on the adaptability of coastal marshes to rising sea level. 

19 Geophysical Research Letters. 37(23).

20 Kostow, K. 2002. Oregon lampreys: Natural history status and problem analysis. Oregon

21 Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, OR

22 Learmonth, J. A., C. D. MacLeod, M. B. Santos, G. J. Pierce, H. Q. P. Crick, and R. A. 

23 Robinson. 2006. Potential effects of climate change on marine mammals. Oceanography and 

24 Marine Biology. 44: 431-464.

25 Lemmen, D. S., F. J. Warren, T. S. James, and C. S. L. M. Clarke. 2016. Canada’s Marine Coasts 

26 in a Changing Climate; Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 280p.

27 Limburg, K., R. Brown, R. Johnson, B. Pine, R. Rulifson, D. Secor, K. Timchak, B. Walther, and 

28 K. Wilson. 2016. Round-the-Coast: snapshots of estuarine climate change effects. Fisheries. 

29 41(7): 392-394.

30 Litz, M. N. C., A. J. Phillips, R. D. Brodeur, and R. L. Emmett. 2011. Seasonal occurrences of 

31 Humboldt Squid (Dosidicus Gigas) in the northern California current system. CalCOFI Rep. 

32 52: 97-108.

33 Lucey, S. M., and J. A. Nye. 2010. Shifting species assemblages in the Northeast US continental 

34 shelf large marine ecosystem. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 415: 23-33.

35 Lynch, A. J., B. J. E. Myers, C. Chu, L. A. Eby, J. A. Falke, R. P. Kovach, T. J. Krabbenhoft, T. 

36 J. Kwak, J. Lyons, C. P. Paukert, and J. E. Whitney. 2016. Climate Change Effects on North 

37 American Inland Fish Populations and Assemblages. Fisheries. 41(7): 346-361.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

199

1 MacLeod, C. D., S. M. Bannon, G. J. Pierce, C. Schweder, J. A. Learmonth, J. S. Herman, and 

2 R. J. Reid. 2005. Climate change and the cetacean community of north-west Scotland. 

3 Biological Conservation. 124(4): 477–483.

4 Mantua, N. J., S. R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J. M. Wallace, and R. C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific 

5 interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the american 

6 Meteorological Society. 78(6): 1069-1079.

7 Martins, E. G., S. G. Hinch, S. J. Cooke, and D. A. Patterson. 2012. Climate effects on growth, 

8 phenology, and survival of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka): a synthesis of the current 

9 state of knowledge and future research directions. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 

10 22(4): 887-914.

11 Martins, E. G., S. G. Hinch, D. A. Patterson, M. J. Hague, S. J. Cooke, K. M. Miller, M. F. 

12 LaPointe, K. K. English, and A. P. Farrell. 2011. Effects of river temperature and climate 

13 warming on stock-specific survival of adult migrating Fraser River sockeye salmon 

14 (Oncorhynchus nerka). Global Change Biology. 17(1): 99-114.

15 Mathis, J. T., S. R. Cooley, N. Lucey, S. Colt, J. Ekstrom, T. Hurst, C. Hauri, W. Evans, J. N. 

16 Cross, and R. A. Feely. 2015. Ocean acidification risk assessment for Alaska’s fishery sector. 

17 Progress in Oceanography. 136: 71-91.

18 McElhany, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, and E. P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. 

19 Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Dept. 

20 Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42, 156 p.

21 McDowall, R. M. 2001. Anadromy and homing: two life-history traits with adaptive synergies in 

22 salmonid fishes? Fish and Fisheries 2:78-85.

23 McMahon, C. R., and G. C. Hays. 2006. Thermal niche, large-scale movements and implications 

24 of climate change for a critically endangered marine vertebrate. Global Change Biology. 

25 12(7): 1330–1338.

26 Moser, M. L. and D. A. Close. 2003. Assessing Pacific lamprey status in the Columbia River

27 Basin. Northwest Science 77:116-125.

28 Morris, J. F. T., M. Trudel, J. Fisher, S. A. Hinton, E. A. Fergusson, J. A. Orsi, and J. Edward V. 

29 Farley. 2007. Stock-specific migrations of juvenile coho salmon derived from coded-wire tag 

30 recoveries on the continental shelf of western North America. In C. B. Grimes (Ed.). 

31 American Fisheries Society Symposium. 57: 81.

32 Morrison, W. E., M. W. Nelson, R. B. Griffis, and J. A. Hare. 2016. Methodology for assessing 

33 the vulnerability of marine and anadromous fish stocks in a changing climate. Fisheries. 

34 41(7): 407-409.

35 Mote, P. W., and Eric P. Salathé Jr. 2010. Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Climatic 

36 Change. 102(1-2): 29-50.

37 Mote, P. W., E. A. Parson, A. F. Hamlet, W. S. Keeton, D. Lettenmaier, N. Mantua, E. L. Miles, 

38 D. W. Peterson, D. L. Peterson, R. Slaughter, and A. K. Snover. 2003. Preparing for climatic 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

200

1 change: the water, salmon, and forests of the Pacific Northwest. Climatic change. 61(1-2): 

2 45-88.

3 Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

4 Myers, J., C. Busack, D. Rawding, A. Marshall, D. Teel, D.M. Van Doornik, and M.T. 

5 Maher. 2006. Historical population structure of Pacific salmonids in the Willamette River 

6 and lower Columbia River basins. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS7 NWFSC-73, 311 p.

8 Naiman, R. J., J. R. Alldredge, D. A. Beauchamp, P. A. Bisson, J. Congleton, C. J. Henny, N. 

9 Huntly, R. Lamberson, C. Levings, E. N. Merrill, W. G. Pearcy, B. E. Rieman, G. T. 

10 Ruggerone, D. Scarnecchia, P. E. Smouse, and C. C. Wood. 2012. Developing a broader 

11 scientific foundation for river restoration: Columbia River food webs PNAS. 109(52): 

12 21201–21207.

13 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2014. Final Environmental Impact Statement to 

14 Inform Columbia River Basin Hatchery Operations and the Funding of Mitchell Act 

15 Hatchery Programs. 2120 p.

16 NMFS. 2008. Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). National 

17 Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. 251p.

18 Nez Perce, Umatilla, Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes. 2008. Tribal Pacific lamprey

19 restoration plan for the Columbia River Basin. Formal Draft July 17, 2008.

20 North, J.A., R.C. Beamesderfer, and T.A. Rien. 1993. Distribution and movements of

21 white sturgeon in three lower Columbia River reservoirs. Northwest Science

22 67:105-111.

23 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2005. 2005 Oregon Native Fish Status 

24 Report, Volume I: Species Management Unit Summaries. ODFW, Salem, OR. 164 p. 

25 (Accessed online on December 6, 2016 at: 

26 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/ONFSR/docs/volume-1-final.pdf).

27 Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2014. Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery 

28 Management Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts of 

29 Washington, Oregon, and California as Revised through Amendment 18. Pacific Fishery 

30 Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR. 90 p.

31 Parsley, M.J., and L.G. Beckman. 1994. White Sturgeon spawning and rearing habitat in

32 the Lower Columbia River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management

33 14:812-827.

34 Parsley, M.J., L.G. Beckman, and G.T. McCabe, Jr. 1993. Spawning and rearing habitat

35 use by white sturgeons in the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam.

36 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:217-227. 

37 PCIC. 2016. Plan 2 Adapt website, available at https://www.pacificclimate.org/analysis38 tools/plan2adapt.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

201

1 Pearcy, W. G. 2002. Marine nekton off Oregon and the 1997–98 El Niño. Progress in 

2 Oceanography. 54(1): 399-403.

3 Pearcy, W. G., and S. M. McKinnell. 2007. The ocean ecology of salmon in the Northeast 

4 Pacific Ocean - An abridged history. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 57: 7-30.

5 Peone, T.L., AT. Scholz, J.R. Griffith, S. Graves, and M.G. Thatcher, Jr. 1990. Lake Roosevelt 

6 fisheries monitoring program. Annual report. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, 

7 Oregon.

8 Peterson, W. T., J. L. Fisher, J. O. Peterson, C. A. Morgan, B. J. Burke, and K. L. Fresh. 2014. 

9 Applied fisheries oceanography: Ecosystem indicators of ocean conditions inform fisheries 

10 management in the California current. Oceanography. 27(4): 80-89.

11 Poesch, M. S., L. Chavarie, C. Chu, S. N. Pandit, and W. Tonn. 2016. Climate change impacts 

12 on freshwater fishes: a Canadian perspective. Fisheries. 41(1): 385-391.

13 Quinn, T. P., and K. W. Myers. 2004. Anadromy and the marine migrations of Pacific salmon 

14 and trout: Rounsefell revisited. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 14: 421–442.

15 Rehage, J. S., and J. R. Blanchard. 2016. What can we expect from climate change for species 

16 invasions? Fisheries. 41(7): 405-407.

17 Renaud, C. B. 1997. Conservation status of northern hemisphere lampreys (Petromyzontidae). 

18 Journal of Applied Ichthyology 13:143-148.

19 Robinson, R. A., J. A. Learmonth, A. M. Hutson, C. D. Macleod, T. H. Sparks, D. I. Leech, G. J. 

20 Pierce, M. M. Rehfisch, and H. Q. P. Crick. 2005. Climate Change and Migratory Species. 

21 August 2005. BTO Research Report 414. 306p.

22 Rykaczewski, R. R., J. P. Dunne, W. J. Sydeman, M. García-Reyes, B. A. Black, and S. J. 

23 Bograd. 2015. Poleward displacement of coastal upwelling-favorable winds in the ocean’s 

24 eastern boundary currents through the 21st century. Geophysical Research Letters. 42(15): 

25 6424–6431.

26 Scott, W. B. and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Canadian Government 

27 Publishing Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

28 Scheuerell, M. D., and J. G. Williams. 2005. Forecasting climate-induced changes in the survival 

29 of Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries 

30 Oceanography. 14(6): 448-457.

31 Schindler, D. E., R. Hilborn, B. Chasco, C. P. Boatright, T. P. Quinn, L. A. Rogers, and M. S. 

32 Webster. 2010. Population diversity and the portfolio effect in an exploited species. Nature. 

33 465(7298): 609-612.

34 Schnorbus, M., A. Werner, and K. Bennett. 2014. Impacts of climate change in three hydrologic 

35 regimes in British Columbia, Canada. Hydrological Processes. 28(3): 1170–1189.

36 Simpson, J. and R. Wallace. 1978. Fishes of Idaho. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

202

1 Snover, A. K., P. W. Mote, L. W. Binder, A. F. Hamlet, and N. J. Mantua. 2005. Uncertain 

2 Future: Climate Change and its Effects on Puget Sound. October 2005. A report for the Puget 

3 Sound Action Team by the Climate Impacts Group (Center for Science in the Earth System, 

4 Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, 

5 Seattle). 37p.

6 Sykes, G. E., C. J. Johnson, and J. M. Shrimpton. 2009. Temperature and flow effects on 

7 migration timing of Chinook salmon smolts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 

8 138(6): 1252–1265.

9 Verdonck, D. 2006. Contemporary vertical crustal deformation in Cascadia. Tectonophysics. 

10 417(3): 221-230.

11 Wainwright, T. C., and L. A. Weitkamp. 2013. Effects of climate change on Oregon Coast coho 

12 salmon: habitat and life-cycle interactions. Northwest Science. 87(3): 219-242.

13 Waples, R. S., O. W. Johnson, and R. P. Jones, Jr. 1991. Status review for Snake River sockeye 

14 salmon. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-195, 23 p.

15 Waples, R. S., T. Beechie, and G. R. Pess. 2009. Evolutionary history, habitat disturbance 

16 regimes, and anthropogenic changes: What do these mean for resilience of Pacific Salmon 

17 populations? Ecology and Society. 14(1).

18 Ward, E. J., J. H. Anderson, T. J. Beechie, G. R. Pess, and M. J. Ford. 2015. Increasing 

19 hydrologic variability threatens depleted anadromous fish populations. Global Change 

20 Biology.

21 Weitkamp, L. A., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, G. B. Milner, D. J. Teel, R. G. Kope, and R. S. 

22 Waples. 1995. Status Review of Coho Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. 

23 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-Nwfsc-24. 266 P.

24 Weitkamp, L., and K. Neely. 2002. Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) ocean migration 

25 patterns: insight from marine coded-wire tag recoveries. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and 

26 Aquatic Sciences. 59(7): 1100–1115.

27 Whitney, J. E., R. Al-Chokhachy, D. B. Bunnell, C. A. Caldwell, S. J. Cooke, E. J. Eliason, M. 

28 Rogers, A. J. Lynch, and C. P. Paukert. 2016. Physiological basis of climate change impacts 

29 on North American inland fishes. Fisheries. 41(7): 332-345.

30 Wydoski, R., and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of

31 Washington Press. 220 pages.

32 Yamada, S. B., W. T. Peterson, and P. M. Kosro. 2015. Biological and physical ocean indicators 

33 predict the success of an invasive crab, Carcinus maenas, in the northern California Current. 

34 Marine Ecology Progress Series. 537: 175-189.

35 Zabel, R. W., M. D. Scheuerell, M. M. McClure, and J. G. Williams. 2006. The interplay 

36 between climate variability and density dependence in the population viability of Chinook 

37 salmon. Conservation Biology. 20(1): 190-200.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

203

1 INDEXES

2

Abundance, iii, v, 13, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xxiv, 

xxvi, 5, 14, 29, 30, 31, 40, 41, 42, 74, 75, 76, 

77, 83, 84, 95, 101, 102, 107, 113, 122, 141, 

145, 148, 160, 162, 218, 221, 224, 227, 230, 

233, 235, 242, 243, 253

Abundance Indicator Stock, v, xvi, xxiv, xxvi, 5, 

29, 40, 41, 42, 74, 75, 76, 77, 83, 122

Abundance-based Management, iii, xv, xvii, 

xviii, 31, 84, 95, 101, 107, 113, 148

Alternatives

Extension, iii, 13, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, 30, 83, 

92, 101, 107, 113, 141, 145, 160, 162, 218, 

221, 224, 227, 230, 233, 235

Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1, i, ii, xxii, 2, 166, 

193

Ceremonial & Subsistence, i, vi, x, xi, 13, xvi, 

xix, xx, xxii, 5, 6, 7, 9, 28, 61, 62, 63, 70, 71, 

75, 76, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 94, 96, 99, 

101, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 111, 145, 

159, 160, 161, 162, 189, 190

Ceremonial & Subsistence (C&S), xix, 159, 162, 

189

Climate Change, xix, 167, 169, 170, 176, 182, 

195, 196, 197, 198, 201, 202

Columbia, 1, i, iii, v, vi, viii, ix, xi, 13, xiv, xv, 

xxii, xxiii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 

15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 29, 30, 

31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 

49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 

63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 

77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 85, 87, 89, 103, 118, 119, 

120, 122, 123, 129, 132, 133, 135, 136, 139, 

140, 142, 144, 148, 150, 151, 153, 156, 158, 

161, 166, 168, 169, 171, 172, 174, 177, 178, 

179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 

188, 189, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 

207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 

216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 

225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 

235, 236, 245, 249, 250

Commercial Fishery, xiv, xvi, xviii, xix, xx, 

xxii, xxiv, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 28, 60, 61, 

62, 63, 64, 68, 69, 70, 94, 96, 99, 105, 116, 

146, 148, 151, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 164, 

187, 189, 200, 207, 209, 218, 221, 224, 227, 

230, 235, 236

Conservation, xxii, xxiv, 26, 169, 179, 194, 196, 

198, 199, 201, 202, 241, 247, 250, 253, 256, 

257, 258, 259, 260, 261

Cultural Resources, ix, 13, xvi, xix, xx, 59, 70, 

145, 159, 162, 189, 190

Cumulative, 13, xix, 167

Development Projects, xix, 177

Distinct Population Segment, xxii, xxiv, xxvi, 

22, 23, 29, 39, 40, 41, 50, 52, 58, 77, 78, 129, 

133, 138, 253

Economics, ix, 13, xvi, xviii, xix, xx, 58, 65, 67, 

68, 70, 144, 145, 146, 158, 162, 186, 187, 

191, 192, 206, 207, 220, 223, 226, 229, 232, 

234, 236, 238

Endangered Species Act, 1, ii, iv, v, vii, xi, xii, 

13, xv, xvi, xviii, xx, xxii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, 2, 

3, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 

28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 

43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 57, 58, 74, 90, 100, 

106, 108, 118, 120, 122, 123, 132, 138, 139, 

178, 179, 182, 186, 189, 246, 253

Environmental Justice, x, 13, xvi, xix, xx, xxii, 

24, 38, 72, 161, 162, 163, 165, 190, 196

Escapement, iii, 13, xv, xvii, xviii, xix, xxiv, 33, 

41, 48, 51, 77, 80, 86, 91, 97, 101, 103, 104, 

105, 106, 109, 114, 115, 116, 122, 125, 129, 

131, 141, 145, 154, 160, 161, 162, 165, 218, 

221, 224, 227, 230, 233, 235

Escapement-based Management, iii, xv, xix, 33, 

154

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), 13, xxii, 

xxiv, xxvi, 23, 29, 31, 39, 40, 41, 46, 47, 48, 

52, 77, 86, 101, 106, 122, 123, 126, 127, 133, 

135, 136, 137, 253

Executive Order, xv, xxii, 24, 25, 161

Ex-vessel value, xxiv, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 

151, 152, 154, 155, 157, 158, 220, 223, 226, 

229, 232

Federal Trust Responsibility, xv, 25

Fixed Harvest Rate, iii, 13, xv, xvii, xviii, xix, 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

204

32, 85, 97, 103, 108, 113, 151

Future Foreseeable Actions, xix, xx, 167, 169, 

179, 183, 184, 186, 187

Habitat, xx, xxii, xxv, 26, 178, 179, 195

Habitat Restoration, xx, 178, 179

Harvest Indicator Stock, v, xvi, xxv, xxvi, 5, 29, 

40, 41, 42, 74, 75, 83, 164

Harvest Rate, iii, xxii, xxv, 32, 42, 44, 45, 48, 

51, 79, 82, 85, 91, 95, 97, 100, 102, 103, 106, 

108, 112, 113, 151

Hatcheries, viii, xi, xiv, xvi, xviii, xx, xxii, 3, 17, 

27, 42, 51, 55, 56, 57, 68, 106, 132, 134, 139, 

183, 184, 194, 200, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 

244, 245, 246, 247, 250, 253, 261

Idaho, i, ii, 2, 3, 11, 18, 19, 47, 52, 58, 72, 172, 

179, 193, 194, 196, 201, 247

Incidental, 1, i, xii, xxv, 3, 22

Limiting, xxv

Marine Mammals, xv, xxii, 23, 56, 186

Marine-Derived Nutrients, xvi, xviii, xx, 55, 

139, 183, 184

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1, i, ii, iv, xi, 

xii, xxii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, 2, 3, 17, 18, 22, 23, 

24, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 

50, 51, 56, 57, 58, 61, 65, 68, 69, 70, 74, 132, 

133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 166, 169, 

176, 179, 192, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 

220, 223, 226, 229, 232, 234, 236, 238, 239, 

241, 247, 249, 250

Native, xxv, 26, 52, 53, 54, 72, 160, 194, 200

Natural-origin, xxv, 42, 106, 110, 112

No Action, iv, xv, 34, 35, 90, 100, 105, 111, 117

Notice of Intent, v, xiv, xxii, 19

Oregon, 1, i, ii, v, vi, vii, xi, xii, 13, xv, xxii, 

xxiii, xxvi, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 

16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 

35, 38, 40, 41, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 58, 

59, 60, 65, 72, 74, 75, 76, 80, 82, 83, 92, 109, 

126, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 

140, 145, 166, 167, 168, 169, 173, 178, 179, 

182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 193, 195, 196, 

197, 198, 200, 201, 202, 207, 209, 210, 214, 

215, 216, 239, 240, 241, 247, 249, 253

Pacific Fishery Management Council, xxii

Public Participation, xix, 166

Purpose and Need, ii

Recovery Plan, xv, 26, 200

Recreational Fishery, ix, xiv, xvi, xviii, xix, xx, 

xxv, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16, 28, 65, 66, 67, 68, 

69, 70, 138, 147, 148, 150, 151, 153, 156, 

158, 159, 188, 200, 213, 216, 235, 236

Run, xxv, 30, 44, 45, 48, 51, 82, 84, 85, 86, 88, 

89, 91, 94, 95, 96, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 

104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 

115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 124, 127, 130, 253

Scoping, xiv, 19

Seabirds, viii, xvi, xviii, xx, 56, 142, 185

Secretarial Order, xv, 24

Select Area Fisheries Evaluation (SAFE), xiv, 

xxii, 11, 12, 13, 60, 107, 108, 110, 111, 210

Snake River, v, vi, vii, xiv, xviii, xxii, 3, 6, 7, 9, 

10, 11, 14, 26, 31, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 

48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 

66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 75, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84, 

85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 

105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 120, 

121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 

130, 131, 132, 136, 137, 138, 144, 147, 150, 

152, 153, 155, 156, 158, 164, 165, 167, 169, 

171, 179, 180, 187, 201, 202, 207, 208, 209, 

210, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 233, 236, 239, 

242, 243, 253, 254, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260

Southern Resident Killer Whales, ix, 13, xxii, 

58, 144, 176, 186, 200

Take, 1, i, xii, xxvi, 3, 22

Technical Advisory Committee, xxiii, 30, 76, 

80, 92, 109, 166

Tributary, xiv, xxvi, 14, 15

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1, xxiii, xxiv, 

xxvi, 2, 57, 138, 166, 193, 244, 250

Uncoordinated Harvest, iv, 13, xv, xvii, xix, 34, 

90, 100, 105, 111, 117, 141, 159, 161

Voluntary Fishery curtailment, iv, xv, 33, 34

Washington, 1, i, ii, xxiii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 13, 14, 

18, 19, 20, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 58, 59, 60, 

65, 72, 76, 82, 129, 138, 166, 173, 179, 192, 

193, 196, 197, 198, 200, 202, 206, 207, 210, 

215, 216, 237, 238, 247, 250

Wildlife, 1, i, ii, viii, xvi, xviii, xx, xxii, xxiii, 

xxiv, 2, 4, 14, 38, 54, 56, 138, 142, 179, 184, 

185, 186, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 200, 209, 

244, 250

Willamette, xxiii, 6, 16, 17, 26, 39, 44, 50, 53, 

65, 129, 200
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

205

1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

206

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 DEIS June 2017

207

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.

29 Commercial (tribal and non-tribal) and recreational fishing activity in affected fisheries in the mainstem 
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

208

1 Columbia River were assigned to the economic subregion where the fishing activity was presumed to 

2 occur. The correspondence between fishing areas and economic subregions in the Columbia River Basin 

3 are described above. 

4

5 Figure A-1. Economic Analysis Area.

6 The economic analysis focuses on commercial and recreational fishing targeting five harvest indicator 

7 stocks that collectively are believed to account for more than 80 percent of the total catch of salmon and 

8 steelhead in the mainstem Columbia River: Upriver Spring Chinook salmon, Upriver Summer/Fall 

9 Chinook salmon, Upriver Fall Chinook salmon, Upper Columbia River Sockeye salmon, and Snake River

10 steelhead. In addition to supporting tribal commercial and non-tribal recreational fisheries in the 

11 mainstem, these stocks also support ceremonial and subsistence tribal fishing.
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

209

1 As explained in Section 2 of the EIS, the estimates of the number of fish harvested in commercial and 

2 recreational fisheries were estimated by the Fishery Analysis Team based on historical catch records 

3 between 2005 and 2016, and modified to meet the objectives of the different harvest policy alternatives. 

4 This 12-year period (2005-2016) represents the term of the current management framework. The 

5 historical harvest and effort information was used to estimate numerical outputs for each of the harvest 

6 indicator stocks in the analysis of the alternatives. In Subsection 4.1.1 we describe the incorporation of 

7 expected climate change effects into the analysis. The minimum, maximum and average harvest of the 

8 different harvest indicator stocks are based on implementation of the different alternatives.

9 2.0 Catch and Effort Estimates 

10 The Fishery Analysis Team estimated harvest for the five harvest indicator stocks (Upriver Spring 

11 Chinook, Upriver Summer/Fall Chinook salmon, Upriver Fall Chinook salmon, Upper Columbia River

12 Sockeye salmon, and Snake River steelhead) and were presented to the economic analysis team for 

13 evaluation. The estimated number of fish (both natural-origin and hatchery fish) caught in tribal, non14 tribal commercial, and recreational fisheries was estimated for different areas of the mainstem Columbia 

15 River, including ODFW fishing zones 1 through 5, ODFW fishing zone 6, upstream of McNary Dam on 

16 the mainstem Columbia River, and in the Lower Snake River upstream of the confluence with the 

17 mainstem Columbia River. The catch estimates in each of these catch areas were then assigned to one of 

18 the four different economic subregions previously identified based on the county (and region) 

19 corresponding to the location of the fisheries. (Note that none of the catch was assigned to the Upper 

20 Columbia River subregion because there was no commercial harvest of the harvest indicator stock.)

21 2.1 Commercial Fisheries

22 Estimates of total tribal and non-tribal commercial catch provided by the Fishery Analysis Team were 

23 converted to economic values using different price factors. For estimating the ex-vessel value of 

24 commercial fisheries, the number of fish caught was first converted to pounds. The pounds-per-fish 

25 factors by species and region used in the conversion are presented in Table A-1. The data sources for 

26 these conversion factors include the following:

27 ● Commercial weights (round weight per fish) for Columbia River regions: Calculated based on 

28 landings and weight data from fish receiving tickets reported by the Oregon Department of Fish 

29 and Wildlife, Columbia River Fishing Landing Reports, 2003-2009, available at
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

210

1 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/OSCRP/CRM/Comm_fishery_updates.asp (accessed on 

2 December 7, 2011). Calculated weights for each species, including spring, summer, and fall 

3 Chinook salmon, were averaged over the 2003-2009 period, weighted by the number of fish 

4 landed each year in Oregon. (Note that data were not available for 2002.)

5 Once commercial catch was converted to pounds, per pound ex-vessel prices for each species were

6 applied to the estimates of tribal and non-tribal commercial landings to estimate the total regional ex7 vessel value of commercial salmon landings in each subregion. The value-per-fish factors used to convert 

8 estimated landings to total ex-vessel values are shown in Table A-2. The data sources for these value 

9 factors include the following:

10 ● Ex-vessel price per pound for Columbia River regions for Chinook salmon were calculated based 

11 on price and harvest data for Oregon and Washington from PFMC 2016 Salmon SAFE Report, 

12 Tables IV-8 and IV-9. Prices represent average ex-vessel prices of Columbia River coho salmon

13 and spring and fall Chinook salmon, weighted by pounds of fish landed, over the 2014-2016 

14 period.

15 ● Ex-vessel price per pound for Columbia River regions for sockeye salmon and steelhead were 

16 calculated based on aggregated landings and ex-vessel revenue data from PacFIN. Prices 

17 represent average of ex-vessel prices for Columbia River sockeye salmon and steelhead over the 

18 2014-2016 period.

19 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 DEIS June 2017

211

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
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

212

1 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

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
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

213

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 

18 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

Mid-Columbia River

Spring Chinook 0.24 0.19 0.19

Summer Chinook 0.19
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

214

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 DEIS June 2017

215

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 DEIS June 2017

216

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).
US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

217

Columbia River Basin Regions

Lower Snake River $29,222

Upper Columbia River $33,613

Mid-Columbia River $37,304

Lower Columbia River $43,979

1 Notes:

2 Factors adjusted to $2016 using USDC BEA GDP implicit price deflator

3 Sources:

4 Bureau of Economic Analysis. April 2009. Table CA05N Personal Income by Major Source and Earnings by NAICS Industry; 

5 and Table CA25N Total Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by NAICS Industry.
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

218

1 Table A-7. Commercial Harvest and Ex-Vessel Value of Landings by Columbia River Basin Subregion under the Project 

2 Alternatives: Upriver Spring 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)

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
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

219

Mid-Columbia River Subregion

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)

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
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

220

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

Ex-vessel 

harvest 

value

$848,193 $848,193 $0 $848,193 $0 $783,569 -$64,624 $1,503,704 $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 DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

221

1 Table A-8. Commercial Harvest and Ex-Vessel Value of Landings by Columbia River Basin Subregion under the Project 

2 Alternatives: Upriver 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
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

222

Mid-Columbia River Subregion

Tribal

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

17,569 17,569 0 17,324 -245 14,065 -3,504 20,438 2,869 0 -17,569

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 17569 17569 0 17324 -245 14065 -3504 20438 2869 0 -17569
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

223

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)

7222 7222 0 7121 0 5781 -1441 8401 1179 0 -7222

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 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 DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

224

1 Table A9. Commercial Harvest and Ex-Vessel Value of Landings by Columbia River Basin Subregion under the Project Alternatives:

2 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
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

225

Mid-Columbia River Subregion

Tribal

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

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
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

226

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

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 DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

227

1 Table A-10. Commercial Harvest and Ex-Vessel Value of Landings by Columbia River Basin Subregion under the Project 

2 Alternatives: UCR 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
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

228

Mid-Columbia River Subregion

Tribal

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

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
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

229

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

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 DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

230

1 Table A-11. Commercial Harvest and Ex-Vessel Value of Landings by Columbia River Basin Subregion under the Project 

2 Alternatives: SR Steelhead

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)

235 235 0 235 0 235 0 348 113 0 -235

Ex-vessel 

harvest value $3,554 $3,554 $0 $3,554 $0 $3,554 $0 $5,274 $1,720 $0 -$3,554

Total

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

235 235 0 235 0 235 0 348 113 0 -235

Ex-vessel 

harvest value $3,554 $3,554 $0 $3,554 $0 $3,554 $0 $5,274 $1,720 $0 -$3,554

Mid-Columbia River Subregion

Tribal
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

231

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

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)

235 235 0 235 0 235 0 348 113 0 -235

Ex-vessel 

harvest value $3,554 $3,554 $0 $3,554 $0 $3,554 $0 $5,274 $1,720 $0 -$3,554

Total
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

232

Harvest 

(number of 

fish)

9,180 9,180 0 9,180 0 8,541 -639 11,366 2,186 0 -9,180

Ex-vessel 

harvest value $126,353 $126,353 $0 $126,353 $0 $117,585 -$8,769 $156,531 $30,177 $0 -$126,353

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 DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

233

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 $439,758 $439,758 $0 $439,758 $0 $421,033 -$18,725 $651,391 $211,633 $0 -$439,758
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

234

expenditures 

TOTAL (all subregions)

Catch 71,366 71,366 0 78,957 0 65,132 -6,234 183,211 111,845 0 -71,366

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 DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

235

1 Table A-13. - Contribution of commercial and recreational salmon and steelhead fishing for harvest indicator stocks to personal 

2 income 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)

$3,799 $3,799 - $3,797 -$2 $3,439 -$359 $6,049 +$2,250 $0 -$3,799

Jobs 86 86 - 86 0 78 -8 138 +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
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

236

Lower Snake River Subregion

Commercial Fisheries

Personal 

Income 

($,000)

$0 $0 - $0 - $0 - $0 - $0 -

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)

$16,199 $16,199 - $16,249 +$50 $15,358 -$841 $17,827 +$1,628 $0 -$16,199

Jobs 419 4190 - 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.

6

7
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

237

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.

4
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

238

1

2 APPENDIX B

3

4 US v. OREGON AGREEMENT EIS

5

6 Economics Methods Appendix

7

8 Prepared by:

9 James Dixon, 

10 Anadromous Production and Inland Fisheries Branch, 

11 Sustainable Fisheries Division, 

12 West Coast Region, 

13 National Marine Fisheries Service, 

14 Lacey, Washington

15

16 Prepared for:

17 NOAA Fisheries

18 West Coast Region

19 Sustainable Fisheries Division

20 Seattle, Washington

21

22 June 2017

23
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

239

1 U.S. v Oregon Management Agreement Hatchery Production Review

2 Comparison of the programs, as analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS.

This review has determined that the Mitchell Act EIS contains an analysis of 113 of the 1156 3 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 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 2014)

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%

 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 DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

240

Total 83,742,330 33,658,000 to 88,200,000 40% - 105%

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 MA EIS 

2 analysis provides a thorough analysis the effects of the production levels referenced in the agreement, 

3 there are several individual programs where the program production size in the agreement is different 

4 than either, the specific level or range of production analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS. Of the 115 

5 hatchery programs that are referenced in the US v Oregon Management Agreement tables, 2 programs are 

6 newly added, and therefore were not considered in the MA EIS analysis, and 42 of the programs have 

7 production levels, individually, that are either less than or greater than levels analyzed in the Mitchell Act 

8 EIS, and by species the overall changes in the US v Oregon proposal for hatchery releases is small. 

9 Types of Hatchery Program Referenced in the US v Oregon Agreement

10 The Production tables (B1-B7) of the agreement contain hatchery programs organized by species and run11 timing. Each of the tables identified the individual hatchery program release, location, hatchery facilities 

12 related to the program, and identify a primary program purpose. These purposes are: Supplementation, 

13 Fishery, or Supplementation/Fishery. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

241

1 As described in the Mitchell Act EIS, Section 2.3.2, Purpose of Hatchery Programs, the NMFS

2 categorized hatchery programs, by purpose, in three categories: Conservation, Harvest, or Both. These 

3 describe, generally, the purpose of the individual programs, relative to the intent for the returning adult 

4 salmon or steelhead. An artificial production program that produces fish primarily or exclusively for 

5 conservation rather than for harvest is a conservation program, while harvest programs produce fish 

6 exclusively for harvest augmentation. The third category are programs which are managed to generate 

7 both a harvest benefit and a benefit to the local natural-origin population of salmon or steelhead; these are 

8 categorized as “both” in the Mitchell Act EIS.

9 The U.S. v. Oregon management agreement uses different terminology to describe these same program 

10 goals. Therefore, for the purposes of this review, NMFS has classified programs identified as 

11 “Supplementation” in the agreement as “Conservation”. For programs classified as “Fishery” in the 

12 agreement, NMFS has identified them as “Harvest”. For programs classified as 

13 “Supplementation/Fishery” in the agreement, NMFS has identified them as “Both”. This aligns the 

14 program’s purpose, as described in the agreement tables, with the categories used in the Mitchell Act EIS 

15 analysis.

16 Comparison of Agreement-referenced programs and the Same Programs in the Mitchell Act EIS

17 Of the programs within the US v Oregon Agreement which have production levels that vary from the 

18 level (larger or smaller) analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS (44), 48% (21) of them are conservation 

19 programs. Additionally, 11 of the programs (25%) are in the “both” category and have a conservation 

20 objective as part of their intended benefit, as well as harvest. Lastly, there are 12 programs (27%) that 

21 have harvest as the objective for the program.

22 Of the 21 conservation programs identified above: 1 program is new, and 1 program has changed release 

23 location; 10 programs propose to release fewer hatchery fish and 11 programs (including the new and 

24 changed release location programs) propose to release more hatchery fish than the same programs, as 

25 analyzed, in the Mitchell Act EIS. Of the 11 programs identified in the both category, above, 3 programs 

26 propose to release fewer hatchery fish and 8 propose to release more hatchery fish than the same 

27 programs, as analyzed, in the Mitchell Act EIS. The 12 harvest programs, identified above, all were 

28 analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS. Of these, 5 propose to release fewer hatchery fish and 7 hatchery 

29 programs propose to release more hatchery fish than the same programs, as analyzed, in the Mitchell Act 
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

242

1 EIS.

2 Review of the Effects of Hatchery programs on Populations of Salmon and Steelhead

3 As described in detail in Section 3.2.3.1, General Risks and Benefits of Hatchery programs to Salmon and 

4 Steelhead Species, in the Mitchell Act EIS, hatchery salmon and steelhead programs can have beneficial 

5 effects to these species but also pose risks.

6 Effects to population Viability

7 McElhany et al. (2000) developed the viable salmonid population (VSP) concept as a means to evaluate 

8 the conservation status of Pacific salmon and steelhead. A key part of this approach was the identification 

9 of four measurable indicators of population health that should be considered in performing conservation 

10 status assessments. These indicators of population status are abundance (the number of natural-origin 

11 spawners), productivity (the ratio of natural-origin offspring produced per parent), diversity (the genetic 

12 variety among population members), and spatial structure (the distribution of population members across 

13 a subbasin or subbasins).

14 Hatchery programs can provide benefits to some of these VSP indicators under certain circumstances, but 

15 can pose risks to VSP as well.

16 Effects on Abundance and Productivity

17 As described in detail in Section 3.2.3.1.1.1, of the Mitchell Act EIS, a primary benefit conferred by 

18 hatchery programs is an increase in the total abundance of a salmon population that returns to spawn 

19 naturally. Freshwater, habitat-related factors limiting the survival and productivity of a natural-origin 

20 population can be circumvented by spawning, incubating, rearing, and releasing fish from the population 

21 in a hatchery facility. In the situation where the hatchery stock is the same genetic population as the 

22 natural-origin population, the hatchery may also act as a protection for the population against catastrophic 

23 environmental conditions (e.g., Grande Ronde spring Chinook captive broodstock and Snake River

24 sockeye hatchery programs). Productivity may also be increased if hatchery-origin fish improve 

25 conditions of spawning gravel or add nutrients to the system.

26 Hatchery programs may also pose risks to abundance and productivity because they can lead to additional 

27 mortality of natural-origin fish through competition, predation, disease, and fisheries. They may also 
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

243

1 unfavorably alter the genetic character of the natural-origin population (discussed below), or restrict the 

2 distribution of a population across its habitat. Abundance and productivity would be the most directly 

3 affected by any increased mortality on natural-origin fish. Substantial increases in mortality would be 

4 readily observable as a reduction in the abundance of natural-origin fish. Increased mortality would also 

5 result in a less efficient reproductive conversion of spawning adults to surviving offspring, which would 

6 be detectable as a reduction in productivity. A reduction in productivity would be measured as the ratio of 

7 surviving offspring (adults) per parents.

8 Effects on Genetic Diversity

9 Salmon and steelhead often differ genetically from population to population because of their strong 

10 tendency to return to spawn in their home stream. This behavior allows the forces of natural selection, 

11 mutation, and random genetic drift to operate in relative isolation in different streams or subbasins, 

12 resulting in genetic differences. In many instances, these differences are adaptive, allowing a local 

13 population to have a greater ability to survive and persist in that environment than would another 

14 population (Taylor 1991; McElhany et al. 2000). 

15 While hatchery programs can help to conserve salmon and steelhead popu1ations, particularly those at 

16 very low abundance and in danger of extirpation (e.g., Snake River sockeye salmon captive brood 

17 program, Tucannon River spring Chinook salmon captive brood program, and the White River 

18 [Wenatchee] spring Chinook salmon captive brood program), hatchery programs can also pose genetic 

19 risks to salmon and steelhead populations. Populations of fish, adapted to the hatchery environment, that 

20 interbreed with natural-origin populations can result in substantial genetic changes (a diversity indicator) 

21 that are maladaptive for natural-origin fish in the natural environment. In addition to affecting population 

22 diversity, such changes would likely adversely impact the reproductive efficiency of natural-origin 

23 populations, lowering productivity. These effects would be most pronounced when highly domesticated 

24 and/or non-native hatchery-origin fish from isolated hatchery programs interbreed with natural-origin fish 

25 at excessive levels. However, even optimally managed, integrated hatchery programs using native fish 

26 can be expected to result in some risks to genetic diversity.

27 Effects on Spatial Structure

28 Hatchery programs can benefit the spatial structure of salmon and steelhead populations. The potential for 

29 a hatchery program to increase total adult returns to a particular river basin (see Effects on Abundance
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

244

1 and Productivity, above) can expand the spatial distribution of spawning by forcing fish to inhabit less 

2 competitive reaches of the basin. Programs that spatially distribute juvenile releases throughout a 

3 particular river basin can increase the distribution of the returning hatchery-origin adults. Additionally, 

4 hatchery programs can be used to expand the area of a basin that is used for natural spawning, i.e., by 

5 transporting or passing hatchery-origin adults above a dam or other impassable barrier.

6 Hatchery programs can also pose risks to spatial structure through a number of actions. These include the 

7 operation of weirs that can impede upstream migration of returning adults or the construction of migration 

8 barriers to prevent the entry of spawners into portions of the watershed to ensure that the hatchery 

9 facility’s water supply is less prone to carrying disease. 

10 Other Effects from Hatchery Programs

11 Ecological Effects

12 Although competition and predation are identified as individual risks, they are related to each other and, 

13 as a consequence, are frequently lumped together and described in the scientific literature as “ecological” 

14 effects. Competition is an interaction among members of the same species or different species utilizing a 

15 limited resource (e.g., food or space). Competition typically results in winners and losers. Competition 

16 between hatchery-origin and natural-origin fish may result from direct interactions, in which hatchery17 origin fish interfere with access to limited resources by natural-origin fish, or indirect interactions, as 

18 when utilization of a limited resource by hatchery-origin fish reduces the amount available for natural19 origin fish (Species Interaction Work Group [SIWG] 1984). Specific types of competition include 

20 competition for food, for territory among stream-rearing juveniles, for mates, and for spawning sites.

21

22 For adult salmon and steelhead, effects from competition between hatchery-origin and natural-origin fish 

23 are assumed greatest in the spawning areas where competition for mates and spawning habitat occurs 

24 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1994). Hatchery-origin females compete with natural-origin 

25 females for spawning sites, and hatchery-origin males compete with natural-origin males for female 

26 mates. Although there is evidence that natural-origin fish have a competitive advantage over hatchery27 origin fish in these situations (Fleming and Gross 1993; Berejikian et al. 1997) where spawning area is 

28 limited and abundances are high relative to available space, competition would likely be high. This 

29 circumstance could also result in superimposition (overlaying) of redds. 
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

245

1 Juvenile hatchery-origin fish released into the natural environment may compete with natural-origin fish 

2 for resources as they migrate downstream. Steelhead, coho salmon, and spring Chinook salmon typically 

3 will migrate downstream rapidly once they make a complete physiological transition to the smolt life 

4 history stage. Therefore, the hatchery programs posing the least risk from competition are those that 

5 consistently produce full-term, rapidly migrating smolts that use river corridors as a “highway” to the 

6 ocean with minimal foraging and competition with natural-origin fish along the way. This ideal is difficult 

7 to achieve. Not all individuals in a population undergo the smolt transformation at the same time. 

8 Evidence suggests that smoltification timing can vary by 45 or more days within a single population 

9 (Quinn 2005). Most hatchery programs, however, release fish over a shorter period (e.g., 2 weeks). Such 

10 releases will include fish that have not yet smolted, as well as fish for which the peak smolt condition has 

11 passed. Juveniles released too early or too late with respect to smoltification are likely to migrate slowly, 

12 if at all. Because of their prolonged period in freshwater, such fish have a much greater opportunity to 

13 compete with natural-origin fish for food and space. Competition heightens if hatchery-origin fish are 

14 more numerous and are of equal or greater size. Although non-migratory, hatchery-origin juveniles 

15 (residuals) may eventually die, there will be a period when there may be significant competition with 

16 natural-origin fish.

17 Migrant juvenile chum salmon and fall Chinook salmon spend an extended period in the estuarine 

18 environment feeding and growing before they move into marine waters (Quinn 2005). Hatchery programs 

19 that release sub-yearling juveniles thus are more likely to create a competitive environment for natural20 origin fall Chinook salmon and chum salmon. This situation may be particularly acute in the Columbia 

21 River, where the estuary has suffered a major loss of shallow water rearing habitat in the past century 

22 (Bottom et al. 2005). These habitat losses are likely to have reduced the capacity of these areas to support 

23 juvenile salmon, therefore exacerbating competition between hatchery-origin and natural-origin fish for 

24 the remaining habitat.

25 Competition may also occur within stream habitats when young, pre-migratory fish are released, 

26 regardless of the species involved. Release of large numbers of fry or pre-smolts in a small area has great 

27 potential for competitive effects because interactions can occur for long periods, up to 3 years in the case 

28 of steelhead. The potential effect of competition on the behavior, and hence survival, of natural-origin fish 

29 depends on the degree of spatial and temporal overlap, relative sizes, and relative abundance of the two 

30 groups (Steward and Bjornn 1990). Effects would also depend on the degree of dietary overlap, food 
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

246

1 availability, size-related differences in prey selection, foraging tactics, and differences in microhabitat use 

2 (Steward and Bjornn 1990). 

3 In addition to the freshwater and estuarine environments, competition between hatchery-origin and 

4 natural-origin fish may extend into the marine environment. Evidence exists for density-dependent ocean 

5 survival affecting pink and chum salmon hatchery programs in Alaska, Russia, and Japan (Pearcy 1992). 

6 However, it is unclear whether density-dependent survival is a factor for coho salmon, steelhead, and 

7 Chinook salmon.

8 Hatchery Facility Effects 

9 Potential risks to natural populations of salmon and steelhead from the operation of hatchery facilities 

10 include: hatchery facility failure (power or water loss leading to catastrophic fish losses); hatchery facility 

11 water intake effects (stream dewatering and fish entrainment); hatchery passage effects (blocking 

12 upstream or downstream fish passage); and hatchery facility effluent discharge effects (deterioration of 

13 downstream water quality).

14 Risk of hatchery facility failure is of particular concern when facilities rear species listed under ESA. 

15 Factors such as water supply flow reductions or failure, flooding, and poor facility conditions may cause 

16 hatchery facility failure or the catastrophic loss of fish under propagation. 

17 Hatchery Facility Water Intake Effects. Water withdrawals for hatcheries within spawning and rearing 

18 areas can diminish streamflow, impeding migration and affecting the spawning behavior of salmon and 

19 steelhead. In addition, that portion of a hatchery facility’s water supply that comes from a water source 

20 containing natural-origin fish must have an intake structure with adequate screening such that injury and 

21 mortality, whether from impingement or permanent removal, is very low or avoided altogether. 

22 Hatchery facilities can have many types of in-stream structures, depending on the location and type of 

23 facility. Most commonly, hatchery in-stream structures are for water supply intakes. These structures, 

24 typically are used to increase the available water volume for the facility by either utilizing a small dam to 

25 back water up and increase depth and pressure for non-pump facility intakes, or increase the depth for 

26 pump facility intakes. These facilities typically require a structure across the entire width of the stream or 

27 a portion of the stream depending on the site-specific requirements. These structures can affect access to 

28 usable habitat above the hatchery facility. These structures can also affect the downstream migration of 
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

247

1 fish in the stream, water volumes and flow are significantly affected by the structure or if the structure did 

2 not consider downstream migration in the original design.

3 Effluent discharges can change water temperature, pH, suspended solids, ammonia, organic nitrogen, total 

4 phosphorus, and chemical oxygen demand in the receiving stream’s mixing zone (Kendra 1991). Little 

5 information and data exist to show how a hatchery facility’s effluent affects salmon and steelhead and 

6 other stream dwelling organisms. Generally, the level of impact depends on the amount of discharge and 

7 the flow volume of the receiving stream. Any effects probably occur at the immediate point of discharge, 

8 because the effluent would dilute rapidly as it moves downstream. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires 

9 hatcheries (i.e., aquatic animal production facilities) with annual production greater than 20,000 pounds to 

10 obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to discharge effluent to 

11 surface waters. Currently the states of Washington and Oregon implement NPDES permit systems. The 

12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently administers hatchery effluent permitting for the 

13 state of Idaho (Section 1.7.8, Clean Water Act). These permits are intended to protect aquatic life and 

14 public health and to ensure that every facility treats its wastewater. The effects from the releases are 

15 analyzed prior to the issuance of the permit, and site-specific discharge limits are set. Additionally, 

16 monitoring and reporting requirements for the permits are subject to enforcement actions (EPA 2006).

17 Potential Differences in Effect-level of the U.S. v OR Agreement-Referenced Hatchery Production

18 After a thorough review, NMFS has identified the following additional effects to salmon and steelhead to 

19 disclose, beyond those discussed in the Mitchell Act EIS, which would be likely to result from the 

20 hatchery production programs referenced in the agreement tables B1-B7. A brief overview of those 

21 impacts is below, but for detailed program-specific disclosures of impacts please refer to the details in

22 Table 2. 

23 Conservation Programs 

24 For conservation programs where the production level has been decreased, relative to the programs in the 

25 Mitchell Act EIS (10 programs), the potential changes in impact to affected natural populations of salmon 

26 and steelhead would be: reductions to the abundance benefit of the conservation programs; higher benefits 

27 to the population’s productivity; reduced risks to population genetic diversity; and a likely lower benefit 

28 to the population’s special structure.
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

248

1 For conservation programs where the production level has been increased, relative to the programs in the 

2 Mitchell Act EIS (11 programs), the potential changes in impact to affected natural populations of salmon 

3 and steelhead would be: increases to the abundance benefit of the conservation programs; lower benefits 

4 to the population’s productivity; increased risks to population genetic diversity; and a likely greater 

5 benefit to the population’s special structure.

6 Programs Identified as having “Both” purposes

7 For programs identified as having both conservation and harvest goals, and where the production level 

8 has been decreased, relative to the programs in the Mitchell Act EIS (3 programs), the potential changes 

9 in impact to affected natural populations of salmon and steelhead would be: lower benefits to population 

10 abundance; higher benefits to population productivity; lower risks to population genetic diversity; and 

11 lower benefit to population special structure.

12 For conservation programs where the production level has been increased, relative to the programs in the 

13 Mitchell Act EIS (8 programs), the potential changes in impact to affected natural populations of salmon 

14 and steelhead would be: higher benefits to population abundance; higher risks to population productivity; 

15 higher risks to population genetic diversity; and higher benefit to population special structure.

16 Harvest Programs

17 For programs identified as having harvest-only goals, and where the production level has been decreased, 

18 relative to the programs in the Mitchell Act EIS (5 programs), the potential changes in impact to affected 

19 natural populations of salmon and steelhead would be: lower risks to population abundance; lower risks to 

20 the population’s productivity; lower risks to population genetic diversity; and lower risks to population 

21 special structure.

22 For programs identified as having harvest-only goals, and where the production level has been increased, 

23 relative to the programs in the Mitchell Act EIS (7 program), the potential changes in impact to affected 

24 natural populations of salmon and steelhead would be: higher risks to population abundance; higher risks 

25 to population productivity; higher risks to population genetic diversity; and higher risks to population 

26 special structure.

27 All programs with different production levels
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

249

1 For these programs, regardless of the goal of the program, the operation of hatchery facilities 

2 presents potential risks to salmon and steelhead populations residing in the streams where the 

3 facilities are located. For these programs, regardless of the goal of the program, the operation of 

4 hatchery facilities presents potential risks to salmon and steelhead populations residing in the streams 

5 where the facilities are located. In reviewing the differences in production levels between the agreement6 referenced programs and those analyzed in the Mitchell Act EIS, NMFS considered the increases in 

7 production, for some programs, and the decreases in production, for some programs, represented by the 

8 programs in the US v Oregon agreement, relative to the programs, as analyzed, in the Mitchell Act EIS. 

9 The small scale of these changes, in numbers of fish, and the relationship of that change to the total 

10 production at the facilities used makes it difficult to estimate the likely change in facility effects to water 

11 quality from these production differences. Additionally, considering that the facilities operating in the 

12 Columbia River basin, including the facilities associated with the production in the US v Oregon

13 agreement, operate under existing federal Clean Water Act (CWA), National Pollution Discharge 

14 Elimination System (NPDES) permits (when required), NMFS concludes that the differences in the 

15 hatchery program releases, included in the US v Oregon Agreement, relative to the programs analyzed in 

16 the Mitchell Act EIS, are not likely to have substantively different effects to the water quality where they 

17 operate.

18 For these programs, regardless of the goal of the program, the release of hatchery fish into the waters 

19 where natural salmon and steelhead populations reside presents risks from ecological effects. As 

20 described above, these ecological risks can negatively impact these population through competition for 

21 space and resources and through direct and indirect predation. Here NMFS assessment utilizes a more 

22 direct relationship between the size of the program and the potential for impact through ecological 

23 interaction, with increases in production resulting in higher potential ecological risks and lower 

24 production resulting in lower ecological risks, relative to the analysis in the Mitchell Act EIS, see Table 2.

25 References:

26 Berejikian, B. A., E. P. Tezek, S. L. Schroder, C. M. Knudson, and J. J. Hard. 1997. Reproductive 

27 behavioral interactions between spawning and wild and captivity reared coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

28 kisutch). International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Journal of Marine Science. Volume 54, 

29 pages 1,040 to 1,049.
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

250

1 Bottom, D. L., C. A. Simenstad, J. Burke, A. M. Bapista, D. A. Jay, K. K. Jones, E. Casillas, and M. H. 

2 Schiewe. 2005. Salmon at river’s end: the role of the estuary in the decline and recovery of Columbia 

3 River salmon. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-68,

4 246 pages. 

5 Fleming, I. A. and M. R. Gross. 1993. Breeding success of hatchery and wild coho salmon 

6 (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in competition. Ecological Applications. Volume 3(2), pages 230 to 245.

7 Kendra, W. 1991. Quality of salmonid hatchery effluents during a summer low-flow season. Transactions 

8 of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 120, pages 43 to 51.

9 McElhaney, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, and E. P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable 

10 salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Department of

11 Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-42, 156 pages.

12 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2014. Final Environmental Impact Statement to Inform 

13 Columbia River Basin Hatchery Operations and the Funding of Mitchell Act Hatchery Programs. 

14 2120 p.

15 Pearcy, W. G. 1992. Ocean ecology of north Pacific salmonids. Washington Sea Grant Program. 

16 University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 179 pages.

17 Quinn, T. P. 2005. The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. University of Washington

18 Press, Seattle, WA. 363 pages.

19 Species Interaction Work Group (SIWG). 1984. Evaluation of potential interaction effects in the planning 

20 and selection of salmonid enhancement projects. J. Rensel, chairman, and K. Fresh editor. Report 

21 prepared for the Enhancement Planning Team for Implementation of the Salmon and Steelhead 

22 Conservation and Enhancement Act of 1980. WDFW. Olympia, WA. 80 pages.

23 Steward, C. R. and T. C. Bjornn. 1990. Supplementation of salmon and steelhead stocks with hatchery 

24 fish: a synthesis of published literature. In Miller, W.H., editor. Analysis of salmon and steelhead 

25 supplementation. Report to Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Portland, OR. Project No. 88-

26 100. 126 pages

27 Taylor, E. B. 1991. Behavioral interaction and habitat use in juvenile Chinook, Oncorhynchus 

28 tshawytscha, and coho, O. kisutch, salmon. Animal Behavior. Volume 42, pages 729 to 744.

29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Compliance Guide for the Concentrated Aquatic 

30 Animal Production Point Source Category. Engineering and Analysis Division Office of Science and 

31 Technology. EPA-821-B-05-001. 292 pages. Available at

32 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/aquaculture/upload/2006_05_03_guide_aquaculture_gui

33 dance_full-final.pdf.

34 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Biological assessment for operation of USFWS operated 

35 or funded hatcheries in the Columbia River basin in 1995-1998. Submitted to NMFS under cover 
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

251

1 letter dated August 2, 1994, from William F. Shake, Acting Regional Director to Brian Brown, 

2 NMFS.
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

252

Page intentionally left blank.

[the following table is on a different scaled paper size of 11” x 17”] 
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

253

Table 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

Differenc

e 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 nodifference

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 15% higher risk higher risk higher 

risk

higher 

risk higher risk no difference
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

254

Salmon 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

Hood

Hood River 

(Round 

Butte/Parkdal

e)

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
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

255

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/Mari

on 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
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

256

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

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 RiverSteelhead 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
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

257

Meadow Cr., 

SF 

Clearwater

Clearwater Conservation Snake River

Steelhead Threatened 210,000 included in above

Newsome Ck 

SF 

Clearwater 

Clearwater Conservation Snake River

Steelhead Threatened 123,000 included in above

Lolo Creek, 

MF 

Clearwater 

Clearwater Conservation Snake River

Steelhead Threatened 200,000 60,000 233% higher benefit lower benefit higher risk

higher 

benefit higher risk no difference

East Fork 

Salmon Salmon Both Snake RiverSteelhead 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 River

Steelhead 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

Methow 

Tributaries Methow Conservation Reintroduction Not listed 800,000 included in 

above
US v Oregon Management Agreement DEIS - Appendix B

US v Oregon DEIS June 2017

258

[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.

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